Lisa Spiegel

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct regarding his treatment of a patient, including keeping insufficient records, issuing misleading invoices regarding casting methods and lab independence, using an unacceptable foam box casting technique, and failing to provide adequate break-in instructions for orthotics.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension, remedial coursework, 18 months of practice supervision, and $35,000 in costs.

The registrant chiropodist brought a motion for the production of records and communications related to the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) meetings that resulted in the referral of professional misconduct allegations against him.

He argued the disclosure was necessary to support an intended motion to quash the Notice of Hearing based on lack of notice and jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents, including notes and staff recommendations, were protected by deliberative privilege.

The Tribunal further held that the registrant failed to provide evidence to lift the privilege and that the requested documents were not relevant to his intended arguments regarding notice and jurisdiction.

In a professional discipline hearing, the College alleged sexual abuse during a massage therapy appointment, asserting that the registrant touched the client’s arms and hands with his erect penis through clothing.

The tribunal applied the balance of probabilities standard requiring clear, cogent and convincing evidence and undertook a detailed credibility and reliability assessment of the client, the registrant, and the surrounding physical and documentary evidence.

The tribunal found the client credible in sincerity but unreliable in her observation, recall, and description of material events, including treatment details and the alleged physical sensations.

The tribunal accepted the registrant’s evidence and the defence urology expert’s opinion that the alleged contact, as described, was physically implausible.

The allegation was not proven and no finding of professional misconduct was made.

This endorsement addresses a proposed consent order for a class action settlement between the plaintiff and the Sault Area Hospital.

The court convened a teleconference to ensure the order allowed for consideration of written objections from class members.

The order mandates the hospital to provide class member information, followed by notice distribution and a 30-day period for objections.

The court found the proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, weighing the claim's nature, litigation risks and costs, class size, and potential recoveries, with reference to *Jones v. Tsige*.

The order is to take effect 90 days after being made, unless a written objection necessitates a settlement hearing.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for defamation and misfeasance in public office, the successful defendants sought their costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court applied the principles from Apotex and Rule 57.01, noting the serious allegations made, the complexity of the 10-year litigation, and the plaintiff's reasonable expectations.

The court found the defendants' reduced costs requests to be fair and reasonable, ordering the plaintiff to pay $280,000 to one defendant and $250,000 to the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff, a general surgeon, sued the hospital, its chief executive officer, and its chief of staff for defamation and misfeasance in public office after losing his hospital privileges.

The plaintiff alleged that the chief of staff defamed him in a letter and in oral statements, and that the defendants acted in bad faith to oust him from the hospital.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the oral defamatory statements were not proven and that the letter was protected by qualified privilege.

The court held it had jurisdiction to hear the misfeasance claim but dismissed it, finding no evidence of unlawful acts, malice, or improper purpose by the defendants.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

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.

A case conference was held after a scheduled 10-day trial was adjourned due to a lack of judicial resources.

The defendant hospital sought leave to bring motions for partial summary judgment and security for costs.

The court denied leave for the summary judgment motion, noting it should have been brought before the action was set down for trial, and directed that any motion for security for costs proceed through regular channels rather than on an urgent basis.

The court also ordered further discovery on the plaintiff's loss of income claim and directed counsel to select a trial date in 2022, emphasizing the unacceptability of further delaying a 10-year-old case.

The plaintiff physician brought an action against the defendant hospital and individuals for damages arising from a de facto suspension of his hospital privileges and alleged breach of a prior settlement agreement.

The defendants moved to strike the claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the plaintiff had not exhausted his remedies under the Public Hospitals Act (PHA), and on grounds of res judicata and abuse of process.

The court found that while the action was premature because the plaintiff had not exhausted his PHA remedies regarding the de facto suspension, the appropriate remedy was to stay the action rather than strike it.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments on res judicata and abuse of process, but struck certain paragraphs of the statement of claim that made unfounded attacks on the hospital's legal counsel, with leave to amend.

The Member, a registered chiropodist, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to her practice at an orthotic clinic.

Undercover investigators from an insurance company revealed that the Member prescribed orthotics without discussing alternative treatments, participated in a scheme offering free or discounted shoes as an incentive for purchasing orthotics, and submitted insurance claims that failed to disclose the inclusion of shoes.

