Health Law

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had directed the Inquiry, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to reconsider whether the applicant breached s. 7 of the Advertising Regulation regarding steering.

The Divisional Court found that the Board unreasonably focused on only one of the ICRC's reasons for deferring consideration of s. 7, ignoring the ICRC's valid conclusion that a caution for other advertising breaches was a sufficient disposition.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the Board's direction was set aside.

The moving party, a dental surgeon, sought a stay of the revocation of his licence pending his appeal of a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a patient.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay.

The court found that while there were weak but arguable grounds regarding the existence of a doctor-patient relationship at the time of one incident, the overwhelming evidence of subsequent sexual abuse made a finding of misconduct and a period of suspension inevitable.

As the moving party would not suffer irreparable harm by beginning to serve an inevitable suspension, the motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory order made at a Small Claims Court settlement conference in a medical negligence action.

The order required the applicant to produce expert reports and directed third-party hospitals and doctors to produce the applicant's medical records.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court judge had jurisdiction to order the production of expert reports under the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

However, the court concluded that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to order third-party production of documents.

The application was allowed in part, and the third-party production order was set aside.

The applicants, cancer researchers at the University Health Network, sought judicial review of the hospital CEO's decision affirming an investigation committee's finding that they committed research misconduct.

The committee found the applicants guilty of falsification, fabrication, and material non-compliance, resulting in a suspension of their research activities.

The Divisional Court held that the CEO's decision was subject to judicial review and reviewable on a reasonableness standard.

The court quashed the findings of falsification and fabrication as unreasonable because the committee could not identify who altered the images.

However, the court upheld the finding of material non-compliance based on systemic flaws in the applicants' laboratory management.

The matter of sanction was remitted for reconsideration.

The moving party dentist sought leave to appeal an order refusing partial summary judgment to dismiss the responding party's claim for damages arising out of an alleged geographic tongue injury.

The moving party argued there was no evidence linking his treatment to the injury.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision or matter of general importance.

The court noted that the responding party's expert had previously opined that the geographic tongue injury stemmed from the pain following the dental work, creating a genuine issue for trial.

The appellant, diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his treating psychiatrist's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant argued that his auditory hallucinations and paranoia were spiritual experiences, not manifestations of a mental disorder, and that medication was contrary to his religious beliefs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision regarding treatment was reasonable and supported by clear, cogent, and compelling evidence.

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 applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a requirement that he be cautioned in person regarding his advertising practices.

The complaints committee found that the applicant's advertisements for weight loss clinics did not constitute 'the member's medical services' under the regulations, as he had no therapeutic relationship with the patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee's interpretation of its own regulations to be reasonable and declining to address a newly raised Charter challenge due to the lack of an evidentiary record.

The appellant nurse appealed a penalty order from the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

She argued the Panel was functus officio when it issued its reasons after the order, that it lacked jurisdiction to order her participation in a quality assurance program, and that the penalty was disproportionately harsh.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel had a statutory duty to issue written reasons, possessed broad remedial discretion under the Health Professions Procedural Code, and imposed a reasonable penalty aimed at protecting the public interest.

The applicants sought to bring their application for judicial review before a single judge of the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The underlying application challenged the respondent hospital's decision to suspend the applicants' research activities following a finding of research misconduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to establish the requisite urgency or that a delay would result in a failure of justice, noting the applicants' own delay in bringing the application.

The matter was transferred to be heard by a full panel of the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications and mood stabilizers.

The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence to uphold the finding and that his procedural fairness rights were infringed when he represented himself at the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's own testimony corroborated the treating physician's evidence that he did not believe he had a mental illness, rendering him incapable of consenting to treatment.

The Court also found that the Board properly followed its policy guidelines for unrepresented litigants and safeguarded the appellant's procedural fairness rights.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed an order requiring him to complete a communication skills program following a patient complaint.

The applicant argued he was not given notice that the tone of his response to the complaint would be considered, and that the ordered program was not a specified remediation program under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as the committee was entitled to consider the applicant's response without further notice, and the ordered program was sufficiently specified.

The applicants, two bariatric surgeons, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding cautions issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The cautions were issued after the applicants' names and photographs appeared in an advertisement for their employer on a third-party website, contrary to the Advertising Regulation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the applicants failed to show they took reasonable steps to prevent the improper advertising.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed acts of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee's reasons were flawed.

Specifically, the Committee failed to distinguish between the complainant's honesty and the reliability of her evidence, subjected the appellant's evidence to a different level of scrutiny, and improperly used after-the-fact conduct to support the complainant's version of events.

The matter was remitted for a re-hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board dismissing its Requests for Hearing regarding the removal of vascular ultrasound services from its licences.

The Board had dismissed the requests due to an inordinate 15-year delay causing prejudice, and found the requests moot because the appellant failed to comply with Minutes of Settlement that provided a mechanism to restore the services.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and its application of the test for administrative delay correct.

The applicant physician sought a stay of an order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario imposing clinical supervision conditions on his practice, pending his application for judicial review.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court held that the financial cost of supervision did not amount to irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the College due to patient safety concerns.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant sought out-of-country funding for surgery to repair a medical condition, arguing that a delay in Ontario would cause irreversible tissue damage.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board denied the request, and the appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The appellant argued the Board lost jurisdiction by reconstituting the hearing panel and ignored medical evidence regarding tissue damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the panel reconstitution and concluding the Board's decision on the medical evidence was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons' decision to take no action on her complaint against a physician.

The applicant alleged the tribunal failed to address all her allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal was not required to address every allegation and that its decision was reasonable based on the evidence.

The appellant physician appealed findings by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons that he engaged in sexual abuse of a patient and professional misconduct.

The appellant argued the Committee failed to properly consider inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and video surveillance footage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility assessments and conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicants sought a declaration that Ontario Regulation 27/13 under the Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, 2006 was ultra vires and breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

They argued the regulation failed to create a 'doctor' class of practitioners and imposed discriminatory English or French language fluency requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulation was intra vires, there is no section 7 Charter right to practice a profession unfettered by regulation, and language alone is not a protected ground under section 15.