Michelle Gibbs

International medical graduates appealed the dismissal of their breach of contract action against the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

The appellants sought a declaration that they had passed the Royal College's 2020 qualifying psychiatry exam and were entitled to certification for independent practice.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the Royal College's 6.5% downward adjustment of exam scores was psychometrically justified.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because she failed to meaningfully engage with contradictory expert evidence, did not address the breach of contract claim, and did not analyze whether the parties had entered into an enforceable contract or whether the Royal College breached its duty of good faith performance.

The appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered.

The member, a registered nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for accessing the electronic medical records of 23 patients without authorization or clinical purpose over a nearly two-year period.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the member's conduct breached privacy standards and was dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a three-month suspension, an oral reprimand, regulatory education, and a 12-month period of employer notification with random audits.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to participate in the College's Quality Assurance Program in 2021 and 2022.

The Member ignored multiple communications from the College, citing a fear of computer viruses.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts where the Member admitted to the allegations.

The Committee also accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a penalty that included an oral reprimand, a one-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and a requirement to meet with a Regulatory Expert.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse who owned and operated a medical spa.

The Member admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain adequate documentation for 16 patients, including failing to include his signature and professional designation, and failing to clearly identify who performed assessments.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims for physiotherapy services under his employer's benefit plan totaling at least $13,940 over an eight-year period.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Member was found guilty of professional misconduct, including misappropriating property, falsifying records, and engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The penalty included an oral reprimand, a four-month suspension of his certificate of registration, and terms requiring meetings with a Regulatory Expert and employer notification for 12 months.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a registered nurse for making racist and offensive comments about a physician colleague and patients.

The member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct, noting the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional.

Pursuant to a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, noting the member had already signed an undertaking to permanently resign from the College.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $59,338.05 plus disbursements.

The plaintiff objected, arguing the amount was excessive compared to his own costs.

The court found the defendant's costs reasonable given the complexity and lengthy factual history of the matter, noting it is easier to make unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith than to refute them.

Costs were fixed at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff physician sued the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental distress after his medical license was revoked.

The College moved for summary judgment or to strike the claim.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding that the plaintiff's claims were incapable of proof due to the absolute bar on admitting College proceeding records under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

Furthermore, the College and its committees were protected by absolute privilege, judicial immunity, and statutory good faith immunity under s. 38 of the Act.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims to her employer's benefit plan between 2014 and 2016.

The Member submitted claims for orthotics and support stockings but instead received store credits used for non-therapeutic products, misappropriating $2,150.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Member was reprimanded, her certificate of registration was suspended for three months, and conditions were imposed on her practice.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims under her employer's group benefit plan between 2015 and 2017.

The Member submitted claims for massage therapy and shoe modifications that were not received, obtaining store credit for non-orthopaedic shoes instead.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Member was ordered to receive an oral reprimand, serve a 3-month suspension, attend meetings with a Regulatory Expert, and notify her employers of the decision for 12 months.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for default judgment against a former employee for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit.

The employee had falsified environmental site assessment reports and records over a three-year period.

The court granted default judgment, finding the employee's conduct constituted wilful misconduct.

The court awarded $629,226 in pecuniary damages for remediation, third-party fees, settlements, and fines, along with $50,000 in damages at large for loss of reputation, $20,000 in punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for repeatedly sending patients' personal health information via unsecure standard email, accessing a patient's financial information without consent, and storing confidential patient information on an unsecure, unencrypted USB drive for several years.

The Member also posted an unauthorized memo that contradicted management's infection control instructions.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and imposed terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration, including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The appellant optometrist appealed a decision of the College's discipline committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for the sexual abuse of a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a new hearing, finding that the discipline committee made palpable and overriding errors in its credibility assessments.

Specifically, the committee subjected the appellant's evidence to a higher standard of scrutiny than the complainant's evidence, resulting in an unfair proceeding.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for posting a client's personal health information and making inappropriate and threatening comments towards the client's family members on a public Facebook page.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by breaching confidentiality and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration, including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their summary judgment motion on the basis that the respondent's action was time-barred under the Limitations Act.

The respondent had commenced an action for dental work defects after initially pursuing a consensual resolution with the appellants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the appellants refused the respondent's request for repairs at no cost, as the respondent had reasonably relied on the appellants' ameliorative efforts to resolve the dispute without litigation.

The plaintiff brought a dental malpractice action against the defendants for defective implant surgery and dentures.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court applied the subjective and modified objective tests for discoverability and found that the plaintiff did not discover that a legal proceeding would be an appropriate remedy until the defendants refused to repair his dentures at no cost.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Following a successful motion under Rules 20 and 21 resulting in the summary dismissal of an action, the moving defendants sought costs against the plaintiff.

The court considered the complexity of the issues, including arguments under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 and the Health Professions Procedural Code concerning the regulatory authority of the professional college.

The court found the hours and rates of counsel generally reasonable but reduced the bill to account for duplication between two lawyers and travel time.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed with additional HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the total amount within 30 days.

The moving parties sought to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b), dismiss the action as an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), or obtain summary judgment under Rule 20.

The claim alleged that a medical regulatory body conducted a bad‑faith investigation into physicians working at the plaintiff’s clinic, causing economic loss.

The court held the pleading was sufficient to allege misfeasance in public office, though not intentional interference with economic relations.

However, on the summary judgment record the plaintiff produced virtually no evidence establishing unlawful conduct or bad faith.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for practising as a registered nurse while her certificate of registration was suspended, falsifying records, and failing to comply with a previous discipline order.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, including disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration and an oral reprimand.

The applicant brought a motion to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed his motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of his appeal for delay.

The underlying action was a claim for damages against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding its investigation of a complaint against his former physician, which had been struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the single judge's decision, agreeing that the appeal had no merit.

The motion for review was dismissed with costs.