Ruth Ainsworth

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a College committee's decision requiring him to complete a remedial program and attend for a caution.

The discipline stemmed from the physician making a mandatory fitness-to-drive report to the Ministry of Transportation following an argument with a patient, and subsequently disclosing the patient's personal health information to her father.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory immunity for reporting under the Highway Traffic Act does not oust the College's regulatory jurisdiction.

The Court further held that the Board's conclusions regarding the unsupportable nature of the report and the breach of patient confidentiality were reasonable.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which declined to review the College's decision to take no action on his complaint against the College's registrar.

The applicant's complaint alleged professional misconduct regarding the College's policies on COVID-19 vaccines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the complaint was vexatious, an abuse of process, and a collateral attack on College policy.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) requiring him to complete a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (SCERP) following several adverse event reports at his clinic.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and the process was procedurally unfair due to skewed chart selection and alleged bias by the College's assessor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC owed a relatively low degree of procedural fairness which was met, and that its decision was reasonable, justified, and intelligible based on the evidence of poor clinical care and deficient record-keeping.

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 applicant physician sought judicial review of the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision dismissing her request to reconsider an interim suspension of her certificate of registration.

The suspension was imposed after the applicant allegedly provided COVID-19 vaccine exemptions without medical justification and refused to cooperate with College investigators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that challenges to the appointment of investigators were premature and that the ICRC's decision to maintain the suspension was reasonable given the applicant's ongoing failure to cooperate and the resulting risk of harm to patients.

The respondent physicians brought motions to strike out an affidavit filed by the applicant in support of her applications for judicial review of decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The moving parties argued the affidavit contained impermissible evidence, argument, and matters outside the applicant's knowledge.

The court noted the general reluctance to determine evidentiary admissibility in advance of a judicial review hearing.

Given the mixed nature of the proposed evidence and uncertainty regarding its relevance to procedural fairness arguments, the court adjourned the motions to be decided by the panel hearing the applications.

The applicant physician was found guilty of professional misconduct for sexually abusing a patient and his registration was revoked.

After being acquitted in a related criminal trial, he sought to re-open the tribunal hearing to introduce fresh evidence.

The tribunal's Case Management Chair dismissed the motion, finding the tribunal was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction under its rules to re-open the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Chair's interpretation of the tribunal's rules was reasonable and did not provide a statutory exception to the doctrine of functus officio.

The appellant physician appealed a disciplinary tribunal's decision revoking his licence to practise medicine for professional misconduct and incompetence.

The misconduct findings were based on the appellant spreading COVID-19 misinformation, issuing improper vaccine exemptions, and failing to cooperate with the regulator's investigation.

The appellant argued that the tribunal's decision unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the tribunal's Doré proportionality analysis and finding that the revocation of the appellant's licence was a proportionate response to protect the public interest and maintain the integrity of the medical profession.

The applicants, parents of an Indigenous child, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee's disposition of their complaint against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician conducted a non-consensual genital examination on the child.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to adequately address the ICRC's unresponsive treatment of the consent issue, noting that clinical indication does not equate to consent and implied consent cannot override express refusal.

However, given the passage of time and the physician's remedial actions, the court declined to remit the matter for further consideration.

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 appellant physician appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, refusing to re-open the hearing, and revoking his certificate of registration.

The appellant had failed to attend the discipline hearing, claiming a medical emergency, but the Committee proceeded in his absence and later dismissed his motion to re-open, finding his claims of illness lacked objective evidence and were part of a pattern of delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the Committee's decisions to deny adjournments, proceed in absentia, refuse to re-open the hearing, or impose revocation as a penalty for grossly inadequate clinical care and dishonest billing.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board brought a motion for a sealing order for parts of the record on an application for judicial review, co-extensive with its own prior disclosure order.

The respondent complainant contested sealing the applicant's conduct profile.

The court granted the sealing order as requested, noting that the tribunal's disclosure order remains effective unless varied or set aside, and that no party had objected to it in the proceedings below.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found he committed professional misconduct by improperly billing OHIP and falsifying patient records, and revoked his certificate of registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the Committee's liability decision.

The Court also upheld the penalty of revocation, concluding it was not clearly unfit given the intentional and dishonest nature of the misconduct and the appellant's lack of insight.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against a physician.

The applicant, an autism advocate, complained about the physician's use of chelation therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the College's investigation was adequate and its decision not to refer the matter to discipline was reasonable, given the lack of patient-specific evidence of harm and the statutory protections for alternative medicine.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of interim orders made by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which restricted his medical practice due to concerns that his conduct exposed patients to harm.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC reasonably relied on expert evidence to conclude patients were likely to be exposed to harm, and that the paper-based process followed by the ICRC met the required duty of procedural fairness for interim protective orders.

A case management teleconference was held to address procedural issues in an application for judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The parties could not resolve issues regarding the admissibility of the applicant's materials.

The court directed the respondent to bring a motion to strike the contested materials, to be heard by the panel hearing the underlying application.

The court also set a timetable for the exchange of materials, scheduled the hearing for September 18, 2020, and provided directions on addressing a potential stay of the College's decision pending the court's ruling.

The appellant physician appealed a finding of professional misconduct and penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Committee had dismissed the original allegations of sexual abuse but found professional misconduct based on the physician's failure to respect the patient's privacy during an examination.

The College conceded that this finding was procedurally unfair because the privacy issue was not raised in the Notice of Hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal on consent and quashed the liability and penalty decisions.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons initiated an investigation into a psychiatrist, SJO, concerning boundary violations and the receipt of confidential information from a patient (Patient A), who was a former College employee.

SJO resisted producing Patient A's medical records, arguing patient-psychiatrist privilege and a conflict of interest for the College due to parallel investigations.

The court dismissed SJO's application for an injunction, holding that the College's statutory investigatory powers under the Regulated Health Professions Act and Health Professions Procedural Code override common law claims of privilege and patient confidentiality in this regulatory context.

The court ordered SJO to produce the patient's medical records and communications to an external investigator, with strict confidentiality protocols to limit College staff access.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which revoked his certificate of registration for sexually abusing a patient.

The appellant argued that the Committee erred in finding a physician-patient relationship existed and in refusing to quash a summons issued to the reluctant patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee's determination of a physician-patient relationship was reasonable based on medical records, OHIP billings, and medical notes provided to the patient.

The Court also upheld the Committee's decision not to quash the summons, concluding that the College's broad investigatory powers and the public interest in prosecuting sexual abuse allegations outweighed the patient's privacy interests.