Jaan E. Lilles

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant entered a no contest plea to allegations that he knowingly submitted false OHIP claims for services not rendered while practising emergency medicine and then failed to cooperate with the regulatory investigation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested facts showing unsupported billings, including claims for patients the registrant did not treat, dates on which patients were not present, and procedures unsupported by any charting, together with repeated refusals to attend an interview or answer detailed written questions.

Applying the Anthony-Cook framework to a joint penalty submission, the Tribunal held that revocation, a reprimand, and tariff costs would not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The registrant’s certificate of registration was revoked immediately and costs of $6,000 were ordered.

The plaintiff underwent an incisional hernia repair surgery performed by the defendant general surgeon.

Following the surgery, the plaintiff developed a bowel leak requiring emergency repair and subsequent treatment for a fistula and wound infections.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action alleging the surgeon breached the standard of care by failing to order bowel preparation, failing to 'run the bowel', and improperly repairing the bowel perforation.

The court dismissed the action, preferring the evidence of the defendant's expert witness and finding that the surgeon's conduct met the standard of care in all respects.

The court also found that causation was not established.

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct involving non-consensual sexual touching and inappropriate messages directed at students and a junior employee.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought revocation while the Member sought a 3-4 month suspension.

The Discipline Committee imposed a 6-month suspension, a reprimand, and mandatory ethics courses, noting the serious nature of the boundary violations and exploitation of power imbalances, balanced against the Member's lack of prior discipline history.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $50,000 in costs.

In a delayed-diagnosis medical malpractice action, the defendant physician appealed findings on liability only.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s negligence and causation analysis and found no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed and the liability determination stood.

The College alleged that the Member, an instructor at a traditional Chinese medicine school, committed professional misconduct involving three complainants.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member touched Complainant C's buttocks without consent, sent inappropriate and sexually suggestive messages to Complainant A (a former and current student), and touched Complainant B's buttocks without consent during a class demonstration.

The Committee rejected the Member's denials and his theory that the complaints were fabricated due to the influence of another student.

The Committee concluded that the Member's actions constituted disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct, as well as conduct unbecoming a practitioner.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be scheduled.

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 College sought to withdraw the allegations contained in a Notice of Hearing against the member because the member had passed away.

The Discipline Committee granted the withdrawal, noting that it was not in the public interest to require a hearing given the member's death.

The defendants successfully sought costs after obtaining summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice claim.

The court, while acknowledging the plaintiffs' difficult experience and self-representation, awarded discounted costs to the defendants, emphasizing the principle of indemnity for the successful party tempered by the expectation of the unsuccessful party.

The appellants (defendant doctors) appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for failing to obtain informed consent for a multi-step medical treatment plan that resulted in catastrophic brain injury to the plaintiff.

The appeal addressed the nature and extent of a physician's duty to obtain informed consent, on which physicians this duty rests, sufficiency of reasons, evidentiary issues (including expert witness exclusion), and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that all three appellant doctors failed to provide adequate disclosure regarding the cumulative risks of the treatment plan, and that the plaintiff would not have proceeded had he been properly informed.

Leave to appeal costs was refused.

The plaintiff moved to disqualify Norton Rose Fulbright LLP (NRF) from acting as lawyers of record for the K2 defendants.

The plaintiff argued that it was a current client of NRF for patent applications, and that NRF's representation of the K2 defendants in this litigation, which involved allegations that the plaintiff's core technology did not exist, created a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The court found that the two mandates were substantially related and that the bright line rule applied, rendering the advance waiver in NRF's engagement letter ineffective.

The motion to disqualify NRF was granted.

The College sought to withdraw the allegations in the Notice of Hearing against the respondent.

The respondent had previously executed an undertaking to surrender his certificate of registration and never reapply.

The Discipline Committee permitted the withdrawal, finding that a full hearing was not in the public interest given the respondent's undertaking and the disposal of a prior Notice of Hearing.

The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario held a discipline hearing regarding allegations that the member issued false receipts for services not rendered, failed to maintain proper patient records, and obstructed a College investigation.

