Health Law

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which affirmed the Ontario College of Nurses' decision not to further investigate her complaint against a nurse.

The complaint, alleging falsified medical records at a fertility clinic, was made a decade after the events.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the application as frivolous and vexatious.

Finding no arguable error in HPARB's reliance on contemporaneous medical records over the applicant's decade-old personal recollection, the court dismissed the application.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP to suspend his medical fee payments due to his failure to cooperate with a statutorily mandated inspection of his records.

The application was brought nearly ten years after the decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for undue delay, finding the delay inexplicable and prejudicial to the respondent due to the destruction of the applicant's records.

The court also held that, on the merits, the General Manager's decision to suspend payments was reasonable and authorized by the Health Insurance Act.

The appellant physician sought a stay of the College's Discipline Committee penalty revoking his licence to practice pending his appeal.

The penalty was based on findings of historic sexual misconduct.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the appellant's practice and income, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the historic nature of the complaints and the success of interim practice restrictions.

The motion for a stay was granted on conditions.

The applicant physician brought a motion to stay a hearing before the hospital's Board of Directors regarding the termination of his hospital privileges, pending an application for judicial review.

The applicant alleged lack of notice and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found the applicant's case weak on the merits and that he would not suffer irreparable harm if the hearing proceeded.

The balance of convenience favoured continuing the hearing.

The motion for a stay was granted only to the extent that the Board was ordered not to disclose its decision until after the disposition of the judicial review application.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which had overturned a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Complaints Committee to take no further action on a complaint.

The complaint alleged the physician treated a patient with contempt and prejudice before the patient's death from pneumonia.

The Divisional Court found that the Board failed to apply the proper standard of reasonableness and deference to the Committee's screening function.

The Court held that the Board's requirement for further investigation into the physician's credibility and use of the word 'lifestyle' was unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the Committee's decision was restored.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim order made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario restricting her cosmetic surgery practice pending a disciplinary hearing.

The order was issued after investigations into patient complaints, including one patient death following a liposuction procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the College's decision was reasonable, supported by ample evidence of risk to patient safety, and did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed the Complaints Committee's dismissal of his complaints against three physicians.

The applicant disagreed with the physicians' medical opinions that his spinal condition was congenital rather than work-related.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decisions to be reasonable and dismissed the applications for judicial review, awarding costs to the respondent physicians.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the suspension of his hospital privileges until he completed a remedial anaesthetist review program.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when confronted with multiple complaints without prior notice.

The Divisional Court found that while the initial process was flawed, the hospital cured the defect by agreeing to an independent expert review.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the Court held the HPARB properly concluded there was a legitimate concern for patient safety warranting remedial action.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant physician moved for a stay of the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Discipline Committee decision revoking his medical licence, pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The applicant had a history of professional misconduct findings related to inappropriate breast examinations.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the only evidence provided was hearsay regarding financial harm.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the College due to the risk to the public, given the applicant's history of failing to follow the College's directions regarding proper examination methodology.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The College moved to schedule cross-examinations and a motion before a single judge to quash a physician's appeal of his license revocation, alleging he breached an order lifting a stay by continuing to practice.

The physician moved for an expedited appeal date.

The court declined to schedule the College's motion before a single judge, finding that lifting a stay does not constitute an order that can be breached under Rule 60.12, and directed that the motion to quash be heard by the full panel hearing the appeal.

The court scheduled the appeal and granted a sealing order for third-party medical records.

The moving party regulatory college sought to lift a stay of a Discipline Committee decision that revoked the responding party doctor's licence, or alternatively to dismiss his appeal.

The stay had been previously maintained on strict conditions, including cooperating with investigators and not selling drugs at a profit.

The court found that the doctor breached these conditions by making false statements to investigators, concealing his treatment of cancer patients, and failing to maintain proper charts.

Concluding that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the public interest, the court lifted the stay but declined to dismiss the appeal, allowing the doctor to argue it on the merits.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, revoking his license, and imposing a $25,000 costs award.

The misconduct stemmed from his failure to supervise an EEG clinic where a technician infected numerous patients with Hepatitis B. The Divisional Court upheld the misconduct findings but found the penalty of license revocation unreasonable, as the appellant posed no risk practicing solely as a neurologist.

The court substituted a two-year suspension and a lifetime ban from acting as a medical director, while upholding the costs award.

The appellant, a massage therapist, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexual abuse and inappropriate touching of a client.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and in its factual findings regarding his admissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee properly appreciated the legal significance of discrepancies in the evidence and that its factual findings were reasonable.

The penalty of a nine-month suspension and costs was also upheld, as there was no error in principle.

The applicant physician sought a stay of an order of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pending his appeal.

The Committee had found him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, imposing a 30-month suspension and practice restrictions.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, finding a serious issue regarding the proportionality of the penalty, irreparable harm due to the ongoing suspension and professional damage, and that the balance of convenience favoured a conditional stay.

The stay was granted on the same terms, conditions, and limitations that the Discipline Committee had ordered for his return to practice.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which had made findings of criminal conduct against him based on undisclosed evidence.

The Board conceded it exceeded its jurisdiction and consented to its decision being quashed.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision and, finding exceptional circumstances including a ten-year delay and lack of clear evidence, refused to remit the matter back to the Board for reconsideration.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he had entered into an exploitive sexual relationship with a patient.

The appellant challenged the Committee's credibility findings based on a letter, body markings, and psychiatric evidence regarding the complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the Committee's credibility assessments and holding that the penalty for such a profound breach of trust must stand.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board that required the College's Registration Committee to issue a certificate of registration to the respondent doctor.

The Registration Committee had previously refused the application on the basis that the respondent was ungovernable due to past disciplinary issues in Quebec.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by failing to show deference to the specialized expertise of the Registration Committee regarding the respondent's qualifications and ethical fitness to practice medicine.

The matter was remitted back to the Registration Committee for further consideration in light of new evidence.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons appealed an order granting a physician a stay of his licence revocation pending his appeal of a finding of incompetence.

The College argued that s. 71 of the Health Professions Procedural Code ousted the court's jurisdiction to grant a stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 71 merely eliminates the automatic stay that would otherwise apply under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, but does not remove the court's inherent and statutory jurisdiction to grant a stay on application where appropriate.

Dr. Krop, a practitioner of environmental medicine, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standard of practice.

The appellant argued that the investigation was improper, the Committee lacked jurisdiction, the prosecution was for an improper purpose, the wrong standard of practice test was applied, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the prosecution was an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the Committee correctly applied the test for standard of practice and that the appellant's diagnostic and treatment techniques lacked scientific validity and fell below the standard of practice.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of the top ten medical procedures billed to OHIP by the highest-billing general practitioner in Toronto.

The Ministry argued the records constituted personal information and were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's finding that the physician was not identifiable from the requested records.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.