3 total
Appeal dismissed; hospital permitted to use litigation affidavit in medical staff reappointment hearing despite deemed undertaking rule.
The appellant doctor sued the respondent hospital, producing emails during the litigation that the hospital suspected were fabricated.
After the action settled, the doctor applied for reappointment to the hospital's medical staff.
The hospital sought to use an affidavit obtained during the litigation, which questioned the emails' authenticity, at a Medical Advisory Committee meeting.
The application judge granted relief from the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(8) to permit this use.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the doctor's appeal, finding no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion, as the parties were the same and the interest of justice in denouncing potentially fabricated evidence outweighed any non-existent prejudice to the appellant.
Application for judicial review of hospital privileges termination dismissed as premature pending exhaustion of statutory remedies.
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.
Application for judicial review of hospital committee's investigation into physician's privileges dismissed as premature.
The applicant physician sought judicial review to quash a motion by the hospital's Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) requiring him to undergo independent conduct and clinical assessments before the MAC would make a recommendation on his reappointment application.
The applicant argued the MAC's process lacked procedural fairness and was tainted by bias due to a history of conflict and a failure to provide timely disclosure of complaints.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the hospital had a statutory duty to assess qualifications and that the applicant had adequate alternative remedies, including a full hearing before the hospital board and an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, to address any procedural unfairness.
