Sarah Martens

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found the registrant guilty of professional misconduct after admissions and an agreed statement of facts established a personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable client during and after the therapeutic relationship, together with boundary breaches, concealment, dishonesty, and retaliatory conduct toward colleagues.

The panel held that the conduct contravened multiple provisions of the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the profession’s standards, including the prohibition on sexual abuse of a client.

A publication ban protecting the client’s identity was granted under s. 28(7).

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and ordered a reprimand, revocation, a five-year bar on reapplication, publication of the order with the registrant’s identifying information, and $5,000 in costs.

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe and permanent brachial plexus injury during birth after encountering shoulder dystocia.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against the delivering obstetrician, alleging he applied excessive downward traction.

The defendant argued the injury was caused by maternal propulsive forces.

The court found that the defendant breached the standard of care by applying more than gentle downward traction, which caused the injury.

The court awarded $811,564 in total damages, including non-pecuniary damages, future care costs, future loss of income, and Family Law Act damages for the family.

The applicant, a dentist, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had upheld a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario requiring the applicant to appear for a caution and complete a remediation program regarding record-keeping, informed consent, and case work-up.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused further written submissions after the matter was remitted by the Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decision was reasonable.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add 17 individual employees of a long-term care home as defendants in a personal injury action.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike the pleadings against the individual employees, arguing the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against them personally.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to add the defendants, finding no non-compensable prejudice or abuse of process.

However, the court also granted the defendants' cross-motion to strike the pleadings against the individual employees because the statement of claim lumped them together without specifying the material facts of each individual's alleged negligence.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the pleadings to cure the deficiencies.

A medical malpractice action arising from the treatment of a young patient presenting with neurological symptoms at a rural hospital.

The physician failed to recognize the possibility of stroke, lowered the patient’s blood pressure aggressively, and delayed consultation with a tertiary neurology centre.

The court held that the physician breached the standard of care by failing to include stroke in the differential diagnosis, lowering blood pressure despite neurological signs, and delaying transfer for specialist assessment.

Applying the “but for” causation test from Clements v. Clements, the court found that the precipitous blood pressure reduction and delayed administration of heparin promoted clot formation which caused the catastrophic stroke.

The plaintiffs established causation on a balance of probabilities and were awarded damages.