David Paul Jacobs

The applicant sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court order that denied him permission to proceed with an application for judicial review and a motion.

The applicant was previously declared a vexatious litigant and required leave to commence proceedings.

The Court of Appeal initiated a review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the motion for leave to appeal to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The motion for leave was dismissed, and the applicant was prohibited from making further motions in the proceeding without leave.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which declined to review the College's decision to take no action on his complaint against the College's registrar.

The applicant's complaint alleged professional misconduct regarding the College's policies on COVID-19 vaccines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the complaint was vexatious, an abuse of process, and a collateral attack on College policy.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board not to proceed with a review of his complaint against a physician.

The complaint related to the physician's application to the Consent and Capacity Board regarding the applicant's roommate.

The Board dismissed the request for review as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the applicant appeared to be using the process to pressure the physician for financial compensation.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming an order that he complete a specified continuing education or remediation program and undergo practice monitoring.

The order arose from a complaint regarding the installation of video cameras in his dental office and concerns about patient privacy and informed consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the Board to uphold the disposition given the inadequacy of the applicant's patient consent forms and signage, even though the new cameras were not yet operational.

The applicant physiotherapist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision.

The ICRC had investigated a patient complaint of inappropriate touching and, while unable to determine the truth of the allegations, required the applicant to complete a remedial education program and receive a caution due to poor record-keeping and boundary concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC and HPARB decisions reasonable, noting that the remedies were educational rather than punitive and were supported by the evidentiary record.

The applicant, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a screening committee's order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP).

The applicant argued the remedy was overbroad as the committee's concerns were limited to record-keeping and communication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the committee had wide-ranging concerns about the applicant's practice, including post-surgical management, which justified the broader remediation program.

The respondent physicians brought motions to strike out an affidavit filed by the applicant in support of her applications for judicial review of decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The moving parties argued the affidavit contained impermissible evidence, argument, and matters outside the applicant's knowledge.

The court noted the general reluctance to determine evidentiary admissibility in advance of a judicial review hearing.

Given the mixed nature of the proposed evidence and uncertainty regarding its relevance to procedural fairness arguments, the court adjourned the motions to be decided by the panel hearing the applications.

The applicants, parents of an Indigenous child, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee's disposition of their complaint against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician conducted a non-consensual genital examination on the child.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to adequately address the ICRC's unresponsive treatment of the consent issue, noting that clinical indication does not equate to consent and implied consent cannot override express refusal.

However, given the passage of time and the physician's remedial actions, the court declined to remit the matter for further consideration.

The applicant, a psychologist, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education and remediation program.

The applicant argued the HPARB decision was unreasonable because the ICRC failed to address his submissions regarding a significant delay in the investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the ICRC should have addressed the delay, the HPARB reasonably considered the issue and concluded the delay did not result in an inadequate investigation or a denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of multiple decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) and the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) regarding her social media posts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ICRC had issued cautions for tweets containing verifiably false information about lockdowns, vaccines, and contact tracing, while dismissing complaints about tweets that merely expressed political disagreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the College reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter right to freedom of expression with its statutory mandate to regulate the medical profession and protect the public from misinformation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against an anaesthesiologist.

The applicant alleged the doctor's inadequate care during her spouse's surgery contributed to his severe dementia and death, and claimed the subsequent investigation was inadequate and medical records were falsified.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding HPARB's conclusions that the investigation was adequate and the decision was reasonable were both reasonable, and finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Egale Canada brought an unopposed motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning whether vaginoplasty without penectomy is an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that Egale has relevant expertise regarding the systemic disadvantages faced by trans and nonbinary individuals in accessing gender-affirming care and would make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice or undue delay.

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed decisions of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons to take no further action regarding his complaints against three dentists.

The applicant alleged procedural fairness violations and that the decisions were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board accorded the applicant procedural fairness and that its decisions were reasonable and adequately justified.

The applicant, an orthopedic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding OHIP's denial of certain billing claims.

The applicant argued the Board erred by admitting opinion evidence from an OHIP medical advisor who was not an independent expert.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably exercised its broad statutory discretion to admit the evidence.

The court noted the witness, while not a traditional independent expert or a 'participant expert' under the civil rules, possessed relevant expertise as an employee of a party and her evidence was largely factual and explanatory.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the dismissal of a complaint against a physician.

The physician had accessed the deceased patient's hospital records multiple times after being sued for medical malpractice, without the patient's consent.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the HPARB and the investigating committee unreasonably interpreted the Personal Health Information and Protection Act (PHIPA).

The court held that the physician acted as an agent of the hospital, not a health information custodian, and therefore could not unilaterally access the records outside the civil litigation discovery process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) which upheld the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee's (ICRC) decision to take no disciplinary action against a nurse.

The applicant alleged that the nurse's improper application of an ice pack caused her elderly mother's death.

The court found that the clinical records attributed the death to vascular degeneration and that the HPARB's decision was reasonable.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence filed by the applicant, noting it was inadmissible on judicial review and immaterial to the clinical findings.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to issue a caution and require a specified continuing education or remediation program.

The complaint was initiated by the patient's spouse regarding complementary medicine and record-keeping.

The applicant argued the ICRC investigation was procedurally unfair due to late disclosure of documents and that the complaint should not have been investigated as it was not from the patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the ICRC was within its mandate to investigate third-party complaints to protect the public interest.

The applicant physician moved for an urgent interim injunction to stay the revocation of his hospital privileges pending judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The court applied the modified RJR-MacDonald test and found that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the statutory provisions relied upon applied to reappointment rather than mid-term revocation.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent hospital.

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 (CPSO) disposition of his complaint against a pediatric hepatologist.

The applicant alleged the physician provided inadequate care to his son, who died shortly after being discharged from the hospital, and falsified medical records.

The CPSO's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) investigated and ordered the physician to be cautioned regarding record-keeping and sepsis assessment, but declined to refer the matter to the Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC and HPARB decisions were reasonable, free of bias, and supported by adequate reasons.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which ordered him to be cautioned regarding informed consent for cataract surgery.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he was not provided with the clinical findings of another physician obtained during the investigation, and that the ICRC's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness at the investigative stage is limited and the applicant had sufficient notice of the complaint to respond.

The court also held that the ICRC's decision to issue a remedial caution was reasonable and within its statutory screening function.