Morgana Kellythorne

The moving party insurer sought an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a 2020 Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding income replacement benefits.

The moving party relied on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Yatar to explain the delay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion on terms, noting that while finality is a central principle, the prejudice to the respondent was diluted by the fact that an appeal regarding the same benefits was still outstanding at the Court of Appeal.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying motor vehicle accident benefits.

The moving party had previously discontinued an application for judicial review due to adverse case law that was later reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no apparent grounds for relief, as the causation issue had already been decided on appeal and the allegations of institutional bias lacked specifics.

The court also noted the lengthy delay and the principle of finality weighed against granting the extension.

The tenant appealed two Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction orders resulting from hearings he did not attend.

In 2019, the tenant missed the hearing due to a flat tire.

In 2022, the tenant, who suffers from depression, was unaware of the video hearing.

The LTB denied his requests for review in both instances.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding that the tenant was not reasonably able to participate in either proceeding.

Applying a broad interpretation of natural justice, the Court set aside the review orders and remitted the matters back to the LTB for new hearings.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness and that the LAT erred in its catastrophic impairment analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and concluding that the LAT's findings regarding the appellant's pre-existing psychological conditions were factual determinations supported by evidence, which are not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The applicant, an 83-year-old man, sought judicial review of the Minister of Transportation's decision to suspend his driver's license after he failed to provide medical evidence of his cognitive fitness to drive.

At a case conference, the applicant sought a stay of the suspension pending the hearing of the application.

The court dismissed the request for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured protecting the public over the applicant's desire to drive.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the dismissal of a complaint against a physician.

The physician had accessed the deceased patient's hospital records multiple times after being sued for medical malpractice, without the patient's consent.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the HPARB and the investigating committee unreasonably interpreted the Personal Health Information and Protection Act (PHIPA).

The court held that the physician acted as an agent of the hospital, not a health information custodian, and therefore could not unilaterally access the records outside the civil litigation discovery process.

The appellant physician was found to have committed professional misconduct involving sexual abuse of a patient, resulting in the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.

He brought a motion for a stay of the penalty pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience, given the public interest in a zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct by health professionals, weighed heavily against granting a stay.

The applicant, a plastic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC required the applicant to be cautioned for failing to attend in person to a patient with a severe hand injury while on-call, and advised him to make appropriate efforts to communicate urgency when handing over care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HPARB's decision was reasonable and owed deference, as the record supported the conclusions that the applicant should have attended the emergency room and failed to adequately communicate the urgency of the patient's referral.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing an adolescent patient and engaging in disgraceful conduct towards another adolescent boy.

The Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors of fact and held his evidence to an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee properly evaluated the evidence, made reasonable credibility findings, and correctly concluded the conduct amounted to masturbation requiring mandatory revocation.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the College's Complaints Committee.

The Committee had investigated a patient's complaint regarding inappropriate physical contact and, while unable to determine exactly what occurred, required the physician to be cautioned and complete a remedial program regarding boundaries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate for a screening function and the decision was reasonable based on the physician's own admissions about accepting hugs.

The Court also rejected the argument that publishing a summary of the decision on the public register constituted an unauthorized sanction.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding he sexually abused a patient and engaged in professional misconduct towards three nurses, resulting in the revocation of his certificate of registration.

The appellant argued the Committee applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and erred in imposing revocation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility assessments were fair, well-reasoned, and entitled to deference.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, noting it was within the reasonable range for sexual misconduct, especially given the appellant's prior history of boundary violations and lack of rehabilitative potential.

The applicant, a physician, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

On preliminary motions, the applicant sought to introduce additional evidence consisting of a summary of the underlying committee decision posted on the College's website.

The Board sought to add the complainant as a party and to seal portions of the record containing the applicant's conduct profile.

The court granted all motions, allowing the additional evidence as context for the judicial review, adding the complainant as a necessary party, and sealing the conduct profile to maintain the integrity of the Board's process.

The applicant physician faced disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding allegations of sexual abuse by a former patient.

The applicant sought an order under s. 35(9) of the Mental Health Act to permit the disclosure of the patient's psychiatric discharge summary, which he had received in error, to support a third-party records motion before the Discipline Committee.

The College opposed the disclosure, arguing it violated the patient's privacy interests.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the records were relevant to the complainant's credibility and reliability, and that disclosure was essential in the interests of justice to allow the applicant to make full answer and defence, with privacy interests protected by a publication ban.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee revoking his medical licence for engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient shortly after the termination of the doctor-patient relationship.

The Divisional Court found the penalty unreasonable because it vastly exceeded the typical range of penalties imposed in similar cases without adequate justification.

Furthermore, the Committee's finding that the appellant posed an ongoing risk to the public was not supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The appeal was granted and the matter of penalty was remitted to the Committee for reconsideration.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had directed the Inquiry, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to reconsider whether the applicant breached s. 7 of the Advertising Regulation regarding steering.

The Divisional Court found that the Board unreasonably focused on only one of the ICRC's reasons for deferring consideration of s. 7, ignoring the ICRC's valid conclusion that a caution for other advertising breaches was a sufficient disposition.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the Board's direction was set aside.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a requirement that he be cautioned in person regarding his advertising practices.

The complaints committee found that the applicant's advertisements for weight loss clinics did not constitute 'the member's medical services' under the regulations, as he had no therapeutic relationship with the patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee's interpretation of its own regulations to be reasonable and declining to address a newly raised Charter challenge due to the lack of an evidentiary record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which affirmed a decision by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to take no further action regarding her complaints against two doctors.

The complaints related to a spinal anaesthetic administered in 1994 and subsequent care.

The Divisional Court found HPARB's decision reasonable, noting that the investigation was adequate and the treatment provided was within professional expectations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of two decisions by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee required the applicant to appear for a caution, complete a course on medical record keeping, and undergo an educational program and practice assessment.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and relied on an investigator who was not a true peer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Committee's decisions were reasonable and within the range of acceptable outcomes given the concerns about the applicant's record keeping and complementary medicine practice.

The respondent College sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis or personally against the applicant's counsel for alleging bad faith and misrepresentation.

The Divisional Court found that while the respondent's factum contained an inaccuracy, there was no intention to mislead.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs or costs against counsel personally, noting that while counsel overreacted, the conduct did not warrant such sanctions.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive.

The applicant, a physician, sought judicial review of the decision of the Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to appoint investigators to investigate his practice.

The investigations arose from resolutions of the Quality Assurance Committee and a patient complaint.

The applicant refused to comply and raised constitutional and procedural fairness issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the grounds of prematurity, holding that administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial intervention, absent exceptional circumstances.