Michael Fraleigh

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the hospital's decisions not to renew her reappointment applications and to revoke her privileges due to a long-standing pattern of communication issues and interpersonal conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB did not misapprehend the evidence and appropriately analyzed the criteria for non-renewal and revocation under the hospital's by-laws and the Public Hospitals Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision upholding sanctions for research misconduct, which prohibited him from conducting research as a principal investigator, applying for grants, and permanently closed his research laboratory.

The applicant argued the decision failed to consider mitigating factors, including his unblemished record and status as a world-renowned researcher.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable given the systemic and persistent nature of the misconduct over a ten-year period.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included submitting improper OHIP claims using a retired physician's billing number, providing inadequate counselling and follow-up care for FM systems, and failing to maintain accurate patient records.

The Member pleaded no contest to the agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and $10,000 in costs, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the scope and intentionality of the improper billing scheme.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against the Member for professional misconduct.

The allegations included submitting improper OHIP claims using a retired physician's billing number, providing inadequate counselling and follow-up care for FM systems, and failing to maintain accurate patient records.

The Member pleaded no contest to the agreed statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, a public reprimand, and $10,000 in costs, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the scope and intentionality of the improper billing scheme.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a written caution issued by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to the applicant's conduct in requiring a female patient to disrobe in front of him without a gown or third party present during an independent medical examination for a fibromyalgia disability claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board and Committee acted reasonably in issuing the caution, which was advisory rather than punitive, and that a two-year delay in the Board's decision did not cause significant prejudice.

Four physicians appealed the dismissal of their action against a hospital regarding a reduction in their operating room allocation.

The motion judge had dismissed the action against the hospital, finding the court lacked jurisdiction as the matter fell under the statutory review regime of the Public Hospitals Act, but allowed the action to continue against the hospital's CEO.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the physicians' appeal and allowed the CEO's cross-appeal, concluding that the dispute over operating room access was a matter of hospital privileges governed by the Act, and that the pleadings failed to allege any personal wrongdoing by the CEO.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after initiating magazine subscriptions in the name of a complainant whose previous complaint against the member had been dismissed.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty.

During the penalty phase, the panel denied a request for standing from the complainant's counsel.

The panel also rejected a joint submission on penalty that proposed withholding the member's name from the public register, finding that publication was necessary for general deterrence and public accountability.

The member was reprimanded, ordered to pay $1,500 in costs, and her name was published.