David Jacobs

The applicant, a family physician, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming a remedial caution issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to public statements the applicant made objecting to her church's COVID-19 communion protocols, in which she identified herself as a physician.

The applicant argued the decisions failed to reasonably balance her Charter right to religious expression under the Doré framework.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the screening committee reasonably balanced its statutory mandate to protect the public with the applicant's Charter rights, noting she was not precluded from expressing religious views, but cautioned on identifying herself as a physician when doing so.

The applicant commenced a proceeding that was substantially identical to a prior proceeding dismissed by the Divisional Court as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure indicating its intention to dismiss the proceeding and restrict the applicant's access to the courts.

Finding that the applicant's allegations were not grounded in objective reality and that the litigation was the product of mental illness, the court dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1.

The court also ordered that the applicant may not commence or continue any legal proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice without prior written permission from a judge.

The applicant brought a motion for an adjournment.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment request and imposed a timetable agreed upon by the parties.

Due to the inordinate delay in the case and the reasons for it, the court declined to award costs to any party.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding his complaints against two physicians.

The complaints arose after the physicians reported the applicant to the Ministry of Transportation for a potential visual impairment, resulting in a temporary suspension of his driver's licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the HPARB's decisions were reasonable and that the physicians had complied with their mandatory reporting obligations under the Highway Traffic Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician engaged in gender discrimination and directed improper use of involuntary psychiatric detention and driver's license review forms to increase profitability.

The Divisional Court found the ICRC's investigation was inadequate because it failed to interview any of the direct witnesses identified by the applicant.

The court quashed the HPARB and ICRC decisions and remitted the matter to the ICRC for a new investigation.

The respondent doctor brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal an order granting the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) intervenor status in a judicial review application.

The underlying application concerned a regulatory decision regarding the doctor's access to a former patient's medical records.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time, finding the short delay was reasonably explained by counsel's inadvertence.

On the merits, the court set aside the intervenor order, concluding that OTLA's proposed submissions would be duplicative of the applicant's and that the matter was primarily a private regulatory dispute.

The self-represented applicants sought judicial review of decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board regarding their late father's medical treatment.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, identifying significant defects in the application, including naming improper parties and seeking relief beyond the court's jurisdiction.

Despite opportunities to correct the defects, the applicants refused.

The court dismissed the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the proceeding failed to meet basic legal requirements.

The applicants sought to commence an application for judicial review of three decisions of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board regarding their late father's medical treatment.

The request was improperly formatted, named incorrect parties, and sought relief beyond the Divisional Court's jurisdiction.

Despite being given opportunities to correct the defects, the applicants refused.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, directing the registrar to notify the applicants that the court is considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for an order sealing the patient records of a complainant in a physician's appeal of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the College had not sought a sealing order at first instance before the HPARB.

The court held that the HPARB should control its own processes and develop its own jurisprudence on protective orders, and declined to permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal, particularly where the records were not highly sensitive and the complainant raised no privacy concerns.

The applicants sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision denying them intervener status in a labour grievance between a union and an employer regarding alleged subcontracting violations.

The applicants argued the grievance would adversely affect their ability to work and supply workers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the arbitrator's finding that the applicants lacked a direct and legal interest in the private dispute resolution process between the union and the employer.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against a physician.

The applicant, an autism advocate, complained about the physician's use of chelation therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the College's investigation was adequate and its decision not to refer the matter to discipline was reasonable, given the lack of patient-specific evidence of harm and the statutory protections for alternative medicine.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the Complaints Committee's decision to take no further action regarding his complaints against a former associate.

The complaints related to a business dispute, alleged theft, and patient solicitation, rather than patient care or professional competence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the investigation adequate, the decision reasonable, and no evidence of bias on the part of the College or the Board.

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 Ontario Divisional Court issued a decision on costs following an appeal.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 plus GST, awarded to the appellant, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and payable by the respondent, Dr. Darren Payne.

No costs were awarded against the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

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.