Kara Smith

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.

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.

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.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled and rescheduled at the applicant's request to July 5, 2016.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing by telephone conference.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant later emailed acknowledging he missed the hearing but provided no explanation.

The Tribunal found no basis to reconsider the dismissal.

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.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because she was hospitalized with medical issues.

The respondent objected, citing prejudice due to cancelled patient appointments.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant's hospitalization constituted exceptional circumstances under its Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an adjournment, permission to record the hearing, and an order requiring the respondent to explain the relevancy of medical documents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request as there were no extraordinary circumstances.

The request regarding medical documents was denied at this stage, without prejudice to raising it at the hearing.

The applicant was granted permission to record the hearing in accordance with the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as untimely.

The applicant admitted the delay but claimed it was due to stress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical or other evidence to establish that her stress rendered her incapable of filing within the statutory time limit.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to medical services by several doctors based on race, colour, ethnic origin, disability, creed, sex, and marital status.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant acknowledged having no personal knowledge of the alleged discriminatory comments and relied solely on assumptions.

Finding no evidence to support the allegations, the Tribunal dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.