Health Law

A child rights organization brought a motion for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The underlying complaint alleged a doctor improperly conducted a genital examination on an Indigenous child without appropriate consent.

The court granted leave to intervene, finding the organization would provide a useful and different perspective on the rights of the child and their intersecting vulnerabilities, and that the case raised issues of public importance beyond a private dispute.

The appellant, a licensed chiropodist, appealed from misconduct findings and a $70,000 costs award made by the Discipline Committee of the College of Chiropodists of Ontario.

The Committee found that the appellant failed to comply with a prior suspension order by continuing to benefit financially from his practice, failing to update his website to reflect his suspended status, and engaging in regulated activities such as sterilizing medical instruments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's liability findings and no error in principle in the costs award.

The appellant dentist appealed a discipline committee decision finding he engaged in sexual abuse of a patient and committed professional misconduct by co-signing a mortgage with another patient.

The committee revoked his certificate of registration and ordered him to pay costs and therapy expenses.

On appeal, the appellant argued the patient was his spouse under the statutory exception, relying on an alleged foreign divorce and religious marriage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the committee's finding that the sexual relationship commenced before the alleged marriage, rendering the spousal exception inapplicable.

The mandatory penalty of revocation and the costs awards were also upheld.

The appellant pharmacist appealed the decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists finding professional misconduct, imposing a penalty, and awarding costs of $190,000.

The misconduct involved billing for medications not prescribed or received, and falsifying records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Committee's decisions regarding misconduct, penalty, or costs.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his certificate of registration for sexual abuse of a patient and other professional misconduct.

The appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors in its credibility findings, misapprehended evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility determinations were entitled to significant deference, the Committee properly addressed inconsistencies in the evidence, and there was no demonstration of uneven scrutiny.

The applicant anesthesiologist sought judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) that effectively suspended his practice by requiring constant clinical supervision.

The order followed incidents involving patient harm, including a death, and allegations of falsified medical records and inattention.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC's decision reasonable as there was 'some evidence' of probable harm to patients and the committee adequately justified why less restrictive measures were insufficient.

The applicants, families of adults with severe autism, sought judicial review of the Ministry's decision to discontinue special, non-statutory funding for Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) therapy and transition them to mainstream adult developmental services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the allocation of public funds is a political decision not subject to judicial review absent bad faith.

The court also dismissed the applicants' Charter claims, reaffirming that section 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to fund specific health or social services, and finding no breach of sections 7, 9, or 12 regarding one applicant's involuntary hospitalization under the Mental Health Act.

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.

The appellants, a pub owner and his business, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board that confirmed a public health order issued against them.

The medical officer of health had ordered the pub to comply with COVID-19 regulations, including mask and vaccine mandates, or close.

The appellants openly defied the order, leading to a restraining order and the changing of the pub's locks.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no merit to the appellants' arguments, including their reliance on the federal Canadian Bill of Rights, and held that the Board did not err in its interpretation and application of the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a plastic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC required the applicant to be cautioned for failing to attend in person to a patient with a severe hand injury while on-call, and advised him to make appropriate efforts to communicate urgency when handing over care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HPARB's decision was reasonable and owed deference, as the record supported the conclusions that the applicant should have attended the emergency room and failed to adequately communicate the urgency of the patient's referral.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to issue a caution and require a specified continuing education or remediation program.

The complaint was initiated by the patient's spouse regarding complementary medicine and record-keeping.

The applicant argued the ICRC investigation was procedurally unfair due to late disclosure of documents and that the complaint should not have been investigated as it was not from the patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the ICRC was within its mandate to investigate third-party complaints to protect the public interest.

The applicant physician moved for an urgent interim injunction to stay the revocation of his hospital privileges pending judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The court applied the modified RJR-MacDonald test and found that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the statutory provisions relied upon applied to reappointment rather than mid-term revocation.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent hospital.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on issues including whether the motion judge erred by certifying liability for increased risk, causation and damages, whether a class proceeding remains the preferable procedure, and whether a family class should have been certified.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Patient Ombudsman's decision to initiate an investigation into their long-term care home's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicants argued that section 13.3(5) of the Excellent Care for All Act precluded the investigation because the matter was already the subject of other proceedings, including a provincial commission, an Ontario Ombudsman investigation, and class actions.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the Patient Ombudsman unreasonably interpreted the statute and was prohibited from proceeding.

The application for judicial review was granted and the decision to investigate was quashed.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Review and Appeal Board (HPARB) confirming the revocation of her hospital privileges by the respondent hospital.

The revocation was based on a long-standing pattern of unprofessional conduct, inability to collaborate with colleagues, and failure to improve, which jeopardized patient safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB's factual and credibility findings were firmly grounded in the evidence and that it correctly applied the test under the Public Hospitals Act and hospital by-laws.

A group of patients sought leave to intervene in an appeal brought by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding an interlocutory stay of a s. 87 application to compel a physician's cooperation with an investigation.

The patients sought to protect their privacy interests in their medical records.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to intervene, finding it premature as the appeal only concerned the interlocutory stay and not the underlying application.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the patients' right to renew their motion if the underlying application proceeds.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) to investigate her, impose interim restrictions, and subsequently suspend her medical license for issuing unjustified COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

A group of anonymous patients also sought judicial review, arguing the investigation infringed their privacy and autonomy.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' application for lack of standing.

The court dismissed the physician's application, finding the challenge to the investigation decision premature and the interim restriction and suspension decisions reasonable given the immediate risk to patient safety.

The court also granted the CPSO's motion for a publication ban to protect the identities of complainants.

The moving party hospital sought to compel the responding party physician to answer questions and produce documents regarding his financial income on cross-examination.

The physician had applied for a stay of the hospital's decision to suspend his privileges, alleging irreparable harm to his professional reputation and status, but not financial loss.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the financial information was not relevant to the issues on the stay motion because the physician was not relying on financial harm to meet the RJR-MacDonald test.

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 appellant, a dental hygienist, appealed a discipline committee decision finding she engaged in a concurrent sexual relationship with a client, which resulted in the mandatory revocation of her certificate of registration.

The appellant argued the hearing was procedurally unfair due to an inadequate investigation, uneven scrutiny of evidence, and failure to enforce a witness exclusion order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, noting the committee's credibility assessments were entitled to deference, and concluding the appellant failed to establish any palpable and overriding error.