Health Law

The applicant, pregnant with twins via in vitro fertilization, requested a fetal reduction to a single fetus.

The respondent hospital refused, citing its multidisciplinary consensus policy that limits such procedures to higher-order pregnancies or cases involving fetal abnormalities.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services based on sex (pregnancy) and family status.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the hospital's policy distinguished based on medical risk and the type of pregnancy, not on the protected grounds of pregnancy or family status.

The applicant alleged that the Ontario Ministry of Health discriminated against him on the basis of sex by refusing to fund a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test for prostate cancer, while funding mammography screening for breast cancer in women.

The Tribunal accepted expert medical and epidemiological evidence demonstrating that, unlike mammography, PSA screening for asymptomatic men has not been shown to reduce mortality and carries significant risks of over-diagnosis and harmful treatment.

The Tribunal concluded that the funding distinction is based on the medical efficacy of the respective screening tests and their consequences, rather than on the sex of the individuals being tested.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by a mental health clinic and its staff.

The respondents requested an order permitting them to use and disclose the applicant's personal health information to prepare their Response, as the applicant refused consent.

The Tribunal held that respondents who qualify as 'health information custodians' under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 have a statutory right to access and disclose relevant information for the proceeding without a Tribunal order.

However, respondents who are not custodians may not directly access the file, and the Response must be prepared using only the information selected by the custodians.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested that her medical records, filed by the respondent hospital, be suppressed under section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act, and that her identity be anonymized.

The Tribunal found that section 35(11) of the Mental Health Act applied, which permits disclosure in proceedings commenced by a patient relating to their assessment or treatment.

The Tribunal directed the return of the records to the respondent for now, establishing a process for the applicant to object to specific documents once the respondent files its intended reliance documents.

The interim anonymization order was continued pending further resolution of the medical records issue.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to increase the financial remedy sought from $50,000 to $550,000 after his civil action was dismissed.

The respondent doctor requested an order permitting the disclosure of the applicant's personal health information to file a response, citing the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend and directed that the respondents may use or disclose the applicant's personal health information for the purpose of the proceeding.

The applicant filed a third request for an emergency hearing and an order for the respondent physician to provide him with medication, which he subsequently attempted to withdraw.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting it lacked the remedial power to order medication prescriptions.

The individual respondent requested an order permitting the disclosure of the applicant's personal health information to defend against the allegations and an extension of time to file a Response.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding that the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 permits such disclosure for the purpose of a proceeding, and extended the time to file a Response.

The respondents brought a request for an order during a proceeding to produce documents containing the applicant's personal health information.

The respondents argued they needed to disclose this information, which formed the basis for denying the applicant's housing application, to defend against the human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found the material relevant and necessary, ordering its production to the applicant.

However, mindful of privacy concerns under the Personal Health Information and Privacy Act, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to file only the specific portions of the material they actually relied upon in making their decision.

The complainants alleged that Ontario discriminated against them on the basis of sex and disability by de-listing sex reassignment surgery as an insured service under OHIP.

The Tribunal found that Gender Identity Disorder is a disability and that the de-listing had a disproportionate adverse impact on three of the complainants who had already begun their transition program at the CAMH Gender Identity Clinic.

The Tribunal ordered Ontario to fund the surgery for these three complainants as an interim remedy, finding that the grandparenting provision in the amending regulation was not a reasonable accommodation.

The applicant requested an order directing the respondents to disclose certain materials.

The respondents agreed to provide most of the materials.

The respondent Central Park Lodges Ltd. noted that regulations under the Nursing Home Act prohibited the release of representative patient files without an order.

The Board ordered the production of the patient files with identifying information removed, noting the implied undertaking that produced documents not be used for collateral purposes.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to deny access to a report prepared by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC) regarding the regulation of acupuncture.

The Ministry claimed the report was exempt under section 13(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it contained advice or recommendations.

The Adjudicator found that while the report contained advice and recommendations, it fell within the mandatory exception in section 13(2)(k) because HPRAC is a council attached to the Ministry established for the purpose of making reports or recommendations.

