Health Law - ODC

The appellant, a physician licensed in New Brunswick with a 'Defined Licence' subject to ongoing clinical activity in the province, appealed a decision denying him an independent practice certificate in Ontario.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upheld the College's decision, finding that the New Brunswick licence was not 'equivalent' to an Ontario certificate under the interprovincial mobility provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation of 'equivalent' was reasonable given Ontario's standards-based approach compared to New Brunswick's needs-based discretionary licence.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer terminating its ability to bill the public drug program due to alleged fraudulent and unsubstantiated claims.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness because it was not given sufficient time to provide evidence addressing the discrepancies.

The Divisional Court held that, given the severe economic consequences to the applicant's business, the duty of fairness required granting the applicant a short additional period to submit supporting evidence.

The application was allowed in part, and the applicant was granted an extension to make further submissions while a stay of the termination remained in place.

The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was suspended for two years followed by indefinite restrictions after a discipline committee found her incompetent following a patient's death during liposuction, brought a motion to stay the penalty order pending her appeal.

She sought to perform non-surgical cosmetic procedures in the interim.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test and dismissed the motion.

While the appeal raised a serious issue, the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm, as financial loss alone is insufficient.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the court found that allowing the moving party to perform or supervise controlled acts would pose a risk to public safety and undermine public confidence in the medical profession's regulatory process.

The applicants, two physicians, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board to proceed with a review of a Complaints Committee decision regarding their conduct, despite the complainants having withdrawn their requests for review against the applicants.

The Board argued it retained jurisdiction to review all parties named in a multiple-member decision until the matter was completely withdrawn.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's interpretation of its jurisdiction under the Health Professions Procedural Code was unreasonable, as the statute does not confer discretionary jurisdiction to review a decision where no request is maintained.

The application was allowed and the Board's decision to proceed with the review was quashed.

The applicant, a midwife, brought a motion for an order requiring the College of Midwives of Ontario to file the complete record of proceedings relating to an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision about another midwife.

The applicant had made a mandatory report about the other midwife, and the ICRC decided to take no action but made critical comments about the applicant's report.

The applicant sought the record for her application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the ICRC did not exercise a statutory power of decision with respect to the applicant, and that the College was prohibited from producing the record under the confidentiality provisions of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The appellant, a foreign-trained physician, appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's refusal to issue him a certificate of registration.

The appellant had participated in a practice assessment program but failed to meet the non-exemptible standards for registration, including sufficient knowledge, skill, judgment, and mental competence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board and the College's Registration Committee complied with procedural fairness and reasonably concluded the appellant lacked the required qualifications to practice medicine in Ontario.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for making false statements to his disability insurers regarding his capacity to work.

The Committee had suspended his certificate of registration for six months.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's conclusions were reasonable, supported by ample evidence, and that the penalty fell within the range of reasonableness.

The applicant, a massage therapist, sought judicial review of two decisions by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario's Complaints Committee to investigate allegations of sexual abuse.

The complainant had withdrawn the complaint shortly after filing it, and the College failed to provide the applicant with notice of the specific allegations or an opportunity to respond before making its decisions.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and quashed the decisions, finding that the College acted without jurisdiction by violating its statutory requirements and the applicant's right to procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board under the Independent Health Facilities Act.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by asking itself the wrong question, limiting its consideration to whether the Director had the authority to revoke the appellant's licence rather than whether the revocation was a reasonable exercise of discretion.

The court rescinded the Board's decision and remitted the matter back for a re-hearing, noting that the Board's process is a hearing where it may substitute its own opinion for that of the Director.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the General Manager of OHIP imposing an administrative charge of $81,450 for 543 unauthorized payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the General Manager had no duty to refer the administrative charge issue to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, as the Board's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing unauthorized payments.

The Court confirmed the General Manager's authority to impose a $150 administrative charge for each unauthorized payment under the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004.

Furthermore, the Court noted it would have declined to grant the discretionary remedy of judicial review due to the applicant's delay in bringing the application.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his medical license and a costs order of $95,812 imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons for sexual misconduct involving three young boys.

The appellant, joined by intervenors, also challenged the constitutionality of the College investigator's summons power under s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, arguing it violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the summons power was constitutional in the regulatory context, the Committee had jurisdiction to hear the Charter challenge, and the delay in proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Court upheld the Committee's factual findings, penalty, and costs order as reasonable.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's decision refusing to add a nurse and a private clinic as defendants in a medical malpractice action after the expiry of the limitation period.

The Master found the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the nurse's identity within the limitation period, and dismissed the motion to add the clinic without prejudice to bringing a new motion on proper material.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error of law in applying the Limitations Act, 2002, which prohibits adding parties after the limitation period expires.

The court allowed the cross-appeal in part, imposing a 30-day time limit for the plaintiff to bring the second motion regarding the clinic.

The appellant physician moved for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) that confirmed the revocation of his hospital privileges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant did not maintain a firm intention to appeal within the prescribed time limit, failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that the appeal lacked merit.

Furthermore, granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the respondent hospital, which had already moved forward with staffing and budgeting decisions.

The applicant, an anesthesiologist, sought judicial review of an interim order made by the respondent's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee that effectively shut down his practice following a patient's death.

The court found that the Committee's decision to issue the interim order was unreasonable because there was no evidence of probable harm to future patients, only speculation based on a single incident.

Furthermore, the court held that the Committee breached procedural fairness by relying on undisclosed materials and improperly considered evidence protected under the Evidence Act.

The application was allowed and the interim order was quashed.

The appellant, a forensic patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by conflating the two-part capacity test and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the two-part test from the Health Care Consent Act and reasonably concluded on the evidence that the appellant's delusions prevented him from understanding treatment information and appreciating the consequences of his decision.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a hospital board's motion decision regarding the termination of his hospital privileges due to disruptive conduct.

The applicant argued that the Medical Advisory Committee lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its recommendation, that a board member's comments breached the Public Hospitals Act, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant must first exhaust his statutory remedies, including an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, before seeking judicial review.

Apotex Inc. sought judicial review of decisions by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Public Drug Programs refusing to increase the reimbursable pricing of three generic antibiotic drugs.

The applicant argued that the historic pricing exemption should apply to allow price increases and challenged the Executive Officer's reliance on the single source pricing exemption to negotiate a price increase with a competitor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Executive Officer's interpretation of the legislation and regulations was reasonable and that her actions to ensure a continued supply of the drugs were lawful and in the public interest.

The appellant sought leave to adduce fresh evidence on his appeal from a Discipline Committee's finding of professional misconduct.

The proposed fresh evidence was a subsequent Registration Committee decision refusing to permit him to be registered to practice due to the misconduct finding.

The Divisional Court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding the evidence was not relevant to whether the appellant's actions constituted professional misconduct and could not reasonably be expected to affect the Discipline Committee's decision.

Three appellants appealed decisions of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board denying payment for out-of-country medical treatment because they did not obtain prior written approval from the General Manager of OHIP.

The Divisional Court held that while the Health Insurance Act and regulations do not expressly confer discretion to grant retroactive prior approval, such authority is necessarily implied in urgent circumstances where prior approval cannot be obtained.

The Court rejected arguments based on legitimate expectations, promissory estoppel, limitation periods against minors, and sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Two of the appeals were allowed and remitted to the Board to determine if urgent circumstances existed, while the third was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a Complaints Committee's finding of no misconduct by his treating physicians.

The applicant argued that the Committee breached procedural fairness by withholding the identity of an independent assessor, thereby preventing cross-examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Committee exercises a screening function and owes a limited duty of procedural fairness to complainants, which does not include the right to cross-examine an assessor.