Jennifer A. McKendry

The registrant, a family physician, failed to respond to a patient's repeated requests to complete insurance forms and another patient's requests to forward medical records to their lawyer.

She also failed to cooperate with the College's investigation into these complaints.

Based on an agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal found the registrant engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Tribunal ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension of her certificate of registration, specified educational and practice monitoring requirements, and $6,000 in costs.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to adequately supervise an unregistered psychotherapist and failing to maintain proper clinical and billing records.

The member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and a 12-month individualized coaching program at the member's expense.

The applicant physician faced disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding allegations of sexual abuse made by a former patient.

The applicant sought to disclose the complainant's psychiatric records, which he obtained both while acting as her treating physician and later in error, to challenge her credibility and reliability based on her diagnosis of borderline personality disorder.

The Divisional Court held that section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act applied to both sets of records, taking precedence over the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The court ordered disclosure of the records, finding it was essential in the interests of justice to allow the applicant to make full answer and defence, while protecting the complainant's privacy through a publication ban.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer (CAMH), her union (ONA), and a psychiatrist (Dr. Klassen) on multiple grounds including race, sex, age, disability, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations against ONA and Dr. Klassen, and all allegations against CAMH except those relating to disability accommodation and termination, finding the dismissed allegations lacked evidence linking the respondents' conduct to Code grounds or were out of time.

The remaining disability allegations against CAMH were scheduled for a further preliminary hearing to address timeliness and whether they had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee Panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons finding him guilty of professional misconduct for allegedly sexually touching a patient thirty years earlier.

The appellant argued the Panel's reasons were conclusory and insufficient for meaningful appellate review.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the reasons failed to demonstrate justification, transparency, and intelligibility, particularly regarding the rejection of the appellant's evidence and the treatment of inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the finding set aside, and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The accused, a medical assistant at a colonoscopy clinic, was charged with sexual assault on a patient who alleged he was fondled multiple times during a routine colonoscopy procedure.

The complainant testified he was sedated but conscious throughout the procedure and experienced excruciating pain.

The accused denied the allegations and testified he had no specific recollection of the complainant's procedure.

The defence called the performing physician and an expert psychiatrist in psychopharmacology.

The court found the accused credible and his denial sincere.

The court also found significant frailties in the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies regarding his position during the procedure, his recollection of the room layout, the type of gown worn, and the timing of his complaint.

Expert evidence established that anaesthesia-induced sexual hallucinations are a recognized pharmacological phenomenon.

The court acquitted the accused, finding the crown had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals on charges of sexual abuse, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding similar fact evidence, excluding a decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and permitting cross-examination on prior complaints.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the test for concoction regarding the similar fact evidence, properly exercised his discretion to exclude the College decision due to prejudicial effect, and appropriately instructed the jury on the use of prior complaints for assessing credibility.

The appellant, suffering from liver cancer, was denied a liver transplant in Ontario as he did not meet the medical criteria.

He obtained a living-related liver transplant in England for $450,000 and sought reimbursement from OHIP.

OHIP denied the claim because the treatment was not 'generally accepted in Ontario as appropriate for a person in the same medical circumstances' under s. 28.4(2) of Regulation 552.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board upheld the denial.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding that the Regulation did not violate s. 7 of the Charter because the state's refusal to fund out-of-country treatment did not constitute a deprivation of life or security of the person.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay a $3.3 million equalization payment, retroactive child support, ongoing child support, and costs including a $150,000 premium.

The core issues involved whether a cottage owned by the husband's numbered company constituted a matrimonial home, the valuation of his business, and the appropriateness of the support and costs awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to pierce the corporate veil regarding the cottage and accepted the business valuation and support orders.

However, applying recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court allowed the appeal in part to set aside the $150,000 costs premium.

The respondent wife's cross-appeal seeking higher pre-judgment interest was dismissed.

The appellant sought to amend his appeal to the Divisional Court to include a section 7 Charter challenge against OHIP's refusal to fund his out-of-country liver transplant.

The Charter issue was not raised before the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

Applying the prerequisites from R. v. Brown, the court allowed the amendment, finding a sufficient evidentiary record, no tactical delay, and that refusing the amendment could result in a miscarriage of justice, particularly given recent Supreme Court jurisprudence in Chaoulli and legislative changes preventing the Board from hearing constitutional issues.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought judicial review of an interlocutory order made by its Discipline Committee.

The Committee had ordered the production of confidential third-party medical and counselling records relating to several complainants who alleged sexual abuse by the respondent physician.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee reasonably applied the principles from R. v. Mills by analogy to balance the physician's right to make full answer and defence against the complainants' privacy rights.

The Court upheld the disclosure orders for four of the five complainants.