Health Law

The appellant physician appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and revoking his certificate of registration.

The Committee found that the appellant had deliberately overbilled patients for laser eye surgery and directed staff to alter medical records to conceal the overbilling.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee misapprehended the evidence, reversed the burden of proof, and imposed an unreasonable penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's credibility findings and weighing of the evidence were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The penalty of revocation was also upheld as reasonable given the premeditated nature of the fraud and the need for public protection.

The moving party hospital authority brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the responding party physician from publicly commenting on social media about matters at issue in his pending appeal regarding medical privileges, and to require him to remove past posts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to its ability to participate in the appeal process under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also held that the balance of convenience did not favour the broad injunction sought, as it would seriously curtail the responding party's freedom of expression.

Both the doctor and the College brought applications under s. 35(9) of the Mental Health Act for an order permitting the disclosure of a patient's psychiatric consultation notes in a discipline hearing.

The discipline proceedings involved allegations of sexual abuse and failure to maintain the standard of practice.

The patient refused to consent to the disclosure.

The court found that the notes were essential to the College's prosecution and to the doctor's ability to make full answer and defence.

The applications were granted, as disclosure was deemed essential in the interests of justice.

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) that granted the respondent reimbursement for non-emergency out-of-country hip surgery.

The surgery was performed before the General Manager issued a final decision denying the funding application.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the HSARB unreasonably interpreted a request for further information as a denial of services.

Furthermore, the Court held that under the Health Insurance Act regulations, prior written approval from the General Manager is a mandatory prerequisite for reimbursement of non-emergency out-of-country medical services, and neither the General Manager nor the HSARB has the authority to retroactively approve such expenses.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his medical licence for engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient shortly after the termination of the doctor-patient relationship.

The Divisional Court found the penalty unreasonable because it vastly exceeded the typical range of penalties imposed in similar cases without adequate justification.

Furthermore, the Committee's finding that the appellant posed an ongoing risk to the public was not supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The appeal was granted and the matter of penalty was remitted to the Committee for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to take no further action regarding his complaint against a physician.

The complaint arose from the physician's requirement that the applicant attend the clinic in person for a prescription renewal rather than renewing it by fax.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Committee's investigation was adequate.

The appellant physician appealed a two-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The appellant argued the penalty was outside the range of comparable cases and that the Committee failed to conduct a proper parity analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty was reasonable, within the range of prior decisions, and justified by the pervasive and systemic nature of the misconduct which exposed patients to a risk of serious harm.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee Panel finding he engaged in professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a 15-year-old patient.

The appellant argued the Panel misapprehended the evidence by failing to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, improperly considering post-incident conduct, and applying unequal scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The College of Nurses of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee dismissing allegations of patient abuse against a registered nurse.

The allegations involved the nurse allegedly slapping a psychiatric patient across the face.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the allegations after finding the evidence of the two complaining nurses to be inconsistent and not credible, while finding the respondent nurse's denials to be plausible.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Committee's decision, finding that the credibility assessments and factual findings were defensible and supported by the evidence.

The appellant physician appealed an eight-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee for professional misconduct.

The appellant had borrowed substantial sums of money from two patients to fund a failed investment and subsequently made a consumer proposal, resulting in significant financial losses for the patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee reasonably considered specific and general deterrence, the appellant's lack of remorse, and the vulnerability of the patients due to shared ethnicity and language.

The Director of the Independent Health Facilities Program appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had found that the Director lacked jurisdiction under s. 20.1(2)(c) of the Independent Health Facilities Act to amend the respondent's licence to eliminate mammography and fluoroscopy services because the respondent had never commenced providing them, and thus could not have 'ceased' to provide them.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's literal interpretation of 'ceased' was unreasonable and ignored the statutory context and purpose, which is to allow the Director to control the provision of services.

The Director's decision to amend the licence was reinstated.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a written caution issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution was issued because the applicant's clinic used patient and staff testimonials in its advertising, contrary to the regulations under the Medicine Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate and the interpretation of the regulation prohibiting testimonials was reasonable.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists dismissing his motion to quash disciplinary charges.

The charges arose from a complaint that the College failed to process according to the mandatory statutory requirements under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Instead of following the complaint process, the College invited the complainant to withdraw her complaint in favour of a Registrar's investigation under s. 75(1)(a).

The Divisional Court held that the College's failure to strictly comply with the statutory complaint procedures deprived it of jurisdiction to refer the matter to discipline.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Panel's decision was quashed, and the College was prohibited from prosecuting the charges.

The appellant physician appealed an interlocutory order granting the plaintiff leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add a novel claim in negligence against her.

The plaintiff alleged the physician owed him a duty of care when she provided psychiatric advice to a patient regarding the plaintiff, an unidentified third party.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding it plain and obvious that no prima facie duty of care existed due to a lack of proximity, and that residual policy considerations, including conflicting duties and the chilling effect on physicians, negated any such duty.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding OHIP's denial of out-of-country payment for medical procedures she underwent in Georgia.

The appellant had declined treatment options in Ontario, including a referral to a leading specialist, and instead sought surgery in the United States.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision reasonable, as the appellant failed to establish that it was necessary to travel outside of Canada to avoid a delay in treatment that would result in death or medically significant irreversible tissue damage.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant dentist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, which found he sexually abused a patient and ordered mandatory revocation of his licence, along with a substantial costs award.

The appellant admitted to having sexual intercourse with the complainant but argued she was not his patient at the time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel's conclusion that a doctor-patient relationship existed was reasonable and supported by medical records.

The court also upheld the costs award, finding no error in principle despite its unusually high quantum, as it was driven by the appellant's defence strategy.

The appellant, an independent health facility, appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering it to pay fees to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for practice assessments.

The appellant argued the College lacked statutory authority to charge these fees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under the integrated legislative scheme of the Independent Health Facilities Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act, the College had the authority to enact by-laws charging fees to non-members for assessments it was required to conduct.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing a patient and revoking his license.

The appellant argued the defence of officially induced error, abuse of process by the College Registrar, and that the mandatory revocation provisions violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all substantive grounds, finding the sexual relationship was concurrent with the doctor-patient relationship and that the court was bound by Court of Appeal precedent upholding the constitutionality of mandatory revocation.

The court only allowed the appeal in part to vacate an order requiring the appellant to post security for the patient's potential future therapy costs.

The applicant, a paediatrician facing allegations of sexual abuse of a minor patient, applied for judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The order imposed practice restrictions, including requiring a dedicated practice monitor and direct notification to patients of the restrictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable and based on some evidence of potential harm to patients, given the serious nature of the allegations and the committee's mandate to protect the public.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario and a group of affected physicians brought procedural motions in three related applications for judicial review concerning an order to release physician billing information.

The court ordered the applications to be heard together and permitted counsel to access the private Record of Proceedings upon signing an undertaking.

The court denied a request to allow Toronto Star representatives access to the private record.

The court also ruled that the applicant physicians could not remain completely anonymous to the court; their identities must be filed under seal, and generalized, non-identifying demographic information must be made public.