Marc Flisfeder

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the respondent physician for failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with a patient.

The physician and the patient had previously interacted on an online app before the patient attended a surgical consultation.

Following the appointment, the physician engaged in personal communications with the patient via the app and text messages for several weeks.

Based on uncontested facts, the Tribunal found the physician committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission, the Tribunal ordered a four-month suspension, a reprimand, completion of an ethics course, and costs of $6,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision upholding the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against his ophthalmologist.

The applicant suffered a rare complication following cataract surgery, resulting in loss of sight in his left eye.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's investigation was adequate and the HPARB's decision was reasonable, noting that the ICRC's mandate is to screen complaints, not to determine civil liability or causation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a College committee's decision regarding an emergency physician's conduct.

The physician had begun completing a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act after the applicant staged a suicide attempt, but stopped when the applicant admitted it was faked.

The applicant sought the unconditional removal of the incomplete Form 1 from his hospital chart.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as the Personal Health Information Protection Act does not grant patients the right to demand the destruction of their medical records.

In a motor vehicle personal injury action, the plaintiff sought an order compelling the tortfeasor’s insurer, added as a statutory third party after denying coverage, to answer written interrogatories and deliver an affidavit of documents explaining the basis for its denial of coverage.

The information was sought to determine whether the insurer’s liability was reduced to the statutory minimum by operation of law, which would affect the plaintiff’s entitlement to underinsured coverage under the OPCF 44R endorsement from his own insurer.

The court held that the facts underlying the denial of coverage were relevant to the plaintiff’s claim for underinsured motorist coverage and fell within the rationale of Rule 31.06(4) concerning disclosure of insurance and conditions affecting its availability.

The statutory third party insurer could not refuse discovery wholesale on the basis of privity or potential prejudice, though it could raise privilege or prejudice objections on a question‑by‑question basis.

The court ordered the insurer to answer the interrogatories and produce a sworn affidavit of documents.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate decision upholding an Arbitrator's finding that the respondent suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The respondent had recorded a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 several days after a motor vehicle accident, which the insurer argued was confounded by medication and other injuries rather than brain impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review is reasonableness and that the SABS regulation uses the GCS score as a proxy measurement without requiring an inquiry into the patient's prognosis or the specific cause of the lowered score.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the respondent insured sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator found the respondent met the definition under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule based on a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 recorded four days post-accident.

The insurer argued the score was invalid due to consciousness-lowering drugs and was not taken within a reasonable time.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the definition of catastrophic impairment is a legal test, not a medical one, and does not require excluding confounding factors.

The Delegate found no error in the arbitrator's conclusion that the GCS score resulted from a brain impairment and was taken within a reasonable time.

The appellant insurer sought to appeal a preliminary arbitration order which found that the respondent insured had sustained a catastrophic impairment based on Glasgow Coma Scale scores.

The Director's Delegate declined to exercise discretion to hear the appeal at this time, noting that the issues raised were not novel and that hearing the appeal would prejudice the respondent by delaying the final substantive arbitration hearing scheduled for two months later.

The appeal was rejected without prejudice to it being raised after all issues in dispute have been finally decided.