Michelle Gibbs

The applicant, an elderly woman, alleged that an investigator for the College of Physicians and Surgeons discriminated against her on the basis of disability by refusing to allow her to file a complaint against a doctor.

The investigator had sought consent for the release of medical records from the applicant's daughter, acting as substitute decision-maker, because the applicant was unresponsive.

The Tribunal found that the investigator did not refuse to accept a complaint from the applicant because of her disability, but rather reasonably understood that the daughter was the complainant and required consent to access medical information.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the College of Physicians and Surgeons discriminated against her on the basis of disability by refusing to accept her complaints against two doctors.

The College sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing, arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success due to statutory immunity and the inadmissibility of its records under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegation regarding the first doctor, finding that the necessary documents would be inadmissible.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding the second doctor to proceed, as the applicant intended to rely on oral testimony about an investigator's statements, which is not barred by the Act.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for practising as a registered nurse while her certificate of registration was suspended, falsifying records, and failing to comply with a previous discipline order.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, including disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration and an oral reprimand.

The applicant brought a motion to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed his motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of his appeal for delay.

The underlying action was a claim for damages against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding its investigation of a complaint against his former physician, which had been struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the single judge's decision, agreeing that the appeal had no merit.

The motion for review was dismissed with costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment against the respondent, who was in-house counsel for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The respondent had sent a letter asserting that evidence from a College discipline hearing could not be used in the applicant's separate human rights application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the alleged retaliation was not related to the enforcement of human rights, and the relationship between the parties did not fall within a protected social area under the Code.

The applicant filed nine human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisals by the respondents for incidents occurring between 1992 and 1998, and between 2012 and 2013.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the 1992-1998 incidents, finding the 14-year delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations regarding the 2012-2013 incidents, finding the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the alleged incidents to a prohibited ground of discrimination, meaning there was no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, an American-trained psychiatrist recognized as a specialist by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), alleged that the CPSO's public register discriminated against him on the basis of place of origin.

The register distinguishes between specialists certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) and those recognized by the CPSO.

The applicant argued this distinction devalues CPSO specialists, who are predominantly foreign-trained.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the distinction on the register resulted in any adverse treatment or disadvantage to the applicant.

Following a prior decision striking the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim in its entirety without leave to amend, several successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered the governing principles for costs awards, including the requirement that costs be fair and reasonable and the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the defendants sought higher partial indemnity amounts, the court exercised discretion to reduce the awards.

The court ordered the self-represented plaintiff to pay fixed costs to multiple defendants reflecting their success on the motions while ensuring the amounts were reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant, a physician, filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding its inquiry into his capacity to practise medicine and the denial of his certificate of registration.

The applicant had previously commenced a civil action against the College based on the same facts, which was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code barred the applications because the civil court had already finally determined the issue of whether the applicant's rights were infringed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's reprisal allegation for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff’s Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim alleging fraud, negligence, defamation, breach of contract, and numerous other causes of action arising from a physician assessment and subsequent complaints to the professional regulator and review board.

The court held that the pleading failed to set out material facts supporting the alleged causes of action and instead consisted largely of bald allegations and inflammatory assertions.

Claims relying on materials from professional discipline proceedings were barred by s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and the regulatory bodies and their officials were protected by statutory immunity absent properly pleaded bad faith.

The court also found the claim constituted an improper collateral attack on the outcomes of the regulatory complaint and review process.

The entire claim was struck without leave to amend.

The defendant regulatory body brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim alleging damages arising from the regulator’s handling of a complaint against a physician.

The plaintiff sought $18 million and alleged the regulator failed to properly investigate the complaint and lacked transparency in its investigative process.

The court held that the claim was barred by statutory immunity under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 and by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity applicable to quasi‑judicial regulatory functions.

The court also found that the regulator owed no individual duty of care to the plaintiff and could not be vicariously liable for the conduct of its members.

Concluding it was plain and obvious the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, the court struck the Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim under Rules 21 and 25.

The plaintiff, who had several actions assigned for case management and faced a pending vexatious litigant motion, failed to appear at the hearing.

The court granted the motion to strike on three grounds: the evidence relied upon was inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991; there was no allegation of bad faith to overcome immunity under section 38; and no duty of care was pleaded.

The claim was struck without leave to amend, and costs of $8,000 were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking default judgment and to strike the defendant’s defence.

The defendant brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the claim without leave to amend.

The court found the plaintiff had filed no evidentiary record and provided no basis for default or summary judgment.

The claim was struck on multiple grounds, including statutory inadmissibility of the plaintiff’s proposed evidence under the Regulated Health Professions Act, absence of allegations overcoming statutory immunity, and failure to plead a duty of care.

The court concluded that the claim was fundamentally inconsistent with settled legal principles and declined to grant leave to amend.

The applicant filed 11 human rights applications against various respondents.

The Tribunal scheduled a consolidated summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment for medical reasons but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide the request and medical documentation to all respondents.

The adjournment was denied.

The applicant failed to call into the summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed all applications as abandoned, emphasizing the obligation of parties to respect the Tribunal's process and comply with its rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability, claiming that the respondent College's opioid prescribing guidelines negatively impacted his wife's ability to obtain pain medication.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not provide a 'service' to the applicant's wife and that the national opioid guidelines did not constitute discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his actions against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The motion judge had dismissed the actions under Rule 21.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the College's actions, including a referral to the Fitness to Practice Committee, were taken in accordance with its statutory mandate under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

The Court also held that the appellant's Charter claims were properly dismissed as there was nothing to support them.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to dismiss the respondents' civil action based on statutory immunity under s. 38.1 of the Independent Health Facilities Act and abuse of process.

The respondents cross-appealed the striking of allegations relating to investigations under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeals and the cross-appeal, holding that while s. 38.1 provides immunity for losses resulting from specific regulatory orders, factual findings at trial are required to determine if any claimed losses fall outside this protection.

The abuse of process arguments were also left open for trial.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and declaring him a vexatious litigant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, noting the claim was an attempt to relitigate previously dismissed claims and relied on evidence inadmissible under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to seek leave before taking any further steps in any Ontario court.

The applicant, a foreign-trained physician, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care regarding the recognition of his specialist credentials.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on preliminary grounds, arguing that the pre-2007 allegations were out of time and that the post-2007 allegations were barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a purported settlement of a defamation claim.

The Tribunal held that the pre-2007 allegations were untimely and did not form a 'series of incidents' with the post-2007 events.

However, the Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not bar the post-2007 allegations, as no civil proceeding had been commenced and the purported settlement did not clearly resolve the human rights claims.

The timely portions of the application were permitted to proceed.

The applicant failed to dial in to a scheduled summary hearing teleconference.

After waiting half an hour past the scheduled start time, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned, in accordance with the Tribunal's standard practice for non-attendance.