Colin Bruce Johnston

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the registrant for sexual abuse of a patient and disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The registrant did not contest the allegations that he engaged in a physical sexual relationship with a patient, altered clinical records to conceal an appointment, and provided false information to police.

The Tribunal found the registrant committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct.

Pursuant to a joint submission and the mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code, the Tribunal ordered the revocation of the registrant's certificate of registration, a reprimand, reimbursement of $20,470 for patient therapy, and $6,000 in costs.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a pediatrician who provided medical care, including prescribing large amounts of controlled substances and narcotics, to close family members over a nine-year period.

The registrant failed to document his care, billed OHIP inappropriately, and failed to store drugs securely.

The Tribunal found that the registrant committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Tribunal ordered a 12-month suspension, a reprimand, completion of ethics and record-keeping courses, and $6,000 in costs.

The College alleged that the registrant, a pediatrician, committed professional misconduct by providing medical care to a child patient while engaged in a close personal and romantic relationship with the child's parent.

The Tribunal found that the registrant breached College policies on maintaining appropriate boundaries and treating persons close to the physician, constituting disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a three-month suspension, individualized instruction in medical ethics and boundary management, a reprimand, and $6,000 in costs.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee requiring her to attend in person to be cautioned regarding unprofessional communications.

The applicant had made inappropriate comments in the workplace while experiencing emotional distress related to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the caution was a remedial measure within the Committee's jurisdiction and was reasonable given the professional standards expected of physicians.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the decision violated her equality rights under the Charter, as she failed to establish that the caution had an adverse impact on her or on people with mental health disabilities generally.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming the renewal of a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and a finding of incapacity to make decisions about his antipsychotic medications.

The court upheld the Board's finding of incapacity and the validity of the CTO, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the appellant's inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of discontinuing medication.

However, the court found an error in the Community Treatment Plan (CTP) by not accounting for COVID-19 public health restrictions.

The CTP was amended to allow for flexible meeting formats (videoconference, teleconference, or in-person) at the discretion of the respondent physician, considering public health and the appellant's needs.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision granting partial summary judgment against them based on a 2010 personal guarantee.

The Master had found the guarantee to be a continuing guarantee covering all present and future indebtedness of the corporate borrower.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Master erred in law by failing to consider the surrounding circumstances, including a contemporaneous contract and promissory note, and by failing to apply the contra proferentem rule.

The Court interpreted the guarantee as limited to the initial $50,000 loan, which had already been repaid according to the rule in Clayton's case.

The appeal was allowed and the claim based on the 2010 guarantee was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision that rescinded the respondent's involuntary psychiatric admission.

The respondent had revoked his power of attorney while involuntarily detained, making his estranged wife his substitute decision maker instead of his mother.

The physician, believing the respondent lacked capacity to revoke the power of attorney, relied on the mother's consent to continue the detention.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to determine capacity to revoke a power of attorney and that the physician could not unilaterally disregard the revocation without a formal assessment under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was correct and that the physician should have sought the wife's consent or brought a Form G application if she refused.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer regarding her return to work following a medical leave.

The applicant's union, the Ontario Nurses' Association, requested to intervene in the proceeding.

The respondent consented to the request, and the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had an interest in the outcome as the bargaining agent for registered nurses at the respondent's workplace.

The applicant, a registered nurse, filed a human rights application alleging racial and ethnic discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by her employer hospital and her union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the hospital had reasonably investigated the applicant's complaints and that there was no evidence supporting the reprisal allegations against either the hospital or the union.

These portions of the application were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why she should be permitted to amend her application to include new allegations regarding the cancellation of her shifts.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

Following the issuance of an arbitration decision, the applicant requested to proceed with the application, add additional respondents including the union, and order production of the union's grievance file.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed but scheduled a hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and whether the union should be added as a respondent.

The requests to add individual respondents and for early document production were denied.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of numerous documents from the respondents and the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA), a non-party.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' threshold for document production.

The Tribunal denied most of the requests, finding no nexus between the requested documents and the allegations, but ordered the respondents to produce redacted resumes of candidates interviewed for a specific job competition to establish their employment status.

The Tribunal also denied the request for documents from ONA, finding the requested internal grievance report was privileged and the other requested documents were not arguably relevant.

The applicant physician brought an appeal and an application for judicial review challenging an interlocutory decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had ruled it had jurisdiction to hear allegations regarding patients not specifically named in the Notice of Hearing.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for judicial review for prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances to intervene in the ongoing disciplinary process, as the Committee reasonably concluded it had jurisdiction.

The Court also quashed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Health Professions Procedural Code to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision.

The applicant, a registered nurse with a permanent back impairment, alleged that her employer, the Hospital, and her union, ONA, discriminated against her on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims against ONA for failing to establish a prima facie case.

Regarding the Hospital, the Tribunal found no discrimination or harassment in its handling of a workplace conflict or its accommodation efforts in 2006 and 2007.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the Hospital failed to accommodate the applicant to the point of undue hardship when it prematurely ended her gradual return to work program in October 2009 and placed her in a Labour Market Re-Entry program without continuing to search for suitable permanent accommodation.

The claim of reprisal was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her daughter against the Ontario Nurses' Association, alleging discrimination and reprisal in its representation of her daughter following a termination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address delay and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that allegations relating to events prior to June 2009 were out of time, as the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The only timely allegation, regarding the union's refusal to assist in obtaining an employee health file, was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the refusal to a prohibited ground or establishing an intent to retaliate.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Health Professions Appeal Review Board (HPARB) that prevented him from practicing medicine.

HPARB consented to the extension, but the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) opposed it.

The court applied the test for extending time, noting the applicant's arguable case on the merits and the broader principle that an extension should be granted if the justice of the case requires it.

Considering the applicant's prior self-represented status, lack of prejudice to the CPSO, and the severe impact on his livelihood, the court granted the extension and awarded costs to the applicant.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $3.8 million for breach of a real estate joint venture agreement.

The appellant argued the respondent was disentitled to the funds for trading in real estate without a license and sought disgorgement of a commission.

The respondent cross-appealed for punitive damages and a higher rate of prejudgment interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the respondent was exempt from licensing requirements as it was dealing with its own interest, the commission was properly disclosed, and the appellant's conduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required for punitive damages.