Health Law

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he committed professional misconduct by improperly billing OHIP and falsifying patient records, and revoked his certificate of registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the Committee's liability decision.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, concluding it was not clearly unfit given the intentional and dishonest nature of the misconduct and the appellant's lack of insight.

The applicants, the Ontario Nurses' Association and others, brought an application against the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application, with reasons to follow.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review and broad declaratory relief against Ontario, arguing that the province failed to ensure the equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to vulnerable populations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act because the requested declarations did not relate to the exercise, refusal to exercise, or proposed exercise of a specific statutory power.

The court noted that while the applicant raised important issues regarding vaccine equity, the broad, abstract relief sought was not properly before the court.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding he sexually abused a patient and engaged in professional misconduct towards three nurses, resulting in the revocation of his certificate of registration.

The appellant argued the Committee applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and erred in imposing revocation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility assessments were fair, well-reasoned, and entitled to deference.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, noting it was within the reasonable range for sexual misconduct, especially given the appellant's prior history of boundary violations and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The applicant brought an application which was heard on an expedited schedule.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application with no order as to costs, noting that full reasons would follow in due course.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against the defendant obstetricians, alleging that their negligence caused the infant plaintiff to suffer a severe brain injury.

Following a jury trial, the jury found that the defendants breached the standard of care and that the breaches caused the injuries.

However, the trial judge refused to enter judgment on the verdict, finding that the jury's answers explaining how the breaches caused the injuries were insufficient and non-responsive.

The trial judge ordered a new trial.

The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction.

The defendants cross-appealed, arguing the action should have been dismissed for lack of evidence on causation.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal.

The majority held that the trial judge correctly concluded the jury's answers on causation were insufficient, as they merely repeated the breaches of the standard of care and failed to explain the causal link, leaving the central issue in doubt.

The Medical Officer of Health for Haldimand-Norfolk appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) that struck down a requirement limiting the number of migrant farm workers to three per bunkhouse during their mandatory 14-day COVID-19 self-isolation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the HSARB erred in law by applying too high a standard of proof, failing to consider that the directive was a class order, and incorrectly concluding that the three-person limit was arbitrary.

The court restored the original order, emphasizing the precautionary principle and the vulnerability of migrant farm workers.

The applicant, a dentist residing in British Columbia, sought judicial review of the respondent board's refusal to consider her compassionate appeals regarding failed clinical judgement assessments.

The appeals were filed years after the assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two primary grounds.

First, the court found it lacked jurisdiction as there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario, noting the matter should have been brought in British Columbia.

Second, the court held that the board lacked the authority to extend the one-week limitation period for compassionate appeals under the by-laws in effect at the time the assessments were completed.

The applicants sought to schedule an expedited application for judicial review of an emergency order made under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The order permitted specified persons to obtain personal health information about the COVID status of individuals.

The court declined to set an expedited schedule because the applicants had not yet served their expert evidence, there was no direct evidence of urgency, and the order was set to expire shortly.

A regular hearing date was set, with further case conferences scheduled to address potential mootness or timetabling.

The appellant physician appealed a finding of professional misconduct and penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had dismissed the original allegations of sexual abuse but found professional misconduct based on the physician's failure to respect the patient's privacy during an examination.

The College conceded that this finding was procedurally unfair because the privacy issue was not raised in the Notice of Hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal on consent and quashed the liability and penalty decisions.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct, and revoking his license.

The Divisional Court upheld findings that he removed patients' clothing without warning and breached a chaperone order.

However, the Court quashed the finding of sexual abuse regarding Patient B due to a flawed credibility assessment and a reversal of the burden of proof.

The Court also quashed a finding of professional misconduct regarding abdominal contact with two other patients because it was an unpleaded allegation.

Finally, the Court held that the mandatory revocation provisions of the Protecting Patients Act, 2017 did not apply retrospectively.

The penalty was substituted with a suspension for the period already served.

The appellant physician appealed the liability and penalty decisions of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had found the appellant guilty of sexual abuse and unprofessional conduct regarding two patients and ordered the revocation of his licence, as well as requiring him to post security for patient counselling.

The Divisional Court upheld the liability findings, concluding the Committee's credibility assessments were reasonable.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on penalty, finding that the Committee erred in principle by failing to balance all sentencing criteria, ignoring proportionality, and incorrectly applying retrospective legislation.

The penalty of revocation was set aside and remitted to the Committee.

The order for security for counselling was varied to apply only to the patient who demonstrated a need for it.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which revoked his certificate of registration for sexually abusing a patient.

The appellant argued that the Committee erred in finding a physician-patient relationship existed and in refusing to quash a summons issued to the reluctant patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's determination of a physician-patient relationship was reasonable based on medical records, OHIP billings, and medical notes provided to the patient.

The Court also upheld the Committee's decision not to quash the summons, concluding that the College's broad investigatory powers and the public interest in prosecuting sexual abuse allegations outweighed the patient's privacy interests.

The Registrar brought a motion to stay a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal that set aside the Registrar's proposal to revoke and immediately suspend the respondent's crematorium license.

The respondent operated a low-temperature alkaline hydrolysis machine, which the Registrar argued posed a risk to public health due to uncertainty about its ability to destroy prions in the effluent.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal raised serious issues of law regarding the standard of risk assessment and the precautionary principle.

Concluding that the potential risk to public health constituted irreparable harm that outweighed the respondent's financial losses, the court granted the stay pending the disposition of the appeal.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ministry's decision to provide disability funding for the applicant's daughter through a transfer payment agency rather than directly to a family-run microboard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry's decision was reasonable, did not fetter its discretion, and did not breach procedural fairness.

The court held that the Ministry has broad statutory discretion to determine how to allocate and administer funding, and its reliance on transfer payment agencies for oversight and accountability was a reasonable exercise of that discretion.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his certificate of registration by the Discipline Committee.

He had admitted to incompetence and professional misconduct, including boundary issues and poor clinical care.

The appellant argued the Committee ignored his prospects for rehabilitation and over-emphasized his disciplinary history.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's conclusion that the appellant lacked insight and posed a serious risk to the public was reasonable and justified the revocation.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

The appellant admitted to professional misconduct involving false claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

The Discipline Committee imposed a penalty that included a three-year prohibition on the appellant having any proprietary interest in a pharmacy or acting as a director of a corporation that owned a pharmacy.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked authority to impose these conditions under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's interpretation of its broad remedial authority under s. 51(2)3 of the Code to protect the public interest was reasonable.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to caution her.

The ICRC had found the applicant failed to attend the hospital to assess a decompensating patient.

The Divisional Court quashed the HPARB decision and set aside the ICRC decision, finding that the ICRC fundamentally misstated the medical records.

The contemporaneous records showed the patient was stable and resting comfortably, not decompensating or in crushing pain as the ICRC had concluded.

The HPARB's deference to a decision based on an unreasonable finding of fact was itself unreasonable.

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Physician Payment Review Board which found that five claims submitted by a physician were not stale-dated.

The Divisional Court held that while the Board has jurisdiction to determine the true basis for a denial of claims, its finding that the claims were not denied under s. 18(3) of the Health Insurance Act was unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was set aside, and a declaration was issued that the Board does not have jurisdiction to review decisions made under s. 18(3).

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the executive officer of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care terminating its billing privileges under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program due to overbilling.

The pharmacy argued the executive officer only had the power to suspend, not terminate, privileges under the statute, and alleged procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the executive officer's decision to revoke privileges was reasonable, within her authority, and procedurally fair.