Paula Trattner

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the revocation of his hospital privileges at Windsor Regional Hospital.

The hospital revoked his privileges due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to comply with a new 'Model of Care' for renal patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons were sufficient and that there was ample evidence of the appellant's disruptive conduct, which undermined the hospital's policies and staff, justifying the revocation of his privileges.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) denying him hospital privileges.

The Divisional Court found that HPARB reasonably addressed alleged procedural irregularities and correctly applied the statutory test under the Public Hospitals Act.

The court upheld HPARB's finding that the appellant's hostile conduct towards other health professionals, which continued on social media, made his continued involvement at the hospital untenable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) refusing to remove the respondent hospital's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The hospital moved to quash the judicial review application as premature, while the applicant moved to convert the application into an appeal and stay the HPARB proceedings.

The Divisional Court quashed the judicial review application, finding no exceptional circumstances justified interfering with the ongoing administrative process.

The court also refused to convert the application to an appeal, as the HPARB decision was interlocutory, and dismissed the motion for a stay.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the action pending the outcome of a hospital board hearing, both parties sought costs.

The defendants sought $18,358.12, while the plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs based on prior offers to settle.

The court found the defendants' bill of costs to be excessive given the relative simplicity of the issues and fixed costs at $7,500 payable to the defendants.

The moving party hospital authority brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the responding party physician from publicly commenting on social media about matters at issue in his pending appeal regarding medical privileges, and to require him to remove past posts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to its ability to participate in the appeal process under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also held that the balance of convenience did not favour the broad injunction sought, as it would seriously curtail the responding party's freedom of expression.

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 Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) and Dr. Khan both sought costs following the dismissal of Dr. Khan's motion to stay a hearing of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Hospital regarding the termination of his hospital privileges.

The court found that the MAC was largely successful on the motion, as the hearing was allowed to proceed with only a delay in the release of the decision.

The court awarded costs to the MAC in the amount of $9,500 on a partial indemnity basis, noting that the motion was not legally or factually complex.

The applicant physician brought a motion to stay a hearing before the hospital's Board of Directors regarding the termination of his hospital privileges, pending an application for judicial review.

The applicant alleged lack of notice and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found the applicant's case weak on the merits and that he would not suffer irreparable harm if the hearing proceeded.

The balance of convenience favoured continuing the hearing.

The motion for a stay was granted only to the extent that the Board was ordered not to disclose its decision until after the disposition of the judicial review application.

The appellant Medical Advisory Committee appealed a Superior Court decision setting aside an arbitral award that denied the respondent physician's application for reappointment to the hospital's medical staff.

The application judge had found the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by considering matters beyond two specific issues listed in the arbitration agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator correctly interpreted his mandate to make a full and final determination of the reappointment application, and that his decision to deny reappointment based on the physician's disruptive behaviour was reasonable.