|
RHPA - Publication of Sanctions. Carrasco v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
In Carrasco v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court considered an 'open court' issue, here in a professional discipline context:[27] On 16 January 2025, the Appellant advised the College that the Public Register Profile on the College’s website had not yet been updated to reflect that he had appealed the Discipline Committee’s decision. The College rectified this, immediately, in accordance with section 23 of the Code. The Appellant asked the College to take down the Discipline Committee’s decision. The College explained that they could not since the decision was part of the public record and was published, to ensure transparency and serve the public interest. The College advised that if the decision is overturned or varied by the Divisional Court than the register would be updated.
....
2. Amending the Web Page
[57] Notwithstanding that the Appellant sought an order that the College remove the link on its web page to the decision concerning the Appellant, he does not advance any argument in that respect. I address this argument, nonetheless.
[58] The College is required to post the discipline decision and reasons under sections 23 and 56 of the Code and s. 7(o) of the College’s By-Law No. 8. There is no regulatory of Code requirement to post a Notice of Appeal. It is required to post notice that an Appeal from the Discipline Committee was taken, which the College did once the Appellant brought to the College’s attention that it did not post such a note.
[59] It is in the public interest to post such decisions and the fact that Appeals have been taken. . Chaban v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario
In Chaban v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers the 'publication of decision' of professional sanctions, here as an element of RHPA "remedial and educational consequence(s)":[48] Dr. Chaban points to his youth and short term in the profession at the time the Videos were posted as mitigating factors regarding resolution of the investigation. He asserts that he should not face a published decision of the Committee that he had violated the Prevention Advisory because of its full title as “Prevention of Sexual Abuse and Boundary Violations”. Such publication, at so early as stage in his career, would imply to members of the public that his behaviour was far more serious than it actually was.
[49] Of course, as Dr. Chaban concedes and as stated above, the Decision did not impose a penalty on him. Rather, it imposed remedial and educational consequence, along with an oral caution. A similar result was upheld by this court in Pitter v. College of Nurses of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 5513 (Div. Ct.), 164 O.R. (3d) 433. There, nurses who identified themselves as such, publicly made misleading statements at gatherings and on the internet regarding Covid and mask mandates during the recent pandemic. They were required to undergo remedial education and receive a caution.
[50] The contents of the public statements of the nurses were different than those contained in the Videos. Nonetheless, the concerns regarding the risk to the public and the impact on the reputation of the profession, as well as the appropriate remedy are analogous here.
[51] Even the publication of notice of the College’s decision is not punitive in nature. As Pattillo J. wrote for this court in Longman v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2021 ONSC 1610 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 44-45:44 Cautions and educational directions are remedial in nature and not sanctions or penalties. They are meant to improve the Member's practice and benefit the public they serve by avoiding future concerns. See: Banner v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2012 ONSC 5547 (Div. Ct.) at para. 11; Fielden v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2013 ONSC 4261 (Div. Ct.) at para. 10.
45 ... The requirement of publication was implemented to provide transparency to the self regulation process. It was not intended to change the remedial purpose of a caution or required education. Nor has it. Given the ICRC's role, both cautions and educational requirements remain remedial and do not amount to a penalty or sanction.
|
