Kirk Maijala

The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the Discipline Committee's misconduct and penalty decisions.

The moving party argued that his delay was due to financial strain, lack of legal knowledge, and ineffective assistance from his non-lawyer agent at the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had not formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time, failed to adequately explain the lengthy delay, and did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal had merit.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review commenced by a physician whose licence was revoked.

The physician sought to challenge the Discipline Committee's revocation decisions and an earlier interim suspension by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the physician had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory right of appeal for the revocation decisions.

The court also dismissed the challenge to the interim suspension due to excessive delay of over two years and because the issue was moot following the licence revocation.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his certificate of registration for professional misconduct.

The misconduct included a guilty plea related to OHIP billing, clinical and record-keeping deficiencies, and misleading the College regarding a vaccine administration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the Committee's conclusion that the appellant was irremediable given his extensive 18-year disciplinary history.

The court held that the penalty of revocation was proportionate and not clearly unfit.