Health Law - ONSCDC

The applicant physician sought to set aside a motion judge's decision quashing his application for judicial review of the hospital boards' decision not to renew his privileges.

The motion judge had found the application would offend the principle against fragmentation and constituted a collateral attack on the Public Hospitals Act process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding the application was premature, any procedural defects were cured by a subsequent de novo hearing before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, and the remedy sought was an abuse of process aimed at producing an inconsistent result.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of multiple decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) and the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) regarding her social media posts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ICRC had issued cautions for tweets containing verifiably false information about lockdowns, vaccines, and contact tracing, while dismissing complaints about tweets that merely expressed political disagreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the College reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter right to freedom of expression with its statutory mandate to regulate the medical profession and protect the public from misinformation.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the hospital's decisions not to renew her reappointment applications and to revoke her privileges due to a long-standing pattern of communication issues and interpersonal conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the HPARB did not misapprehend the evidence and appropriately analyzed the criteria for non-renewal and revocation under the hospital's by-laws and the Public Hospitals Act.

The appellant, a registered nurse practitioner, appealed a 10-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee for failing to maintain professional boundaries by engaging in an intimate relationship with a former patient while continuing to treat the former patient's spouse.

The appellant argued the penalty was unfit and failed to adequately account for the abusive nature of the relationship and her vulnerability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel made no error in principle, properly considered the mitigating psychological evidence, and imposed a fit penalty within the reasonable range given the serious impact on both patients.

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 appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding he engaged in professional misconduct and revoking his license.

The Tribunal found the appellant defrauded OHIP by billing for thousands of tests he did not provide, received kickbacks for referring patients to a cardiac clinic, and conducted medically unnecessary tests.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in admitting evidence obtained during a search of his clinic, relying on the College's expert, and failing to assist him as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's evidentiary rulings or factual findings, and upheld the license revocation as a fit penalty for intentional billing fraud.

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 appellant physician appealed a decision of the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to maintain the standard of practice by treating cancer patients with unproven complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, failing to obtain informed consent, and improperly billing OHIP for palliative care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, no procedural unfairness, and that the Tribunal's factual findings were well-supported by the evidence.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a committee's decision to issue a caution regarding his obstetrical care of a patient whose infant died.

The applicant argued the committee breached procedural fairness by rejecting his proposal for a remedial agreement and ignoring his expert's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision reasonable, as the committee was not bound by its decision-making framework guidelines and was entitled to weigh the expert evidence using its own specialized medical knowledge.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Ontario College of Pharmacists imposing a 14-month suspension and other remedial terms.

The appellant had been duped into filling thousands of fraudulent prescriptions for dangerous narcotics due to her failure to take basic professional steps.

The Divisional Court applied the appellate standard of review and found no error in principle, concluding that the penalty was not clearly unfit and was well within the range of reasonable outcomes given the colossal scale of the professional shortcomings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

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 Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which ordered him to be cautioned regarding informed consent for cataract surgery.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he was not provided with the clinical findings of another physician obtained during the investigation, and that the ICRC's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness at the investigative stage is limited and the applicant had sufficient notice of the complaint to respond.

The court also held that the ICRC's decision to issue a remedial caution was reasonable and within its statutory screening function.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) brought a motion to be added as a responding party to an application for judicial review and for an order sealing a portion of the record.

The underlying application challenged an HPARB decision confirming a college committee's decision to take no further action on a complaint against a chiropractor.

The court granted the motion to add HPARB as a party pursuant to section 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also granted the sealing order to protect the respondent's college history, continuing a prior disclosure order made by HPARB.

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 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 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, a Nurse Manager, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding an order by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses.

The ICRC ordered the applicant to complete a remediation program after a resident signed a 'Do Not Resuscitate' (DNR) form without a proper capacity assessment, despite the applicant having found the resident lacked capacity days earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions reasonable as the core issue was the failure to properly assess capacity, not whether the resident actually had capacity at the time.

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

The Board had upheld a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario requiring the applicant to appear for a caution and complete a remediation program regarding record-keeping, informed consent, and case work-up.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused further written submissions after the matter was remitted by the Board.

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

The moving party, a physician whose certificate of registration was revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the Discipline Committee's misconduct and penalty decisions.

The moving party argued that his delay was due to financial strain, lack of legal knowledge, and ineffective assistance from his non-lawyer agent at the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had not formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time, failed to adequately explain the lengthy delay, and did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal had merit.