Health Law

The applicants, parents of an Indigenous child, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee's disposition of their complaint against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician conducted a non-consensual genital examination on the child.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to adequately address the ICRC's unresponsive treatment of the consent issue, noting that clinical indication does not equate to consent and implied consent cannot override express refusal.

However, given the passage of time and the physician's remedial actions, the court declined to remit the matter for further consideration.

The applicants, seven private practice oral and maxillofacial surgeons, applied for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their access to operating rooms.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was a decision to 'cease a service' under s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which expressly displaces the common law right to notice or a hearing.

The hospital had cancelled the legacy program to comply with its funding obligations under a Hospital Service Accountability Agreement.

The applicant physician sought to set aside a motion judge's decision quashing his application for judicial review of the hospital boards' decision not to renew his privileges.

The motion judge had found the application would offend the principle against fragmentation and constituted a collateral attack on the Public Hospitals Act process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding the application was premature, any procedural defects were cured by a subsequent de novo hearing before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, and the remedy sought was an abuse of process aimed at producing an inconsistent result.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the hospital's decisions not to renew her reappointment applications and to revoke her privileges due to a long-standing pattern of communication issues and interpersonal conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB did not misapprehend the evidence and appropriately analyzed the criteria for non-renewal and revocation under the hospital's by-laws and the Public Hospitals Act.

The appellants appealed a certification order for a class action arising from an infection control lapse at an endoscopy clinic.

The plaintiff sought compensation for the enhanced risk of infection and the psychological trauma of receiving a public health notification, despite testing negative for any blood-borne diseases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order, finding that a claim for damages based solely on an increased risk of harm, without actual injury, is not a legally viable cause of action.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his claim against two physicians.

The appellant alleged the physicians used improper OHIP billing codes and improperly disclosed his personal health details to the police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Deputy Judge's conclusions that the incorrect use of OHIP billing codes does not ground an action in negligence or breach of fiduciary duty, and that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to review CPSO investigations or grant remedies under the Charter or federal privacy legislation.

The court also found the appellant was not denied procedural fairness.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Tribunal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct, resulting in the revocation of his licence.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its credibility assessments, misapplied the concept of incremental disclosure, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's detailed and nuanced credibility findings, which preferred the patient's evidence over the appellant's.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the dismissal of a complaint against a physician.

The physician had accessed the deceased patient's hospital records multiple times after being sued for medical malpractice, without the patient's consent.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the HPARB and the investigating committee unreasonably interpreted the Personal Health Information and Protection Act (PHIPA).

The court held that the physician acted as an agent of the hospital, not a health information custodian, and therefore could not unilaterally access the records outside the civil litigation discovery process.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a committee's decision to issue a caution regarding his obstetrical care of a patient whose infant died.

The applicant argued the committee breached procedural fairness by rejecting his proposal for a remedial agreement and ignoring his expert's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision reasonable, as the committee was not bound by its decision-making framework guidelines and was entitled to weigh the expert evidence using its own specialized medical knowledge.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Ontario College of Pharmacists imposing a 14-month suspension and other remedial terms.

The appellant had been duped into filling thousands of fraudulent prescriptions for dangerous narcotics due to her failure to take basic professional steps.

The Divisional Court applied the appellate standard of review and found no error in principle, concluding that the penalty was not clearly unfit and was well within the range of reasonable outcomes given the colossal scale of the professional shortcomings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the revocation of his hospital privileges at Windsor Regional Hospital.

The hospital revoked his privileges due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to comply with a new 'Model of Care' for renal patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons were sufficient and that there was ample evidence of the appellant's disruptive conduct, which undermined the hospital's policies and staff, justifying the revocation of his privileges.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the respondent hospitals' decision not to renew his hospital privileges.

The non-renewal was based on a long-standing pattern of disruptive behaviour and an inability to maintain collegial relationships with colleagues and staff, which jeopardized patient safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the HPARB's conclusion that the appellant's conduct led to a complete breakdown of trust and confidence.

The court also dismissed the appellant's late motions to amend his notice of appeal and adduce fresh evidence.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing an adolescent patient and engaging in disgraceful conduct towards another adolescent boy.

The Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors of fact and held his evidence to an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee properly evaluated the evidence, made reasonable credibility findings, and correctly concluded the conduct amounted to masturbation requiring mandatory revocation.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which ordered him to be cautioned regarding informed consent for cataract surgery.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he was not provided with the clinical findings of another physician obtained during the investigation, and that the ICRC's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness at the investigative stage is limited and the applicant had sufficient notice of the complaint to respond.

The court also held that the ICRC's decision to issue a remedial caution was reasonable and within its statutory screening function.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) brought a motion to be added as a responding party to an application for judicial review and for an order sealing a portion of the record.

The underlying application challenged an HPARB decision confirming a college committee's decision to take no further action on a complaint against a chiropractor.

The court granted the motion to add HPARB as a party pursuant to section 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also granted the sealing order to protect the respondent's college history, continuing a prior disclosure order made by HPARB.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP) on informed consent.

The order arose from a patient complaint regarding the administration of conscious sedation during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's concerns about the lack of one-on-one communication and the applicant's reliance on staff for informed consent were supported by the record, making the HPARB's confirmation of the decision reasonable.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee requiring her to attend in person to be cautioned regarding unprofessional communications.

The applicant had made inappropriate comments in the workplace while experiencing emotional distress related to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the caution was a remedial measure within the Committee's jurisdiction and was reasonable given the professional standards expected of physicians.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the decision violated her equality rights under the Charter, as she failed to establish that the caution had an adverse impact on her or on people with mental health disabilities generally.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim order made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario restricting her practice pending an investigation into her issuance of COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

The applicant challenged a specific term requiring her to consent to the College accessing her OHIP billing records to monitor compliance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the College had sufficient evidence of risk to patients and the public, and that the OHIP monitoring term was a reasonable measure to ensure compliance with the practice restrictions.

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 applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordering him to undergo a second specified continuous education or remediation program (SCERP) for ongoing medical record-keeping deficiencies.

The applicant argued the decision was an abuse of process and unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no abuse of process despite a minor procedural fairness breach, and held that the ICRC's decision to escalate remediation was a reasonable and proportionate response to the applicant's persistent record-keeping issues.