Lindsay Kantor

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order requiring the defendants to serve a further and better affidavit of documents in an action arising from the alleged breach of an agreement for the sale of a medical practice.

The defendants opposed, arguing the requested documents were irrelevant, disproportionate, and that the motion should be refused due to the lack of a discovery plan under Rule 29.1.05(1).

The court found the requested OHIP billing sheets, reconciliations, and bank statements were relevant to the pleadings and ordered their production, awarding costs to the plaintiffs.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted allegations involving sexual impropriety with a patient who was also an employee, and longstanding sexual harassment and degrading conduct toward staff in a dental practice.

The panel found professional misconduct proven on the member’s admissions and the agreed statement of facts.

Applying the public-interest standard governing joint submissions on sanction, the panel accepted a joint submission for reprimand, immediate revocation of the certificate of registration, and $10,000 in costs.

The panel held that revocation was necessary for public protection, denunciation, deterrence, and maintenance of public confidence in the profession.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) suspending his licence without a hearing.

The suspension followed criminal charges in Florida for indecent exposure.

The Divisional Court quashed the suspension, finding the ICRC's decision unreasonable because there was no evidence that the applicant's conduct was likely to expose his patients to harm, the ICRC improperly relied on a 1994 complaint, and it failed to provide reasons for rejecting uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence and the applicant's offer of a monitoring term.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a requirement that he be cautioned in person regarding his advertising practices.

The complaints committee found that the applicant's advertisements for weight loss clinics did not constitute 'the member's medical services' under the regulations, as he had no therapeutic relationship with the patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee's interpretation of its own regulations to be reasonable and declining to address a newly raised Charter challenge due to the lack of an evidentiary record.

The appellant pharmacist challenged the constitutional validity of the mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code after engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a patient.

He argued the provisions intruded into federal criminal law jurisdiction by regulating morality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions are in pith and substance the regulation of health care professionals under provincial jurisdiction, aimed at protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the professional-patient relationship.

Following a defamation trial where the plaintiff was awarded $10,000 in general damages, both parties sought costs.

The plaintiffs claimed over $417,000 in substantial indemnity costs, while the defendant sought over $165,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court noted the exorbitant legal fees incurred by both sides, totaling nearly $800,000, and emphasized the principle of proportionality.

Considering the plaintiff's modest success, the failure to move the action to the simplified procedure, and the defendant's mixed success in defending the claims, the court concluded that the outcome was close to a draw.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicants, two bariatric surgeons, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding cautions issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The cautions were issued after the applicants' names and photographs appeared in an advertisement for their employer on a third-party website, contrary to the Advertising Regulation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the applicants failed to show they took reasonable steps to prevent the improper advertising.

In a defamation action between competing physicians operating weight-loss practices, the plaintiffs challenged statements in a diet book, website extracts, and a television interview criticizing the plaintiff physician's diet program.

The court held that most of the impugned comments were expressions of opinion on a matter of public interest and were protected by fair comment, but found liability for comments implying false claims about metabolism-boosting injections and for remarks in a Cantonese television interview disparaging the plaintiff's medical role.

Responsible communication was found inapplicable, and justification was not established absent expert evidence.

General damages of $10,000 were awarded to the individual plaintiff only, with no aggravated or punitive damages.

A pharmacist challenged the constitutionality of mandatory licence revocation provisions under the Health Professions Procedural Code after pleading guilty to sexual abuse of a patient based on a consensual sexual relationship.

The applicant argued the provisions were ultra vires the province because, in pith and substance, they regulated sexual morality and therefore fell within Parliament’s criminal law power.

The Superior Court held that the dominant purpose of the provisions was the protection of the public through the regulation of professional standards governing health care practitioners.

The provisions were therefore within the province’s jurisdiction over property and civil rights under s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court also held the Attorney General was estopped from challenging the court’s jurisdiction because the issue had already been determined in earlier proceedings.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee dismissing a motion to reconsider its order suspending the mandatory revocation of the respondent pharmacist's certificate of registration for sexual abuse.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction to suspend a mandatory revocation under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court held that the Committee's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable.

The Court found that the mandatory revocation provision did not preclude the Committee from exercising its general power to suspend penalty orders.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Attorney General moved under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a motion judge's order refusing to consolidate a pharmacist's constitutional challenge in the Superior Court with his professional misconduct appeal in the Divisional Court.

The Attorney General sought to have the consolidated proceeding stayed and the constitutional issue remitted to the College's Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law and no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that exceptional circumstances justified allowing the constitutional challenge to proceed in the Superior Court, particularly given the Discipline Committee's inability to grant a general declaration of invalidity.

The applicants, pharmacists facing discipline proceedings, sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Discipline Committee denying their motion for extensive disclosure of third-party medical and billing records.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the application, finding it premature.

The court reiterated that judicial review of interlocutory administrative decisions is only available in exceptional circumstances or where jurisdiction is irretrievably lost.

Finding no denial of natural justice and noting that extensive disclosure had already been provided, the court quashed the application.

The applicants, facing discipline proceedings before the Ontario College of Pharmacists, brought a motion seeking production of Third Party Records in advance of a pending judicial review application.

The Discipline Committee had previously dismissed their motion for disclosure at the first stage of the O'Connor and Mills test, finding the records were not likely relevant.

The applicants argued the records were necessary for the court to properly analyze the production issue on judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the issue on judicial review is whether the Tribunal erred in law at the first stage of the analysis, and examining the records beforehand would usurp the Tribunal's function.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed two decisions of its Discipline Committee acquitting a veterinarian of various allegations of professional misconduct, including animal abuse, misdiagnosis, and inappropriate comments.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee's reasons were woefully inadequate, failed to address material evidence, contained inconsistent findings, and were ultimately unreasonable.

The matters were remitted to a differently constituted panel for new hearings.