Neil Michael Abramson

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a member regarding his care of a Great Dane.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct by failing to reassess the dog after diagnostic testing, failing to adequately monitor and treat the dog, failing to communicate with the owner, and failing to maintain proper records.

Following the merits decision, the member retained counsel and entered into a joint submission on penalty, predicated on his undertaking to permanently resign from the profession.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, finding it protected the public interest and obviated the need for further penalty orders.

The appellants, private practice oral surgeons, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their operating room access and hospital privileges.

The board made the decision without a hearing, relying on s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which allows a hospital to revoke privileges when ceasing to provide a service.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the board's interpretation of s. 44 was reasonable, that the termination of the specific operating room access constituted ceasing a 'service', and that the board was not required to hold a hearing or consider the appellants' affidavits.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act.

The Director had concluded that the Act was not engaged by agreements between the University of Windsor and student groups regarding protest encampments, which included a provision limiting institutional academic agreements with Israeli universities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Director's conclusion that the University was not 'engaging in business' under the Act to be reasonable.

The court also upheld the Director's alternative finding that the agreements did not mandate a refusal to employ or promote, as required by section 4(1)3(ii) of the Act.

The applicant, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a screening committee's order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP).

The applicant argued the remedy was overbroad as the committee's concerns were limited to record-keeping and communication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the committee had wide-ranging concerns about the applicant's practice, including post-surgical management, which justified the broader remediation program.

The appellant, an operator of diagnostic imaging clinics, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the Minister's requirement to reimburse over $1.1 million in facility fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by classifying the Ministry's sole witness as a 'litigant's employee with expertise' without giving the appellant prior notice or an opportunity to make submissions and call reply evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

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

The ICRC had ordered the applicant to complete a Specified Continuing Education Program and be cautioned after he erroneously extracted a healthy adult tooth from a minor patient instead of a supernumerary tooth.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision to uphold the ICRC's findings—including that the applicant should have taken additional steps to verify the correct tooth and that expert evidence was not required to interpret intraoperative x-rays—was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which confirmed an administrative disposition imposed by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Royal College of Dentists.

The applicant argued that the ICRC's failure to explicitly consider an expert report rendered its decision unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the failure to reference the report was not a sufficiently serious shortcoming to undermine the justification, intelligibility, and transparency of the ICRC's decision.

The court deferred to HPARB's assessment that the ICRC had considered all records obtained during its investigation.

The applicants, seven private practice oral and maxillofacial surgeons, applied for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their access to operating rooms.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was a decision to 'cease a service' under s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which expressly displaces the common law right to notice or a hearing.

The hospital had cancelled the legacy program to comply with its funding obligations under a Hospital Service Accountability Agreement.

The appellant, Neighbour’s Drug Mart Ltd., appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of its judicial review application.

The original decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs terminated Neighbour’s Health Network System Agreement, revoked its billing privileges under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, and suspended its entitlement to payment due to false or unsubstantiated claims.

Neighbour’s argued the Divisional Court erred by misapprehending the record, imposing an unsupported sanction, and creating absolute liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the Divisional Court's application of the reasonableness standard or its conclusions regarding the owner's responsibility and the regulatory scheme's honour system.

The court also rejected the argument that the Executive Officer's consent to a change of control precluded subsequent termination, emphasizing the new owner's assumption of all liabilities.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully resisting an anti-SLAPP motion brought by two defendants and partially succeeding on a motion to strike pleadings.

The court, interpreting section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, ruled that a responding party who successfully resists an anti-SLAPP motion is generally not entitled to costs unless exceptional circumstances warrant it.

Despite the plaintiff incurring significant legal expenses and the judge's view that the motion was "on the wrong side of the boundary" of abusive use, the court found no basis to deviate from the statutory rule, compelling it to deny costs.

However, a separate settlement for $4,000 was reached with another defendant (CUHMA) for their appearance.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had ordered the applicant to complete a remediation program and receive a verbal caution after he posted sexually suggestive TikTok videos linked to his dental practice.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's conclusions regarding the breach of practice advisories and the risk to the public were justified and available on the record.

The defendants Kenneth LeDez and Ron Linden brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), or alternatively, to strike certain pleadings under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff, a hyperbaric medicine specialist, sued after LeDez accused her of unethical conduct and orchestrated her removal from a professional association, stemming from her "off-label" use of hyperbaric procedures.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and the defendants lacked a valid defense, and that the public interest in allowing the suit to continue outweighed protecting the defendants' expressions, which were found to exceed privileged occasions and potentially be malicious.

The alternative motion to strike pleadings was granted in part, striking claims for unlawful interference with economic relations, conspiracy, bad faith, and breach of fiduciary duty, but allowing the corporate oppression remedy claim to stand as it was based on specific corporate acts rather than expressions.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drugs Programs to revoke its billing privileges following an inspection that revealed over $250,000 in unsubstantiated and non-compliant claims.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable because the new owner was not responsible for the prior owner's misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Executive Officer reasonably concluded that the new owner was responsible for the pharmacy's compliance and that problematic billing practices continued under his management.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP) on informed consent.

The order arose from a patient complaint regarding the administration of conscious sedation during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's concerns about the lack of one-on-one communication and the applicant's reliance on staff for informed consent were supported by the record, making the HPARB's confirmation of the decision reasonable.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim order made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario restricting her practice pending an investigation into her issuance of COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

The applicant challenged a specific term requiring her to consent to the College accessing her OHIP billing records to monitor compliance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the College had sufficient evidence of risk to patients and the public, and that the OHIP monitoring term was a reasonable measure to ensure compliance with the practice restrictions.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board affirming a public health order to produce patient contact information following an infection control lapse at a dental clinic.

The sole ground of appeal was that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to exclude the appellant's husband, who acted as her agent, on its own initiative due to his alleged incompetence and prior inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation on the tribunal to inquire into the competence of a chosen agent or to exclude him absent an objection or clear prejudice.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordering him to undergo a second specified continuous education or remediation program (SCERP) for ongoing medical record-keeping deficiencies.

The applicant argued the decision was an abuse of process and unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no abuse of process despite a minor procedural fairness breach, and held that the ICRC's decision to escalate remediation was a reasonable and proportionate response to the applicant's persistent record-keeping issues.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from deficient recordkeeping and improper use of billing codes that resulted in insurance claims and related documents containing improper statements for multiple patients.

The tribunal accepted an agreed statement of facts and found the misconduct proven under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code and paragraph 28 of section 2 of Ontario Regulation 853.

Applying the joint penalty submission, the tribunal imposed a reprimand, mandatory remedial courses in recordkeeping and billing, practice monitoring for twenty-four months after course completion, and costs.

A publication restriction protecting patient identities was also ordered under s. 45(3).

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

The appellant admitted to professional misconduct involving false claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

The Discipline Committee imposed a penalty that included a three-year prohibition on the appellant having any proprietary interest in a pharmacy or acting as a director of a corporation that owned a pharmacy.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked authority to impose these conditions under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's interpretation of its broad remedial authority under s. 51(2)3 of the Code to protect the public interest was reasonable.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 26, 2017 and March 6, 2018.

The appellants were unsuccessful in their appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellants on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.