3 total
Board decision upholding ICRC disposition found unreasonable for failing to address lack of consent to examination.
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.
Motion for leave to intervene granted to child rights organization in judicial review involving child consent.
A child rights organization brought a motion for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.
The underlying complaint alleged a doctor improperly conducted a genital examination on an Indigenous child without appropriate consent.
The court granted leave to intervene, finding the organization would provide a useful and different perspective on the rights of the child and their intersecting vulnerabilities, and that the case raised issues of public importance beyond a private dispute.
Motion to extend time to perfect appeal granted due to tenant's mental health deficits and potential merit.
The tenant brought a motion to extend the time to perfect an appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of the appeal.
The tenant, who lived in supportive housing and had mental health issues, failed to perfect the appeal on time.
The court found that the tenant demonstrated an ongoing intention to appeal and that the delay was understandable given his deficits.
The court also found that the potential prejudice to the tenant outweighed any prejudice to the landlord, and that the appeal had merit because the Board member may have relied on inadmissible double hearsay.
The motion was granted, the time to perfect was extended, and the eviction was stayed pending the appeal.
