7 total
Motion to extend time to appeal physician discipline decisions dismissed due to unexplained lengthy delay.
The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the Discipline Committee's misconduct and penalty decisions.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.
Judicial review of physician's interim suspension for breaching COVID-19 mask undertaking dismissed.
The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee to suspend his certificate of registration on an interim basis.
The suspension followed complaints that the applicant failed to wear a mask during patient examinations, in breach of an undertaking he had signed to comply with COVID-19 protocols.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's process was procedurally fair and its decision to impose an interim suspension was reasonable given the risk of harm to patients and the applicant's ungovernability.
Motion to quash judicial review granted; application premature as administrative review process was ongoing.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by a physician regarding decisions of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).
The physician sought judicial review of seven public complaint decisions and one Registrar's investigation decision related to her social media posts about the COVID-19 pandemic.
The College argued the application regarding the public complaints was premature because the physician had also sought review before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).
The court granted the motion to quash the portion of the application relating to the public complaints, finding that the HPARB process provided an adequate alternative remedy and no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing the administrative process.
Motion to quash judicial review granted due to adequate alternative remedy of statutory appeal and excessive delay.
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.
Physician's appeal of license revocation dismissed due to extensive disciplinary history and failure to remediate.
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.
Disclosure of complainant's psychiatric records ordered as essential to make full answer and defence.
The applicant physician faced disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding allegations of sexual abuse by a former patient.
The applicant sought an order under s. 35(9) of the Mental Health Act to permit the disclosure of the patient's psychiatric discharge summary, which he had received in error, to support a third-party records motion before the Discipline Committee.
The College opposed the disclosure, arguing it violated the patient's privacy interests.
The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the records were relevant to the complainant's credibility and reliability, and that disclosure was essential in the interests of justice to allow the applicant to make full answer and defence, with privacy interests protected by a publication ban.
Disclosure of complainant's psychiatric records ordered in disciplinary proceeding to allow physician to make full answer and defence.
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.
