Health Law - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board decision upholding a remedial agreement between the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and a psychiatrist.

The applicant had complained about her premature discharge from a psychiatric unit while experiencing suicidal ideation.

The court found the Board's decision reasonable, concluding the investigation was adequate and procedurally fair.

Although the court expressed concern that the remedial agreement might have been crafted to avoid public disclosure requirements under the Protecting Patients Act, it declined to remit the matter as the physician had already completed the program.

The appellant, a Registered Practical Nurse, appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding she committed professional misconduct by submitting false insurance claims to her employer's benefits plan.

The Committee had ordered a six-month suspension and other penalties.

On appeal, the appellant brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court dismissed as the evidence could have been adduced at the hearing and constituted a collateral attack.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Committee's factual and credibility findings, and held the penalty was not clearly unfit.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision.

The underlying appeal concerned whether a hearing under s. 24.9(1)2 of the Independent Health Facilities Act is a hearing de novo.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that the Board's participation would compromise its impartiality and violate the principle of finality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that because the court would be conducting a correctness review on a jurisdictional issue, the finality and impartiality concerns were muted, and the court would benefit from the Board's expertise on its home statute.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by a multi-site public hospital to relocate 10 inpatient beds from its Durham site to other sites due to nursing shortages.

The hospital brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the decision was not of a public character.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the hospital is a private not-for-profit corporation and its internal operational decision to allocate resources was not an exercise of state authority subject to judicial review.

The applicants, an advocacy coalition and an individual, sought judicial review of the Minister of Long-Term Care's decision to grant a conditional undertaking to issue a licence for a new 320-bed long-term care home to Southbridge Care Homes.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable given the operator's poor record during the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged procedural unfairness during public consultations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing as the coalition was an unincorporated association without legal capacity and the individual lacked a genuine interest.

In the alternative, the court held the Minister's decision was reasonable and the consultation process was procedurally fair.

The applicant hospital brought a motion for a sealing order to redact details of its cybersecurity infrastructure from the record of proceedings in a judicial review application.

The underlying application concerned an investigation by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario into a ransomware attack on the hospital.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court granted the sealing order, finding that publication of the information would increase the hospital's vulnerability to future attacks.

The court also awarded costs against the respondent tribunal for improperly opposing the motion and filing a letter in lieu of a factum.

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 sought judicial review of a joint decision by the Ontario and British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioners rejecting claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over documents related to a 2019 cyberattack.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review for privilege claims is correctness.

The Court found the Commissioners correctly determined that facts existing independently of privileged communications must be disclosed pursuant to statutory duties under the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the joint investigation breached procedural fairness, finding it was statutorily authorized and the applicant had acquiesced to the process.

The appellant, OHIP, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board which granted the respondent funding for a vaginoplasty without penectomy in Texas.

OHIP argued the procedure was not a specifically listed insured service and was experimental.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the plain reading of the Schedule of Benefits lists vaginoplasty and penectomy as separate procedures, and that interpreting the schedule to require a penectomy would be inconsistent with the WPATH Standards of Care and Charter values.

The court also declined to allow OHIP to raise a new argument on appeal regarding out-of-country funding criteria.

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.

Egale Canada brought an unopposed motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning whether vaginoplasty without penectomy is an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that Egale has relevant expertise regarding the systemic disadvantages faced by trans and nonbinary individuals in accessing gender-affirming care and would make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice or undue delay.

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.

Dr. Kustka, a family physician, and several of her patients brought applications for judicial review challenging the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to investigate her COVID-19 practices, including prescribing ivermectin and providing mask exemptions.

The patients challenged the College's ability to access their medical records, arguing it violated their Charter rights.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' applications for lack of public and private interest standing.

The Court dismissed the physician's applications as premature, noting that challenges to the appointment of investigators should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also found the College's interim restrictions and investigation decisions were reasonable.

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 applicants sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Chief Medical Officer of Health to halt the pediatric COVID-19 vaccination program in Ontario.

The respondent moved to quash the application for judicial review.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding it plain and obvious that the application could not succeed because the Chief Medical Officer of Health's authority to issue directives is discretionary and conditional on forming specific opinions, which were not pleaded.

The court also found that the applicants lacked public interest standing.

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 College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee requiring her to attend in person to be cautioned regarding unprofessional communications.

The applicant had made inappropriate comments in the workplace while experiencing emotional distress related to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the caution was a remedial measure within the Committee's jurisdiction and was reasonable given the professional standards expected of physicians.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the decision violated her equality rights under the Charter, as she failed to establish that the caution had an adverse impact on her or on people with mental health disabilities generally.

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 defendants appealed a decision certifying a class action for intrusion upon seclusion.

The claim arose after a hospital nurse improperly accessed thousands of patient records to steal narcotics from an automated dispensing unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order, finding that the nurse's fleeting access to limited health information for the sole purpose of stealing drugs did not meet the 'highly offensive' threshold required for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board not to proceed with a review of his complaint against his niece, a physician.

The Board had found the complaint to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it arose from ongoing family litigation and was essentially the same as a previous complaint that had been dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding there was no breach of procedural fairness.