Health Law

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the revocation of his hospital privileges.

The revocation followed a series of incidents involving workplace harassment of a nurse and unauthorized access to her personal health records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Board applied the correct test under the Public Hospitals Act, did not improperly reverse the burden of proof regarding the appellant's mental health claims, and reached a reasonable and proportionate decision given the egregious nature of the past misconduct.

The appellant, an occupational therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding her guilty of professional misconduct, suspending her certificate of registration for four months, and ordering her to pay $26,000 in costs.

The misconduct arose from her failure to successfully complete an ethics course mandated by a previous disciplinary order, as she failed the course due to plagiarism in her final essay.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee reasonably concluded she committed professional misconduct and that the penalty and costs awards were within a reasonable range and discretionary bounds.

The applicant sought judicial review of a procedural ruling made by its Discipline Committee mid-hearing.

The Committee had ruled that the applicant must comply with the notice and consent requirements of s. 35 of the Mental Health Act before tendering psychiatric records as evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the ongoing administrative proceeding.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient, sought to appeal an order authorizing a change in her anti-psychotic medication.

After Legal Aid refused to fund the motion for leave to appeal, the appellant brought a motion to appoint her former counsel as amicus curiae.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, appointing the counsel as amicus curiae to represent unrepresented interests and act tantamount to counsel for the appellant in the leave motion and related proceedings, with costs to be paid by the Attorney General.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons appealed a penalty imposed by its Discipline Committee on a physician found to have sexually abused four female patients and committed unprofessional conduct toward a fifth.

The Committee had imposed a six-month suspension and practice restrictions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the penalty clearly unfit and unreasonable given the gravity of the misconduct, the inconsistent factual findings regarding the physician's intent, and the need for general deterrence to eradicate sexual abuse in the profession.

The penalty was quashed and remitted to the Committee.

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.

The applicant, a 17-year-old with autism, sought judicial review of the respondent's decision denying him eligibility for government-funded Intensive Behaviour Intervention (IBI) therapy.

The applicant alleged that the respondent lost medical records, failed to follow assessment guidelines, and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of lost records or procedural unfairness.

The court held that the respondent's clinical assessment was conducted in accordance with the applicable guidelines and its conclusion that the applicant was not at the severe end of the autism spectrum was reasonable.

Although the application was technically moot due to changes in the government's autism funding policy, the court addressed the merits to dispose of the applicant's unfounded allegations against the respondent's staff.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a College finding that he breached the Advertising Regulation.

The applicant was listed as the 'Associate Medical Director' of a clinic that offered a Groupon deal for Botox, though he only provided retinal surgery and was unaware of the ad.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it reasonable for the Board to conclude that by allowing his name to be associated with the clinic in a directorial capacity, he permitted himself to be associated with the advertising.

The appellant estate appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying reimbursement for out-of-country medical expenses incurred by the deceased in Texas for cancer treatment.

The Board found that the deceased did not seek prior approval and did not meet the requirement for post-approval because the services were not provided in 'emergency circumstances'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's factual findings were supported by the evidence and its decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her dental malpractice action against the respondent prosthodontist.

The appellant alleged that the respondent negligently replaced a dental crown and failed to obtain informed consent.

The trial judge dismissed the action because the appellant's own expert did not opine that the respondent's work fell below the standard of care, while the respondent's expert confirmed the treatment met the standard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to prove a breach of the standard of care or a lack of informed consent without supporting expert evidence.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a discipline panel's decision regarding a nurse who was found guilty of professional misconduct following criminal convictions for child pornography offences.

The nurse had resigned prior to the hearing, and the panel concluded it lacked jurisdiction to revoke his certificate of registration because it was 'non-existent'.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the panel's interpretation unreasonable and contrary to the broad, purposive intent of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Court held that the College retains continuing jurisdiction to impose sanctions, including revocation, on former members to protect the public.

The Court set aside the panel's penalty and ordered the revocation of the respondent's certificate.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing an adolescent patient in 1979.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, applied a more stringent standard to his evidence, and provided inadequate reasons regarding similar fact evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility assessments were reasonable, there was no unequal scrutiny of evidence, and the Committee clearly explained it did not rely on the similar fact evidence to reach its conclusions.

The appellant massage therapist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee Panel finding him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Panel's decision was unreasonable because its credibility assessment of the complainant and the appellant was fundamentally flawed, incomplete, and lacked transparency.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicant, an Advanced Care Paramedic, sought judicial review of a medical director's decision to decertify him following an investigation into a call where a patient later died.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the medical director did not follow the advisory recommendations of the Paramedic Practice Review Committee and acted as investigator, prosecutor, and decision-maker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was provided with adequate notice, disclosure, opportunities to respond, and reasons, and that the process did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Chief Coroner's decision not to hold a discretionary inquest into the death of his son, who died by suicide while on constant watch in a hospital psychiatric department.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and that the Chief Coroner's remarks about the efficacy of lay juries raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Chief Coroner reasonably concluded that the hospital had already addressed the specific contributors to the death and there was no evidence of systemic failure.

The court also held the Chief Coroner's remarks represented professional judgment and did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, a pharmaceutical wholesaler, sought judicial review of a Varied Rebate Order imposing a financial penalty of over $2.9 million for receiving unlawful rebates from generic drug manufacturers.

The applicant argued that the payments were professional allowances or wholesaler fees, and challenged the Executive Officer's jurisdiction and the procedural fairness of the process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Executive Officer had jurisdiction to regulate wholesalers and enforce the anti-rebate provisions.

The court also rejected the procedural fairness arguments, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no actual prejudice resulting from delay or redacted disclosure.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Tribunal denying Ontario Disability Support Program benefits on the basis that the appellant did not have a substantial impairment.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by incorrectly applying the governing legal principles to the medical evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal correctly stated the law and that the appellant's arguments merely challenged the Tribunal's weighing of the evidence, which does not constitute an error of law.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim suspension order imposed by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee following allegations of sexual abuse and subsequent breaches of a prior monitoring order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procedural fairness complaints were premature and should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also rejected the applicant's statutory interpretation argument that the entire 58-member committee was required to issue the order, and concluded that the suspension was reasonable given the applicant's demonstrated inability to comply with the monitoring order.

The applicant, a 76-year-old family physician, sought judicial review of an order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Quality Assurance Committee requiring him to practice under clinical supervision.

The order followed peer assessments that identified critical deficiencies in his practice posing an immediate risk to patient safety.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he did not receive a copy of the final review before the Committee's initial letter, and that the Committee failed to consider his responses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness when the process was viewed as a whole, and concluding that the Committee had properly considered the applicant's submissions.

The applicant, a registered nurse, was found unconscious at work after using narcotics misappropriated from the hospital.

He admitted to a drug addiction.

The College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordered him to undergo an independent medical examination.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that a report from his treating addiction specialist was sufficient and that the order violated his Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the ICRC's statutory requirement to find 'reasonable and probable grounds' before ordering an examination adequately balances Charter values, and that a treating physician's report does not substitute for an independent medical examination.