4 total
Board decision upholding ICRC disposition found unreasonable for failing to address lack of consent to examination.
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.
Motion for leave to intervene granted to child rights organization in judicial review involving child consent.
A child rights organization brought a motion for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.
The underlying complaint alleged a doctor improperly conducted a genital examination on an Indigenous child without appropriate consent.
The court granted leave to intervene, finding the organization would provide a useful and different perspective on the rights of the child and their intersecting vulnerabilities, and that the case raised issues of public importance beyond a private dispute.
Appeal from Consent and Capacity Board dismissed; finding of incapacity and Community Treatment Order upheld.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his treating physician's finding that he lacked capacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication and upholding a Community Treatment Order.
The appellant argued the Board erred in its capacity finding and that the criteria for the order were not met, specifically alleging a failure to provide prompt rights advice.
The Superior Court of Justice applied the correctness standard to questions of law and reasonableness to mixed fact and law, ultimately finding no error in the Board's determinations.
The appeals were dismissed.
Judicial review Appeal dismissed
The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding her incapable of consenting to anti-psychotic medication and a community treatment plan (CTP).
The appeal raised three grounds: the CTP's reference to a prospective referral to CMHA-Peel, the alleged withdrawal of the substitute decision-maker, and the Board's brevity in assessing the appellant's capacity.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable on all grounds.