The Member admitted to the allegations, including failing to meet professional standards, conflict of interest, and submitting misleading accounts.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, an 8-month suspension (reducible to 5 months upon completing an ethics course), a 15-month restriction on orthotics-related practice, practice supervision, and $15,000 in costs.

The Plaintiff brought a motion for directions regarding the continuation of the cross-examination of a Defendant, Dr. Fenton, on his affidavits.

The cross-examination was terminated by the Plaintiff due to alleged persistent interruptions and interference by Defence counsel.

The Plaintiff sought orders for Dr. Fenton to re-attend, for the examination to be video-recorded, and for specific rules of conduct for Defence counsel, along with costs.

The Defendants argued the cross-examination was properly ended and sought costs.

The court found Defence counsel's repetitive commentary obstructive, justifying the termination.

It ordered the continuation of the cross-examination with strict rules for counsel's objections and awarded costs to the Plaintiff.

However, the request for video recording was denied, as it is an exception under the Rules of Civil Procedure and not justified by the circumstances.

The member, an optometrist, faced allegations of professional misconduct for sexually abusing three patients who were also his employees, making inappropriate and sexual comments in patient records, and applying white-out to records to conceal information during a College investigation.

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

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a public reprimand, a four-month suspension, completion of ethics courses, $48,180 in security for patient therapy, and $30,000 in costs.

This decision addresses costs arising from a motion concerning discovery refusals.

The plaintiffs sought answers to 13 questions, succeeding on 3.

The court found success on the motion to be divided and, in the absence of settlement offers, ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The court also clarified that allegations of improper conduct by plaintiffs' counsel, not being determinative of the motion's outcome, would not influence the costs award.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to compel the defendant physician to answer questions refused at her examination for discovery and to re-attend to answer follow-up questions.

The court held that written answers provided by the defendant to some of the refused questions were complete and did not necessitate re-attendance.

However, the court ordered the defendant to provide written answers to questions regarding post-event changes to her charting and diagnostic practices, finding that evidence of subsequent remedial measures is relevant at the discovery stage.

The defendant was also ordered to answer questions regarding conversations with a colleague about the incident.

The appellant anaesthesiologist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he failed to maintain the standard of the profession and engaged in disgraceful conduct following the death of a patient after liposuction surgery.

The Committee revoked his certification and issued a reprimand, finding he failed to recognize the patient's critical condition, lacked insight, and dishonestly altered a resuscitation note.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's factual findings were reasonable, the appellant was not denied procedural fairness, and the penalty of revocation was appropriate given the severity of the misconduct and lack of insight.

The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was suspended for two years followed by indefinite restrictions after a discipline committee found her incompetent following a patient's death during liposuction, brought a motion to stay the penalty order pending her appeal.

She sought to perform non-surgical cosmetic procedures in the interim.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test and dismissed the motion.

While the appeal raised a serious issue, the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm, as financial loss alone is insufficient.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the court found that allowing the moving party to perform or supervise controlled acts would pose a risk to public safety and undermine public confidence in the medical profession's regulatory process.

The appellant physicians, who performed cosmetic surgery without formal surgical residency, were investigated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for potential professional misconduct or incompetence.

The College sought to have investigators observe their surgical practices, which the appellants refused, arguing the governing legislation did not authorize compelled observation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the power to 'inquire into and examine the practice' under s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code encompasses the direct observation of a member's practice, particularly to protect the public interest.

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 moving parties, three doctors practising cosmetic surgery, sought a stay pending appeal of a Divisional Court decision that permitted the College of Physicians and Surgeons to compel observation of their surgeries as part of a professional misconduct investigation.

The Court of Appeal granted the stay, finding that the appeal raised a serious issue, the doctors would suffer irreparable harm from the intrusive nature of the observations, and the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the lack of urgency and the College's prior acquiescence.

The applicants, physicians under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, brought applications for judicial review challenging the scope of investigators' powers under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

They argued that investigators could not compel them to submit to interviews or allow observation of their surgical practices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that the statutory power to 'inquire into and examine the practice' includes the power to observe surgeries, and the incorporation of the Public Inquiries Act grants investigators the power to compel interviews.

The court also dismissed as premature the challenge to the Registrar's decision that there were reasonable and probable grounds to initiate the investigations.