Elisabeth Widner

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario referred allegations of professional misconduct against the registrant, who had been convicted of sexually assaulting two patients and sentenced to periods of incarceration.

The registrant did not contest the facts or the findings of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of patients and conduct unbecoming a physician.

The Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct and, in accordance with a joint submission and statutory requirements, ordered the mandatory penalty of a reprimand and the immediate revocation of his certificate of registration, along with $6,000 in costs to the College.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a neurosurgeon practising pain medicine.

Following an investigation and reassessment, the physician admitted to failing to maintain the standard of practice in his chronic pain practice, including deficient techniques in cervical spine injections that led to a patient's death.

He also admitted to breaching an interim order restricting him from performing certain injections.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and extensive terms, conditions, and limitations on his certificate of registration, including high-level clinical supervision and professional education.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the respondent physician for failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with a patient.

The physician and the patient had previously interacted on an online app before the patient attended a surgical consultation.

Following the appointment, the physician engaged in personal communications with the patient via the app and text messages for several weeks.

Based on uncontested facts, the Tribunal found the physician committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission, the Tribunal ordered a four-month suspension, a reprimand, completion of an ethics course, and costs of $6,000.

The College alleged that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct based on findings by the Collège des médecins du Québec (CMQ).

The Quebec Tribunal found the registrant committed misconduct by advertising and paying for egg donations in contravention of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, and by making disparaging remarks about a colleague.

The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal found that the registrant's actions constituted professional misconduct in Ontario.

Accepting a joint submission, the Tribunal ordered a reprimand, a two-month suspension, ethics training, and costs of $6,000.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his certificate of registration for sexual abuse of a patient and other professional misconduct.

The appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors in its credibility findings, misapprehended evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility determinations were entitled to significant deference, the Committee properly addressed inconsistencies in the evidence, and there was no demonstration of uneven scrutiny.

This appeal concerns the application of a non-publication order under section 486.5(9) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario analyzed the Dagenais/Mentuck/Sherman Estate test for discretionary publication bans, balancing privacy interests against the open court principle.

The court confirmed that the mandatory publication ban under section 486.5(9) applies to information related to the application for the ban itself, and amended the lower court's order to explicitly include this mandatory ban.

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.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed sexual abuse and professional misconduct, and revoking his license.

The Divisional Court upheld findings that he removed patients' clothing without warning and breached a chaperone order.

However, the Court quashed the finding of sexual abuse regarding Patient B due to a flawed credibility assessment and a reversal of the burden of proof.

The Court also quashed a finding of professional misconduct regarding abdominal contact with two other patients because it was an unpleaded allegation.

Finally, the Court held that the mandatory revocation provisions of the Protecting Patients Act, 2017 did not apply retrospectively.

The penalty was substituted with a suspension for the period already served.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court's decision that had overturned a Discipline Committee penalty decision.

The Discipline Committee found that a physician sexually abused four female patients by unnecessarily touching their breasts and nipples during stethoscope examinations, and engaged in inappropriate conduct with a fifth patient.

The Committee imposed a six-month suspension with practice restrictions, supervision requirements, and mandatory training.

The Divisional Court found the penalty manifestly unfit and remitted it for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court failed to properly apply the deferential reasonableness standard of review, instead substituting its own view of the appropriate penalty.

The Court of Appeal restored the Discipline Committee's penalty, finding no inconsistent findings of fact and that the penalty fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.

The appellant physician appealed an eight-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee for professional misconduct.

The appellant had borrowed substantial sums of money from two patients to fund a failed investment and subsequently made a consumer proposal, resulting in significant financial losses for the patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee reasonably considered specific and general deterrence, the appellant's lack of remorse, and the vulnerability of the patients due to shared ethnicity and language.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing a patient and revoking his license.

The appellant argued the defence of officially induced error, abuse of process by the College Registrar, and that the mandatory revocation provisions violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all substantive grounds, finding the sexual relationship was concurrent with the doctor-patient relationship and that the court was bound by Court of Appeal precedent upholding the constitutionality of mandatory revocation.

The court only allowed the appeal in part to vacate an order requiring the appellant to post security for the patient's potential future therapy costs.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons appealed a penalty imposed by its Discipline Committee on a physician found to have sexually abused four female patients and committed unprofessional conduct toward a fifth.

The Committee had imposed a six-month suspension and practice restrictions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the penalty clearly unfit and unreasonable given the gravity of the misconduct, the inconsistent factual findings regarding the physician's intent, and the need for general deterrence to eradicate sexual abuse in the profession.

The penalty was quashed and remitted to the Committee.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding him guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing an adolescent patient in 1979.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, applied a more stringent standard to his evidence, and provided inadequate reasons regarding similar fact evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility assessments were reasonable, there was no unequal scrutiny of evidence, and the Committee clearly explained it did not rely on the similar fact evidence to reach its conclusions.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory ruling made by a coroner at the outset of an inquest into a police shooting.

The ruling limited the scope of cross-examination of two police officers regarding their consultations with counsel prior to making their notes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the basis of prematurity, holding that courts should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings, particularly coroner's inquests, absent exceptional circumstances that would result in a fundamental failing of justice.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for partial summary judgment in an Ontario action seeking to enforce German submissions to compulsory enforcement arising from guarantees of bank loans.

The central issue was whether those instruments were foreign judgments for Ontario limitations purposes or were governed by German substantive law under conflict of laws principles.

The court held the instruments were not German judgments and that German law supplied the applicable 30-year limitation period, with the result that the claims were not statute-barred.

The court also rejected the argument that the motion judge had recast the pleadings and dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding it discriminated against the respondent employee on the basis of gender and reprised against her for asserting her human rights.

The employee had been disciplined for swearing, while male employees were not, and was terminated after refusing to sign a written warning she believed was discriminatory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusions on discrimination, reprisal, and the award of $15,000 in general damages plus six months' lost wages were reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing disciplinary charges against four police officers for failing to make an approved screening device (ASD) demand following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Hearing Officer had ruled that the driver's admission of alcohol consumption was a legally compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act and could not be used to form reasonable suspicion.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found this ruling unreasonable, as there was no evidence the driver subjectively believed he was legally compelled to report the accident.

The Commission revoked the dismissal for the two first-responding officers and remitted the matter for continuation, but confirmed the dismissal for the two later-arriving officers who could not have made a demand 'forthwith'.

The appellant, a woman of colour, sued her former employer for constructive dismissal, alleging racial discrimination.

The motions judge struck paragraphs of her statement of claim that alleged systemic discrimination against employees of colour, holding that only discriminatory acts directed specifically at the appellant could be pleaded.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no principled basis to distinguish between direct discrimination and systemic discrimination for the purpose of pleading discriminatory conduct to support a wrongful dismissal claim.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, revoking his license, and imposing a $25,000 costs award.

The misconduct stemmed from his failure to supervise an EEG clinic where a technician infected numerous patients with Hepatitis B. The Divisional Court upheld the misconduct findings but found the penalty of license revocation unreasonable, as the appellant posed no risk practicing solely as a neurologist.

The court substituted a two-year suspension and a lifetime ban from acting as a medical director, while upholding the costs award.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of proceeds of crime and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Court of Appeal found three significant errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury: failing to properly instruct on the Carter co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, failing to warn the jury about the frailties of eyewitness identification, and failing to instruct the jury to disregard evidence related to a directed verdict of acquittal.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.