Michael B. Fraleigh

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Review and Appeal Board (HPARB) confirming the revocation of her hospital privileges by the respondent hospital.

The revocation was based on a long-standing pattern of unprofessional conduct, inability to collaborate with colleagues, and failure to improve, which jeopardized patient safety.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB's factual and credibility findings were firmly grounded in the evidence and that it correctly applied the test under the Public Hospitals Act and hospital by-laws.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought discipline proceedings against a registered nurse who assessed a heavily intoxicated patient in the back of a police vehicle rather than bringing the patient into the remote nursing station.

The nurse failed to conduct an adequate assessment and inappropriately sent the patient to the police station for monitoring.

The patient later died of natural causes.

Proceeding by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts, the Discipline Committee found the nurse committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, noting the nurse had already undertaken to permanently resign from the profession.

The appellant, a former medical resident, appealed an order striking her conspiracy claim against two individual defendants as time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in applying the presumption of knowledge under s. 5(2) of the Act before the issue of discoverability was properly developed in the pleadings.

The Court held that a limitation defence should generally be pleaded in a statement of defence, allowing the plaintiff to reply with facts regarding discoverability, rather than being determined on a motion to strike prior to the filing of a defence.

The appellant massage therapist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee Panel finding him guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Panel's decision was unreasonable because its credibility assessment of the complainant and the appellant was fundamentally flawed, incomplete, and lacked transparency.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The appellant, a medical doctor dismissed from a residency program, sued the university and several faculty members for various torts including conspiracy and intimidation.

The motion judge struck all claims against the individual respondents and the intimidation claim against the university, denying leave to amend.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the claims, finding the pleadings failed to distinguish individual acts from corporate acts or plead the essential elements of the torts.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, granting the appellant leave to amend her statement of claim since no prior amendments had been made and the motion judge provided no reasons for denying leave.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a decision of the Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had decided not to refer a patient's complaint to discipline, but instead cautioned the applicant and required him to take an educational program on patient communication after he insisted on a written apology from a patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable regarding the adequacy of the investigation, the characterization of the applicant's conduct, and the consideration of his prior complaints history.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for making false statements to his disability insurers regarding his capacity to work.

The Committee had suspended his certificate of registration for six months.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's conclusions were reasonable, supported by ample evidence, and that the penalty fell within the range of reasonableness.

The applicant, an anesthesiologist, sought judicial review of an interim order made by the respondent's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee that effectively shut down his practice following a patient's death.

The court found that the Committee's decision to issue the interim order was unreasonable because there was no evidence of probable harm to future patients, only speculation based on a single incident.

Furthermore, the court held that the Committee breached procedural fairness by relying on undisclosed materials and improperly considered evidence protected under the Evidence Act.

The application was allowed and the interim order was quashed.

The applicant employer referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent union violated the no-strike provision of their collective agreement.

The employer claimed that the union president instigated work stoppages at multiple construction sites after the employer's president refused to provide him with an unsecured personal loan.

The Board found that union representatives, acting on the president's instructions, directed employees to cease working, constituting an illegal strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board granted a declaration that the union violated the collective agreement and ordered the union to compensate the employer for all resulting losses, including wages paid to employees for hours not worked during the stoppages.