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the report in its entirety.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated a privacy breach involving the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's administration of the Ontario Hepatitis C Assistance Plan.

An applicant received copies of her hospital records from the Ministry, which inadvertently included the medical records of another individual with the same name.

The Commissioner found that the records contained personal information and that the disclosure violated section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Furthermore, the Ministry failed to take reasonable measures regarding the security and destruction of the records, contrary to the regulations.

The Commissioner issued ten recommendations to improve the Ministry's privacy practices and training.

The appellant sought access to Ministry of Health investigation reports regarding the care and death of her mother at a long-term care facility.

The Ministry denied access to portions of the records, citing the invasion of privacy exemption.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the records contained the deceased mother's personal medical information and were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of law, triggering the presumptions against disclosure under sections 21(3)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to records relating to his complaint about a doctor fraudulently over-billing OHIP.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 14(1)(d) (law enforcement) and 21 (invasion of privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The adjudicator found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The adjudicator also held that applying the law enforcement and privacy exemptions to the appellant's own complaint would lead to an absurd result, ordering its disclosure along with a general Ministry bulletin.

The remaining records were found to be exempt under section 21 as they were compiled as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the Health Insurance Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Ministry of Community and Social Services denying access to severed portions of their psychological records at the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute.

The Inquiry Officer found that the records were clinical records compiled in a psychiatric facility in respect of a patient, as defined by the Mental Health Act.

Consequently, the records were excluded from the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under section 65(2)(a), and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Health's decision to deny access to the billing amounts of the ten highest billing general practitioners in Metropolitan Toronto.

The Ministry claimed the information was exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as an unjustified invasion of personal privacy.

The Inquiry Officer found that because the appellant narrowed the request to only the dollar amounts, without names or identifiers, the record did not contain 'personal information' about an identifiable individual under section 2(1).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the billing figures.

The appellant requested access to her deceased husband's OHIP Claims Reference File to determine the cost of his medical treatment and make donations to the hospitals involved.

The Ministry of Health denied access under the personal privacy exemption in section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing she had a right of access as the executrix of his estate under section 66(a).

The Inquiry Officer found that section 66(a) did not apply because the request related to the appellant's personal affairs, not the administration of the estate.

The records were found to contain medical history, triggering the presumption against disclosure in section 21(3)(a), and the Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The appellant requested access to records relating to the conditions of detention and release of a psychiatric patient who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The Ministry of Health denied access under section 65(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which excludes clinical records of psychiatric patients.

The appellant appealed, arguing the records were not clinical and that section 65(2) violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the Ministry's decision, finding the records were clinical records and that the Charter arguments failed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Community and Social Services' decision to deny access to portions of records relating to his stay at a psychiatric facility in 1976 and 1977.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 21, 49(b), and 49(d) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that section 49(d) did not apply, but upheld the application of section 49(b) to most of the undisclosed information, as it contained highly sensitive personal information of the appellant's family members.

The Inquiry Officer ordered the disclosure of portions of the records that pertained only to the appellant and found that the Ministry's search for records was reasonable.

The appellant, a former psychiatric patient, requested access to records from the Health Professions Board regarding complaints against two physicians.

In a reconsideration of Order P-1088, the Inquiry Officer found a jurisdictional error in the previous order's interpretation of section 65(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Officer determined that copies of clinical records transferred to the Board retain their character as clinical records under the Mental Health Act and are therefore excluded from the scope of the Act.

For the remaining administrative records subject to the Act, the Officer upheld most severances under the invasion of privacy exemption, but ordered the disclosure of one letter from a physician.

The appellant, an access parent, appealed the East York Health Unit's decision to deny access to his child's medical records under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

On reconsideration of a previous order, the Inquiry Officer found that section 16(5) of the Divorce Act, which grants an access parent the right to be given information as to the health, education, and welfare of the child, expressly authorizes disclosure for the purposes of section 14(1)(d) of the Act.

The Health Unit was ordered to disclose the records.