The member did not attend the hearing.

Based on evidence from an undercover investigator and a College investigator, the panel found the member engaged in professional misconduct, including fraudulent billing and physically obstructing the investigator.

The panel revoked the member's certificate of registration and ordered her to pay $25,000 in costs.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties (defendants) sought full indemnity costs totalling over $1.1 million.

The court awarded full indemnity costs as requested, subject to a reduction for the costs of non-active counsel, clerks, or students.

The court also apportioned liability, finding one plaintiff jointly and severally liable only for costs related to the OMA dispute, while the other plaintiff was solely liable for costs related to the COVID-19 dispute.

The appellant physician appealed a finding of professional misconduct and the resulting penalty (a reprimand and three-month suspension) imposed by the Discipline Committee.

The misconduct was based on criminal findings of guilt for domestic violence offences for which the appellant received an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued that the provincial legislation allowing discipline based on a criminal finding of guilt was unconstitutional on division of powers grounds because it conflicted with the federal Criminal Records Act provisions regarding discharges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no operational conflict or frustration of purpose between the statutes.

The Court also upheld the admission of the criminal records, the finding that domestic violence is relevant to a physician's suitability to practise, the penalty imposed, and the Committee's jurisdiction to award costs for preliminary motions.

The plaintiffs, two physicians, brought a $12 million defamation action against over 20 defendants, including other physicians, journalists, and media organizations.

The claims arose from two main disputes: an internal Ontario Medical Association (OMA) dispute and public criticism of the plaintiffs' controversial tweets regarding COVID-19, in which they opposed vaccines and lockdowns and promoted hydroxychloroquine.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions far outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

This decision concerns a request for reconsideration of a prior order granting leave to the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.

The defendant argued that an inadvertent error in the draft amendments quoted in the previous reasons was material, suggesting an attempt to introduce a negligent misrepresentation claim after the limitation period.

The court clarified that the actual proposed amendments were less problematic than the version inadvertently quoted.

The court affirmed its previous decision to grant leave to amend, finding the actual proposed amendments were more benign and did not warrant a different outcome.

No costs were awarded for the reconsideration request.

The plaintiffs brought an action against several physicians involved in the treatment of their son, alleging a failure to diagnose Fragile X Syndrome, which led to the birth of a second child with the same genetic disorder.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to provide greater particularity, while the defendant physician moved to strike the claim, arguing he owed no duty of care to the parents of his patient.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion to amend, finding it did not introduce a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, holding that it was not plain and obvious that a novel duty of care could not be recognized between a physician and the parents of a patient in the context of genetic testing and family planning.

The plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed by the defendant gynaecologist, during which her colon was perforated, requiring subsequent reconstructive surgery.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action alleging the defendant failed to obtain informed consent, failed to review prior operative reports, lacked the skill to perform the surgery given her anatomy, and negligently caused the perforation.

The court dismissed the action, finding the defendant met the standard of care in his pre-operative advice and surgical technique, and that the bowel injury was a known complication likely caused by abnormal anatomy rather than negligence.

The appellant underwent a laparoscopic colectomy performed by the respondent surgeon, during which her left ureter was injured, ultimately necessitating removal of her left kidney.

The trial judge found that the surgeon breached the standard of care and that the breach caused the injury requiring the kidney's removal.

The Court of Appeal majority set aside the trial decision, holding the trial judge erred in law in identifying and applying the standard of care.

The dissenting judge found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's approach and conclusions.

The Supreme Court unanimously restored the trial judgment, adopting the reasons of the dissenting judge.

The Member, a Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner, admitted to professional misconduct for issuing false diplomas and transcripts to over 80 individuals through his academy, obstructing a College investigation, and submitting false transcripts for his own registration.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The Member was reprimanded, suspended for 24 months, permanently restricted from teaching or operating an academic institution related to the profession, ordered to complete an ethics course, and required to pay costs of $120,000 (reducible to $42,500 if paid early).