Tracey Tremayne-Lloyd

The applicant physician moved for an urgent interim injunction to stay the revocation of his hospital privileges pending judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The court applied the modified RJR-MacDonald test and found that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the statutory provisions relied upon applied to reappointment rather than mid-term revocation.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent hospital.

The applicant, a physician, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

On preliminary motions, the applicant sought to introduce additional evidence consisting of a summary of the underlying committee decision posted on the College's website.

The Board sought to add the complainant as a party and to seal portions of the record containing the applicant's conduct profile.

The court granted all motions, allowing the additional evidence as context for the judicial review, adding the complainant as a necessary party, and sealing the conduct profile to maintain the integrity of the Board's process.

The College of Optometrists of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent for failing to diagnose, monitor, record, and refer a patient with an iris nevus that was later diagnosed as an iris melanoma.

The respondent pled guilty to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the respondent committed professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, a practice coaching program, and $7,500 in costs.

The College alleged that the members committed professional misconduct by charging an excessive fee for a traditional Chinese medicine remedy containing rhinoceros horn and by engaging in conduct unbecoming a practitioner.

The members admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the members guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a two-month suspension (which could be remitted upon completion of coursework), a public reprimand, and $4,000 in costs.

The College of Optometrists of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against Dr. Anthony Angelone for failing to maintain the standard of practice in his care of sixteen pediatric patients between 2009 and 2014.

The member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging failures to properly diagnose and treat conditions such as amblyopia and refractive errors.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee also accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, $10,000 in costs, mandatory continuing education, and a condition restricting the member from treating children eight years of age and under until the successful completion of a mentorship program.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his medical license and a costs order of $95,812 imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons for sexual misconduct involving three young boys.

The appellant, joined by intervenors, also challenged the constitutionality of the College investigator's summons power under s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, arguing it violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the summons power was constitutional in the regulatory context, the Committee had jurisdiction to hear the Charter challenge, and the delay in proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Court upheld the Committee's factual findings, penalty, and costs order as reasonable.

Following a request for clarification and further submissions respecting costs in relation to an initial disciplinary hearing, the Court of Appeal ordered that the costs for that hearing be reserved to the Tribunal presiding over the re-hearing.

The parties made written submissions regarding costs following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal determined that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity scale rather than an elevated scale.

The court awarded the respondent a total of $61,000 in costs, which included amounts for proceedings before the professional discipline appeal panel, the lower court stay motion, the lower court appeal, and the appellate proceedings, after setting off a previous costs award in favour of the appellant.

The appellant physician sought a stay of the College's Discipline Committee penalty revoking his licence to practice pending his appeal.

The penalty was based on findings of historic sexual misconduct.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the appellant's practice and income, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the historic nature of the complaints and the success of interim practice restrictions.

The motion for a stay was granted on conditions.

The Law Society and the respondent lawyer brought separate appeals from a Divisional Court decision that set aside a Law Society Appeal Panel's order upholding a finding of professional misconduct and disbarment.

The Divisional Court had remitted the matter to a new hearing panel due to breaches of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

It held that the Hearing Panel breached natural justice by refusing a brief adjournment to allow the lawyer to be represented by counsel, and by proceeding immediately to the penalty phase without adequate notice.

The Court also upheld the Divisional Court's refusal to stay the proceedings for undue delay, binding the new hearing panel to the original findings on delay up to the start of the first hearing.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim order made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario restricting her cosmetic surgery practice pending a disciplinary hearing.

The order was issued after investigations into patient complaints, including one patient death following a liposuction procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the College's decision was reasonable, supported by ample evidence of risk to patient safety, and did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel upholding a Hearing Panel's finding of professional misconduct and order for disbarment.

The appellant argued that the proceedings should have been stayed for delay, and that the Hearing Panel breached natural justice by refusing an adjournment and proceeding to the penalty phase without adequate notice.

The Divisional Court held that the decision not to stay for delay was reasonable.

However, the court found that the Hearing Panel breached natural justice by refusing a brief adjournment when the appellant's counsel had a scheduling conflict, forcing the appellant to proceed unrepresented.

The court also found a clear breach of natural justice in proceeding to the penalty phase with less than 24 hours' notice.

The findings of misconduct and penalty were set aside, and a new hearing was ordered.

The appellant brought a motion to stay the execution of his disbarment by the Law Society of Upper Canada pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appellant argued that he was denied procedural fairness when the Law Society refused an adjournment and proceeded with the hearing in the absence of his newly retained counsel.

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness, that the appellant would suffer irreparable harm if disbarred before the appeal, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which revoked his certificate of registration for sexual abuse and professional misconduct.

The appellant argued for a 'spousal exemption' to the sexual abuse provisions and claimed the legislation was applied retroactively.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the concurrent doctor-patient and sexual relationships met the definition of sexual abuse, no spousal exemption existed, and the legislation was not applied retroactively.