Daniel Yang

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) not to proceed with his complaint against his former doctor.

The applicant alleged the doctor improperly accessed and added to his medical record after he issued a 'lockbox' directive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's decision reasonable as the doctor was authorized to document patient encounters under professional standards pursuant to s. 19(2) of PHIPA.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant was given a full opportunity to respond to the IPC's preliminary views.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice and informed consent action.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented for most of the litigation, failed to serve any expert medical report to support her claims, despite repeated requests from the defendant's counsel and court orders.

The court found that expert evidence was required for both the negligence and informed consent claims, and that the case did not fall within the "clearest of cases" exception.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action.