Mina Karabit

The College referred allegations of professional misconduct against the registrant to the Tribunal.

The parties reached an agreement wherein the registrant resigned their membership and undertook not to re-apply for registration in any jurisdiction.

The parties jointly requested an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the public is protected as the registrant will no longer practice as a psychotherapist.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a medical negligence action involving an aeromedical transport.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants' negligence caused a sciatic nerve injury resulting in the amputation of the plaintiff's leg.

The defendants argued the case was too complex for a jury due to the number of experts, conflicting opinions on the standard of care, and pre-existing conditions.

The court dismissed the motion, adopting a 'wait and see' approach, finding that it was premature to strike the jury notice before a trial date was set and the actual contested issues were narrowed.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which ordered him to be cautioned regarding informed consent for cataract surgery.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he was not provided with the clinical findings of another physician obtained during the investigation, and that the ICRC's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness at the investigative stage is limited and the applicant had sufficient notice of the complaint to respond.

The court also held that the ICRC's decision to issue a remedial caution was reasonable and within its statutory screening function.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for an order sealing the patient records of a complainant in a physician's appeal of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the College had not sought a sealing order at first instance before the HPARB.

The court held that the HPARB should control its own processes and develop its own jurisprudence on protective orders, and declined to permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal, particularly where the records were not highly sensitive and the complainant raised no privacy concerns.