Amy Lynn Block

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician engaged in gender discrimination and directed improper use of involuntary psychiatric detention and driver's license review forms to increase profitability.

The Divisional Court found the ICRC's investigation was inadequate because it failed to interview any of the direct witnesses identified by the applicant.

The court quashed the HPARB and ICRC decisions and remitted the matter to the ICRC for a new investigation.

This appeal concerns the application of a non-publication order under section 486.5(9) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario analyzed the Dagenais/Mentuck/Sherman Estate test for discretionary publication bans, balancing privacy interests against the open court principle.

The court confirmed that the mandatory publication ban under section 486.5(9) applies to information related to the application for the ban itself, and amended the lower court's order to explicitly include this mandatory ban.

The appellant physician appealed a finding of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty (a reprimand and three-month suspension) imposed by the Discipline Committee.

The misconduct was based on criminal findings of guilt for domestic violence offences for which the appellant received an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued that the provincial legislation allowing discipline based on a criminal finding of guilt was unconstitutional on division of powers grounds because it conflicted with the federal Criminal Records Act provisions regarding discharges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no operational conflict or frustration of purpose between the statutes.

The Court also upheld the admission of the criminal records, the finding that domestic violence is relevant to a physician's suitability to practise, the penalty imposed, and the Committee's jurisdiction to award costs for preliminary motions.

The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the Discipline Committee's misconduct and penalty decisions.

The moving party argued that his delay was due to financial strain, lack of legal knowledge, and ineffective assistance from his non-lawyer agent at the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had not formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time, failed to adequately explain the lengthy delay, and did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal had merit.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review commenced by a physician whose licence was revoked.

The physician sought to challenge the Discipline Committee's revocation decisions and an earlier interim suspension by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the physician had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory right of appeal for the revocation decisions.

The court also dismissed the challenge to the interim suspension due to excessive delay of over two years and because the issue was moot following the licence revocation.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct.

The misconduct included a guilty plea related to OHIP billing, clinical and record-keeping deficiencies, and misleading the College regarding a vaccine administration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the Committee's conclusion that the appellant was irremediable given his extensive 18-year disciplinary history.

The court held that the penalty of revocation was proportionate and not clearly unfit.

The applicant sought a full panel review of a case management order.

The court previously raised concerns that the motion was moot because the respondent had already conducted the investigation the applicant originally sought to compel.

The court invoked Rule 2.1.02 and directed the applicant to file submissions explaining why the motion should proceed.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The court dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and prohibited the applicant from bringing further motions without leave.

The applicant sought to review a case management judge's order that vacated a hearing date for her application to compel the College of Physicians and Surgeons to investigate her complaint.

The hearing date had been vacated because the applicant failed to serve materials and the College had already released its decision, rendering the application moot.

The court found the applicant's motion to review the order appeared to be without purpose and directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the applicant to explain why her motion should not be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The self-represented moving party sought an urgent motion to compel the College of Physicians and Surgeons to investigate a complaint against a physician.

The court advised her that the motion was improperly framed as there was no subsisting proceeding, and scheduled a case management conference to explore regularizing the matter.

The moving party refused to attend the conference and indicated she wished to withdraw her motion.

The court dismissed the motion as abandoned without costs and directed that any future matters involving the moving party be subject to case management.

The appellant physician appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of sexual abuse and unprofessional conduct regarding two patients and ordered the revocation of his licence, as well as requiring him to post security for patient counselling.

The Divisional Court upheld the liability findings, concluding the Committee's credibility assessments were reasonable.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on penalty, finding that the Committee erred in principle by failing to balance all sentencing criteria, ignoring proportionality, and incorrectly applying retrospective legislation.

The penalty of revocation was set aside and remitted to the Committee.

The order for security for counselling was varied to apply only to the patient who demonstrated a need for it.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his certificate of registration by the Discipline Committee.

He had admitted to incompetence and professional misconduct, including boundary issues and poor clinical care.

The appellant argued the Committee ignored his prospects for rehabilitation and over-emphasized his disciplinary history.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's conclusion that the appellant lacked insight and posed a serious risk to the public was reasonable and justified the revocation.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario imposing a seven-month suspension and a 30-day preparatory period for breaching previous practice restrictions.

The appellant admitted to prescribing prohibited substances and seeing a female patient contrary to a 2011 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Discipline Committee's penalty was reasonable, fell within the range of acceptable outcomes, and was owed deference.

The appellant physician appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and revoking his certificate of registration.

The Committee found that the appellant had deliberately overbilled patients for laser eye surgery and directed staff to alter medical records to conceal the overbilling.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee misapprehended the evidence, reversed the burden of proof, and imposed an unreasonable penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's credibility findings and weighing of the evidence were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The penalty of revocation was also upheld as reasonable given the premeditated nature of the fraud and the need for public protection.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing a patient and revoking his license.

The appellant argued the defence of officially induced error, abuse of process by the College Registrar, and that the mandatory revocation provisions violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all substantive grounds, finding the sexual relationship was concurrent with the doctor-patient relationship and that the court was bound by Court of Appeal precedent upholding the constitutionality of mandatory revocation.

The court only allowed the appeal in part to vacate an order requiring the appellant to post security for the patient's potential future therapy costs.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) requiring him to complete a continuing education program and undergo a practice assessment.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the ICRC relied on a second report from an assessor that was not disclosed to him.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the failure to disclose the report breached procedural fairness.

The Court also held that the ICRC has the jurisdiction to order a practice assessment as part of a specified continuing education or remediation program.

The application was granted, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of sexual abuse and revoking her license.

The finding of sexual abuse was based on a romantic kiss with a vulnerable patient.

The appellant argued the doctor-patient relationship had ended prior to the kiss and that the Committee breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit a letter from the patient after the close of evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reversal of the burden of proof, and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable given the extensive history of boundary violations and professional misconduct.

Two physicians sought judicial review and constitutional relief challenging registration requirements under the Medicine Act and requesting mandamus orders compelling the regulatory body to issue certificates of registration.

They also sought Charter-based relief preventing the regulator from investigating professional conduct.

The court held that the applications were premature because the applicants had alternative statutory remedies through the regulator’s processes, including review by the Health Professions Review Board and appeal to the Divisional Court.

The applicants had also failed to provide sworn evidence or comply with procedural requirements for judicial review.

The court further found the requested mandamus and constitutional relief lacked factual and legal foundation and dismissed the applications.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed acts of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee's reasons were flawed.

Specifically, the Committee failed to distinguish between the complainant's honesty and the reliability of her evidence, subjected the appellant's evidence to a different level of scrutiny, and improperly used after-the-fact conduct to support the complainant's version of events.

The matter was remitted for a re-hearing.

The appellant, a medical resident, appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal to issue him a certificate of registration.

The refusal was based on outstanding, unproven criminal charges of sexual assault.

The appellant argued the Board misapplied the law and violated the presumption of innocence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable as the regulatory scheme places the onus on the applicant to demonstrate good character, and considering unproven charges in the context of public interest does not violate the presumption of innocence.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient and conduct unbecoming a physician due to an aggressive outburst at a school concert.

The appellant argued the Committee erred by refusing to sever the sexual abuse allegation, making unreasonable credibility findings, and improperly disciplining him for off-duty conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's decisions on severance, credibility, and off-duty conduct were reasonable and supported by the evidence.