|
Professionals - Educational Measures. Bortolon v. College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario
In Bortolon v. College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court, while allowing a JR, considered a frequent issue in professional discipline - that of the distinction between punishment orders ('sanctions') and corrective (eg. here an order to attend an educational course) orders:[1] Tara Bortolon applies for judicial review of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario. The ICRC ordered that she complete a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (“SCERP”), following an investigation of a complaint concerning her billing practices. The complaint and investigation dealt with two issues. First, whether she had instructed clients to pay her directly, rather than through the clinic where she worked. And second, whether she had invoiced the clinic for sessions for which clients had already paid her directly.
....
[26] I also note that while the College may not consider the imposition of a SCERP to be a sanction, in this case it involved a finding that there were serious deficiencies in Ms. Bortolon’s administrative practices and that she lacked an appropriate degree of insight and accountability regarding the impact of those deficiencies and the potential for client harm. Those findings would be a matter of public record and in their reasons, the ICRC said that the decision would be considered by any future panel of the ICRC considering Ms. Bortolon’s conduct. I also note that the SCERP that was ordered includes the appointment by the College of a practice monitor at Ms. Bortolon’s expense.
....
[33] For the reasons given, I would allow the application and quash the decision of the ICRC.
|
