Michael B. Fraleigh

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the hospital's decisions not to renew her reappointment applications and to revoke her privileges due to a long-standing pattern of communication issues and interpersonal conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB did not misapprehend the evidence and appropriately analyzed the criteria for non-renewal and revocation under the hospital's by-laws and the Public Hospitals Act.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a decision upholding sanctions for research misconduct, which prohibited him from conducting research as a principal investigator, applying for grants, and permanently closed his research laboratory.

The applicant argued the decision failed to consider mitigating factors, including his unblemished record and status as a world-renowned researcher.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable given the systemic and persistent nature of the misconduct over a ten-year period.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included submitting improper OHIP claims using a retired physician's billing number, providing inadequate counselling and follow-up care for FM systems, and failing to maintain accurate patient records.

The Member pleaded no contest to the agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and $10,000 in costs, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the scope and intentionality of the improper billing scheme.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included submitting improper OHIP claims using a retired physician's billing number, providing inadequate counselling and follow-up care for FM systems, and failing to maintain accurate patient records.

The Member pleaded no contest to the agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and $10,000 in costs, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the scope and intentionality of the improper billing scheme.

The applicants, two cancer researchers, sought judicial review of two decisions by the respondent hospital network regarding findings of research misconduct.

The first decision upheld a reconsidered sanction suspending their research activities after an earlier court decision remitted the matter.

The second decision permanently closed their laboratory following a second investigation committee's finding of material non-compliance with accepted standards due to image manipulation and falsification in published papers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions and sanctions reasonable, the reasons adequate, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

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.

On a Rule 21 and Rule 25.11 motion, the court struck the amended claims against individual university faculty and administrators arising from a medical residency dispute, while allowing the action to continue primarily against the university.

Applying the employee-liability framework from Peoples Jewellers and the jurisprudence on non-justiciable academic discretion, the court held that the amended pleading still failed to allege tortious conduct undertaken in a personal capacity separate from the university.

The court also held that most conspiracy allegations were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that claims framed as negligence, negligent misrepresentation, inducing breach of contract, and interference with economic relations were inadequately pleaded.

Leave to amend was denied as against the individual defendants, but limited leave was granted regarding certain struck claims against the university.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties.

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.

A physician plaintiff sued another physician and related institutions for negligence and false imprisonment after being involuntarily detained for psychiatric assessment under a Form 1 pursuant to the Mental Health Act.

The court held that the defendant physician breached the standard of care by failing to conduct a proper personal examination and by relying on unreliable third‑party information before completing the Form 1.

The improper completion of the Form 1 meant the resulting detention was unauthorized and constituted false imprisonment.

The plaintiff established compensable psychiatric injury and economic loss caused by the negligent and unlawful detention.

The court awarded general damages and reduced income loss but denied punitive damages and prevented double recovery between the negligence and false imprisonment claims.

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 physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a written caution issued by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to the applicant's conduct in requiring a female patient to disrobe in front of him without a gown or third party present during an independent medical examination for a fibromyalgia disability claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board and Committee acted reasonably in issuing the caution, which was advisory rather than punitive, and that a two-year delay in the Board's decision did not cause significant prejudice.

Four physicians appealed the dismissal of their action against a hospital regarding a reduction in their operating room allocation.

The motion judge had dismissed the action against the hospital, finding the court lacked jurisdiction as the matter fell under the statutory review regime of the Public Hospitals Act, but allowed the action to continue against the hospital's CEO.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the physicians' appeal and allowed the CEO's cross-appeal, concluding that the dispute over operating room access was a matter of hospital privileges governed by the Act, and that the pleadings failed to allege any personal wrongdoing by the CEO.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after initiating magazine subscriptions in the name of a complainant whose previous complaint against the member had been dismissed.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty.

During the penalty phase, the panel denied a request for standing from the complainant's counsel.

The panel also rejected a joint submission on penalty that proposed withholding the member's name from the public register, finding that publication was necessary for general deterrence and public accountability.

The member was reprimanded, ordered to pay $1,500 in costs, and her name was published.

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.