Health Law - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario denying him access to his son's personal health information held by a family services agency.

The applicant argued he was entitled to the records under the Divorce Act and various privacy statutes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's decisions to be reasonable.

The court upheld the adjudicator's findings that the Divorce Act did not mandate disclosure and that the agency properly exercised its discretion in considering the best interests of the child and the applicant's motives.

The applicant, a registered nurse, moved for an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a decision by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had directed the applicant to appear for a caution following a mandatory report from his former employer.

The court found that the 30-day time limit under s. 5(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act began to run when the applicant received notice of the decision, not when the caution was administered.

The court declined to grant an extension of time under s. 5(2), finding the delay was unexplained, the proposed grounds for judicial review lacked merit, and extending the time would cause substantial prejudice to the public interest.

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 Health Professions Appeal and Review Board brought a motion for a sealing order for parts of the record on an application for judicial review, co-extensive with its own prior disclosure order.

The respondent complainant contested sealing the applicant's conduct profile.

The court granted the sealing order as requested, noting that the tribunal's disclosure order remains effective unless varied or set aside, and that no party had objected to it in the proceedings below.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against a physician.

The applicant, an autism advocate, complained about the physician's use of chelation therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the College's investigation was adequate and its decision not to refer the matter to discipline was reasonable, given the lack of patient-specific evidence of harm and the statutory protections for alternative medicine.

The College of Chiropractors of Ontario appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee, which found that the respondent chiropractor did not commit acts of professional misconduct relating to allegations of sexual abuse.

The majority of the Discipline Committee had dismissed the allegations based on credibility findings, preferring the respondent's evidence over the complainant's due to inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Divisional Court found that the Discipline Committee's decision was reasonable and did not rely on improper stereotypes, emphasizing the deference owed to specialized tribunals on findings of fact and credibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the suspension of his hospital privileges until he completed a remedial anaesthetist review program.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when confronted with multiple complaints without prior notice.

The Divisional Court found that while the initial process was flawed, the hospital cured the defect by agreeing to an independent expert review.

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the Court held the HPARB properly concluded there was a legitimate concern for patient safety warranting remedial action.

The appeal was dismissed.

The College moved to schedule cross-examinations and a motion before a single judge to quash a physician's appeal of his license revocation, alleging he breached an order lifting a stay by continuing to practice.

The physician moved for an expedited appeal date.

The court declined to schedule the College's motion before a single judge, finding that lifting a stay does not constitute an order that can be breached under Rule 60.12, and directed that the motion to quash be heard by the full panel hearing the appeal.

The court scheduled the appeal and granted a sealing order for third-party medical records.

The moving party regulatory college sought to lift a stay of a Discipline Committee decision that revoked the responding party doctor's licence, or alternatively to dismiss his appeal.

The stay had been previously maintained on strict conditions, including cooperating with investigators and not selling drugs at a profit.

The court found that the doctor breached these conditions by making false statements to investigators, concealing his treatment of cancer patients, and failing to maintain proper charts.

Concluding that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the public interest, the court lifted the stay but declined to dismiss the appeal, allowing the doctor to argue it on the merits.

The applicant restaurant association challenged the jurisdictional and constitutional validity of a City of Toronto by-law requiring restaurant operators to publicly post the results of food premises inspections (the 'DineSafe' Disclosure Program).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the city had the jurisdiction to pass the by-law under the Municipal Act and the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The court also rejected the applicant's Charter challenges, holding that a corporation cannot invoke section 7, and that the mandatory posting of inspection notices did not infringe freedom of expression under section 2(b) because it did not force the owners to adopt the city's message or prevent them from disavowing it.

The court further held that even if section 2(b) were infringed, the by-law would be saved under section 1.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash the appointment of an investigator by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario to examine their practices, and a stay of the investigations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting the well-established rule against piecemeal judicial review of administrative action absent exceptional circumstances.

The court held that the administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial intervention.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, revoking his license, and imposing a $25,000 costs award.

The misconduct stemmed from his failure to supervise an EEG clinic where a technician infected numerous patients with Hepatitis B. The Divisional Court upheld the misconduct findings but found the penalty of license revocation unreasonable, as the appellant posed no risk practicing solely as a neurologist.

The court substituted a two-year suspension and a lifetime ban from acting as a medical director, while upholding the costs award.

The applicant physician sought a stay of an order of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario pending his appeal.

The Committee had found him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, imposing a 30-month suspension and practice restrictions.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, finding a serious issue regarding the proportionality of the penalty, irreparable harm due to the ongoing suspension and professional damage, and that the balance of convenience favoured a conditional stay.

The stay was granted on the same terms, conditions, and limitations that the Discipline Committee had ordered for his return to practice.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which had made findings of criminal conduct against him based on undisclosed evidence.

The Board conceded it exceeded its jurisdiction and consented to its decision being quashed.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision and, finding exceptional circumstances including a ten-year delay and lack of clear evidence, refused to remit the matter back to the Board for reconsideration.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity scale.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons appealed an order granting a physician a stay of his licence revocation pending his appeal of a finding of incompetence.

The College argued that s. 71 of the Health Professions Procedural Code ousted the court's jurisdiction to grant a stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 71 merely eliminates the automatic stay that would otherwise apply under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, but does not remove the court's inherent and statutory jurisdiction to grant a stay on application where appropriate.

The Health Services Restructuring Commission issued directions that would significantly reduce the services and teaching capacity of Hôpital Montfort, Ontario's only francophone general hospital.

The applicants sought judicial review, arguing the directions violated s. 15 of the Charter, administrative law principles, and the unwritten constitutional principle of the protection of minorities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Charter and administrative law arguments but granted the application on constitutional grounds.

The Court held that the protection of minorities is a fundamental organizing principle of the Constitution, and the Commission failed to act according to law by ignoring the broader institutional role of Montfort in preserving the Franco-Ontarian minority culture.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding her guilty of professional misconduct relating to the misappropriation of narcotics.

During the discipline hearing, it was revealed that a panel member served on a hospital committee with the principal witness against the appellant, but this was not disclosed until deliberations had begun.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the undisclosed relationship and subsequent conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias that vitiated the panel's decision.

Given the circumstantial evidence, poor hospital record-keeping, and the passage of time, the Court quashed the decision and ordered a stay of proceedings rather than a rehearing.

The applicant coalition sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying them standing at an inquest into the death of a psychiatric patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the coroner made no serious error in principle in applying the tests for direct interest and public interest standing.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that they were denied procedural fairness by not receiving the coroner's full brief prior to the standing hearing.

The appellant doctor appealed an interlocutory order striking portions of his statement of defence and counterclaim, as well as portions of an affidavit.

The underlying action was brought by the respondent patient to enforce a settlement agreement.

The appellant alleged the settlement was obtained by fraud, relying on a sworn statement by the respondent recanting her allegations of sexual assault made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act creates an absolute bar to the admissibility of documents prepared for CPSO proceedings in civil actions, even where fraud is alleged.

The appellant physician sought a stay of an order by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons suspending his certificate of registration for a minimum of 12 months based on a finding of incompetence.

The court held that under s. 61(7) of the Health Disciplines Act, an order suspending a licence for incompetence takes effect immediately, and the court has no jurisdiction to grant a stay pending appeal.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, but the appeal was ordered to be expedited.