Paula Trattner

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.

The applicant, a hospital patient awaiting long-term care placement, requested interim orders to restrain the hospital from taking legal action against him or his attorneys, and to stay proceedings before the Consent and Capacity Board and the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the Consent and Capacity Board matters were moot and there was no evidence that the Public Guardian and Trustee investigation or the hospital's actions would affect the Tribunal's process.

The Tribunal also denied the request to anonymize the applicant's name, as no strong reasons were provided to override the open hearing principle.

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.

The Member, a Director of Occupational Health and Infection Control, faced allegations of professional misconduct for disclosing the names of 14 staff members who had not received an influenza vaccination in an email to other staff, and for directing a profanity at a co-worker during a subsequent staff meeting.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain confidentiality and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and exercising its discretion not to publish the Member's name due to mitigating factors including her retirement, serious medical condition, and remorse.