Keary Frances Grace

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a discipline proceeding against the registrant for professional misconduct arising from his practice in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The registrant admitted to breaching the standard of practice by prescribing opioids without examining a patient, prescribing methadone in a reckless manner leading to two patient overdoses, and falsifying medical records to cover up his actions.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The registrant was reprimanded, suspended for seven months, and ordered to undergo clinical supervision, practice assessments, and pay $6,000 in costs.

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 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 Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician engaged in gender discrimination and directed improper use of involuntary psychiatric detention and driver's license review forms to increase profitability.

The Divisional Court found the ICRC's investigation was inadequate because it failed to interview any of the direct witnesses identified by the applicant.

The court quashed the HPARB and ICRC decisions and remitted the matter to the ICRC for a new investigation.

The respondent doctor brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order granting Canadian Women in Medicine (CWIM) leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review.

The underlying judicial review concerned a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons to take no further action on a complaint alleging discriminatory hiring practices.

The Divisional Court majority granted the motion and set aside the intervention order, finding that the motion judge failed to consider whether CWIM's legal position was distinct from the applicant's and failed to recognize that the underlying matter was primarily a private administrative dispute.

A dissenting judge would have dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellant, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his involuntary admission to a psychiatric facility and his incapacity to consent to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the Board's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The court found ample evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a risk of serious bodily harm to others and lacked the capacity to appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, two bariatric surgeons, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding cautions issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The cautions were issued after the applicants' names and photographs appeared in an advertisement for their employer on a third-party website, contrary to the Advertising Regulation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the applicants failed to show they took reasonable steps to prevent the improper advertising.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming her involuntary admission to a psychiatric facility and finding her incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

She argued the Board misapprehended the evidence, applied the wrong legal test, and reached an unreasonable decision.

The court held that the appropriate standard of review for mixed questions of fact and law was reasonableness and found the Board’s decision comprehensive and supported by the evidence, including medical records and witness testimony regarding deteriorating mental and physical condition.

The court concluded that the statutory requirements under the Health Care Consent Act and Mental Health Act were properly applied.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period in section 4 of the Limitation Act.

They argued the motion judge conflated fraudulent concealment with discoverability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the cause of action was discoverable when counsel received OHIP reports, and the appellants failed to investigate for 28 months before filing their claim.

The applicant, a Convention refugee from Iran, sought a Certificate of Qualification to teach in Ontario.

She was unable to provide original documentation of her qualifications because the Iranian government, her persecutor, held the records.

The Ontario College of Teachers refused her application for failing to provide original documents.

The applicant sought a re-evaluation and accommodation from the Registration Appeals Committee, which denied her request.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the Committee's requirement for original documents was prima facie discriminatory based on place of origin.

The Court found that the Committee failed to properly apply the Human Rights Code, failed to accommodate the applicant, and failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision.

The decision was rescinded and remitted for rehearing.

The appellant appealed the judgment of Justice Swinton.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to comment on the standard of review and agreeing with the reasons of the motion judge which adequately dealt with the grounds of appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The member, a teacher, faced discipline proceedings after sending and receiving inappropriate letters to and from a student.

Following an investigation, criminal charges were laid but the member was acquitted at trial due to credibility issues with the complainant and the involvement of civil lawyers.

In the discipline proceeding, the member pleaded guilty to conduct unbecoming a member based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and publication of the findings.