Health Law

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP, which reduced his stale-dated billing claims from $572,462.41 to $203,864.07 following a sample audit.

The applicant argued the General Manager lacked jurisdiction to reduce the claims under the amended Health Insurance Act, acted unreasonably, and breached procedural fairness by refusing a meeting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the General Manager had discretion under s. 18(3) to set conditions for reviewing late claims, the sample audit methodology was reasonable, and procedural fairness was met without an in-person meeting.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on his appeal from decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his capacity to consent to treatment with Clozapine and the appointment of a substitute decision-maker.

The proposed fresh evidence included an affidavit and medical records regarding his prior capable wishes.

The court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced at the original hearings with due diligence, the appellant had chosen not to testify, and the reliability of the new evidence was questionable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act.

He argued that the Board erred in finding he met the criteria for committal, that his initial Form 1 assessment upon completion of a criminal sentence ('psychiatric gating') was defective, and that his ongoing detention violated his Charter rights.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence of the appellant's mental disorders and risk of harm.

The court also held that the initial Form 1 was validly executed and that the civil committal regime under the Mental Health Act does not constitute arbitrary detention or double punishment, and thus does not violate the Charter.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his medical license.

The Committee found he engaged in unwanted touching of hospital employees and coercive sexual activity with a 17-year-old camp counsellor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence and upheld the penalty, finding the revocation was a reasonable outcome given the serious nature of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, and the lack of evidence regarding the risk of future misconduct.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which confirmed his treating psychiatrist's opinion that he was incapable of consenting to or refusing antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board misconstrued the evidence.

The Ontario Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board properly applied the two-part capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act and reasonably distinguished the facts from Supreme Court of Canada precedent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board confirming the revocation of its licence to operate a long-term care home.

The appellant argued that the revocation order was issued without notice, breaching procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing before the Board was a hearing de novo, which cured any prior procedural defects regarding notice.

The court also noted that any prejudice suffered by the appellant stemmed from the appointment of an interim manager, an order the appellant chose not to appeal.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Discipline Committee Panel, which found him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a former patient.

The panel's decision was split 3-2, with the minority finding the sexual abuse allegations unproven.

The appellant argued the majority's credibility assessments and factual findings were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the majority's findings were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and entitled to deference.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) requiring him to be cautioned and to participate in a behavioral program.

He argued he was denied procedural fairness because the ICRC failed to disclose 13 interview summaries, 20 internal complaints, and hospital policies considered by its medical inspector.

The Divisional Court found that while the applicant was aware of the complaints and policies, the failure to disclose the 13 interview summaries breached the duty of procedural fairness.

The application was allowed, the ICRC decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration following proper disclosure.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee dismissing a motion to reconsider its order suspending the mandatory revocation of the respondent pharmacist's certificate of registration for sexual abuse.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction to suspend a mandatory revocation under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court held that the Committee's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable.

The Court found that the mandatory revocation provision did not preclude the Committee from exercising its general power to suspend penalty orders.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant hospital appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which had ordered the renewal of the respondent physician's active staff privileges without conditions.

The hospital argued the Board unreasonably failed to require the physician to participate in a Physician Health Program due to his history of disruptive behaviour and conflicts with administration and nursing staff.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the physician's working relationships had sufficiently ameliorated was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant, a chiropodist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he breached professional standards by attempting to induce teachers to purchase orthotics during presentations.

He challenged the panel's findings, its refusal to grant an adjournment to retain a new expert, and the penalty imposed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the panel's decision reasonable and the refusal of an adjournment within its discretion.

The court allowed the appeal in part regarding the penalty, imposing a $5,000 cap on the costs of supervision, but otherwise upheld the $38,000 costs order and awarded $15,000 in appeal costs to the respondent.

The respondents were seasonal agricultural workers who were seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident shortly after arriving in Ontario.

They remained in Ontario for medical treatment after their work permits expired and sought continued OHIP coverage.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board found they were eligible for continued coverage.

The appellant appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the plain wording of the regulation requires a valid work permit for OHIP eligibility, and the respondents ceased to be eligible once their permits expired.

The appellant, who sustained a severe traumatic brain injury, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying her request for pre-approved funding for in-patient rehabilitative services at an Alberta facility.

The facility was not licensed as a hospital and did not accept public funding.

The appellant argued the denial breached her rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the government to fund out-of-province medical treatments, and that the denial was based on the facility's licensing status, not the appellant's disability, thus not engaging section 15.

The applicant physician brought an urgent motion seeking declarations that the respondent hospital's Board of Directors was functus officio and reasonably apprehended of bias regarding any motion to lift an automatic stay of its decision to revoke his staff privileges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it premature.

The court held that the Board was not functus officio because it had not previously adjudicated the issue of lifting the stay, as the applicability of the stay was only recently determined.

Furthermore, the court found no reasonable apprehension of bias merely because the Board had previously revoked the privileges or was the respondent in the statutory appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale, with the court cautioning counsel against personalizing criticism of opposing counsel.

The applicant physician sought a declaration that the hospital board's decision to revoke his privileges mid-term was automatically stayed pending his appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA).

The Divisional Court granted the declaration, finding that the hospital's by-laws and a prior agreement created a legitimate expectation that the applicant was entitled to a formal hearing.

Because a hearing was required 'otherwise by law', the SPPA applied, triggering the automatic stay provision.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their medical negligence action as statute-barred under s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act.

The action was commenced more than two years after the deceased's death.

The appellants argued the limitation period should be tolled due to fraudulent concealment by the respondent hospital and doctors regarding the deceased's INR results.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim and affidavit evidence did not plead facts sufficient to establish fraudulent concealment, but rather attempted to assert discoverability, which does not apply to s. 38(3).

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal of her application for registration as a Nurse Practitioner.

The appellant had failed the required examination three times and argued the examination was unfair because it was based on American nursing practices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable as the appellant provided no evidence to establish the examination was unfair or that she was personally adversely affected by its content.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory order denying the production of certain medical records.

The motion judge had refused production based on the assumption that the individual whose records were sought had cerebral palsy and could not serve as a proper comparator.

On appeal, counsel clarified that there was no conclusive diagnosis of cerebral palsy.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered production, noting that the trial judge retains the discretion to exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

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.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which affirmed a decision by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to take no further action regarding her complaints against two doctors.

The complaints related to a spinal anaesthetic administered in 1994 and subsequent care.

The Divisional Court found HPARB's decision reasonable, noting that the investigation was adequate and the treatment provided was within professional expectations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.