Jared B. Schwartz

The plaintiff physician's hospital privileges were suspended and not renewed by the defendant hospital.

After unsuccessfully challenging the revocation through the complete administrative code under the Public Hospitals Act, including appeals to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board and the Divisional Court, the plaintiff commenced a civil action against the hospital and its administrators alleging breach of contract, negligence, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action.

The Superior Court granted the motion, holding that the civil action was an impermissible collateral attack and an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate the same factual matrix and issues already authoritatively decided against the plaintiff in the administrative proceedings.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the hospital's decisions not to renew her reappointment applications and to revoke her privileges due to a long-standing pattern of communication issues and interpersonal conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB did not misapprehend the evidence and appropriately analyzed the criteria for non-renewal and revocation under the hospital's by-laws and the Public Hospitals Act.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, housekeeping, and the cost of assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant entitled to a reduced amount of attendant care benefits ($448.49 per month) for feeding, but denied claims for dressing, shaving, mobility, and other items.

The Tribunal also found the applicant entitled to housekeeping benefits, but only payable from September 2022 due to a lack of accounting for prior incurred expenses.

Claims for assessment costs, a special award, and costs were dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed a preliminary motion to state a case for contempt regarding the insurer's surveillance.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Review and Appeal Board (HPARB) confirming the revocation of her hospital privileges by the respondent hospital.

The revocation was based on a long-standing pattern of unprofessional conduct, inability to collaborate with colleagues, and failure to improve, which jeopardized patient safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB's factual and credibility findings were firmly grounded in the evidence and that it correctly applied the test under the Public Hospitals Act and hospital by-laws.

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 31.10 for leave to examine two non-party nurses for discovery.

The plaintiffs argued the nurses had relevant information about the deceased's post-operative care that could not be obtained elsewhere.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the nurses likely had relevant information, the plaintiffs failed to establish they were unable to obtain the information from the hospital's representative or other parties, as they had not asked specific questions or requested undertakings regarding the non-party nurses' knowledge during earlier discoveries.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision upholding sanctions for research misconduct, which prohibited him from conducting research as a principal investigator, applying for grants, and permanently closed his research laboratory.

The applicant argued the decision failed to consider mitigating factors, including his unblemished record and status as a world-renowned researcher.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable given the systemic and persistent nature of the misconduct over a ten-year period.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included submitting improper OHIP claims using a retired physician's billing number, providing inadequate counselling and follow-up care for FM systems, and failing to maintain accurate patient records.

The Member pleaded no contest to the agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and $10,000 in costs, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the scope and intentionality of the improper billing scheme.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included submitting improper OHIP claims using a retired physician's billing number, providing inadequate counselling and follow-up care for FM systems, and failing to maintain accurate patient records.

The Member pleaded no contest to the agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and $10,000 in costs, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the scope and intentionality of the improper billing scheme.