Amy Lynn Block

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee Panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons finding him guilty of professional misconduct for allegedly sexually touching a patient thirty years earlier.

The appellant argued the Panel's reasons were conclusory and insufficient for meaningful appellate review.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the reasons failed to demonstrate justification, transparency, and intelligibility, particularly regarding the rejection of the appellant's evidence and the treatment of inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the finding set aside, and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant, a physician licensed in New Brunswick with a 'Defined Licence' subject to ongoing clinical activity in the province, appealed a decision denying him an independent practice certificate in Ontario.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upheld the College's decision, finding that the New Brunswick licence was not 'equivalent' to an Ontario certificate under the interprovincial mobility provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation of 'equivalent' was reasonable given Ontario's standards-based approach compared to New Brunswick's needs-based discretionary licence.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for making false statements to his disability insurers regarding his capacity to work.

The Committee had suspended his certificate of registration for six months.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's conclusions were reasonable, supported by ample evidence, and that the penalty fell within the range of reasonableness.

The appellant appealed a trial decision admitting an unsigned copy of his mother's 1997 will for probate.

The respondent, the testator's common law husband, had presented a 'cut and paste' photocopy after the original was lost.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the test for proving a lost will and failed to consider suspicious circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the four-part test for proving a lost will, including rebutting the presumption of revocation and proving the contents.

The Court also held that the facts did not amount to suspicious circumstances that would vacate the presumption of testamentary capacity.