Sayran Sulevani

The applicant, a family physician, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming a remedial caution issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution related to public statements the applicant made objecting to her church's COVID-19 communion protocols, in which she identified herself as a physician.

The applicant argued the decisions failed to reasonably balance her Charter right to religious expression under the Doré framework.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the screening committee reasonably balanced its statutory mandate to protect the public with the applicant's Charter rights, noting she was not precluded from expressing religious views, but cautioned on identifying herself as a physician when doing so.

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 applicant physician sought judicial review of multiple decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) and the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) regarding her social media posts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ICRC had issued cautions for tweets containing verifiably false information about lockdowns, vaccines, and contact tracing, while dismissing complaints about tweets that merely expressed political disagreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the College reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter right to freedom of expression with its statutory mandate to regulate the medical profession and protect the public from misinformation.

The applicant anesthesiologist sought judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) that effectively suspended his practice by requiring constant clinical supervision.

The order followed incidents involving patient harm, including a death, and allegations of falsified medical records and inattention.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC's decision reasonable as there was 'some evidence' of probable harm to patients and the committee adequately justified why less restrictive measures were insufficient.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to issue a caution and require a specified continuing education or remediation program.

The complaint was initiated by the patient's spouse regarding complementary medicine and record-keeping.

The applicant argued the ICRC investigation was procedurally unfair due to late disclosure of documents and that the complaint should not have been investigated as it was not from the patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the ICRC was within its mandate to investigate third-party complaints to protect the public interest.

The applicant physician sought a stay, a sealing order, and a publication ban pending judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court also dismissed the request for a sealing order, citing the open court principle.

However, the court granted anonymization and limited redactions to protect the applicant's personal medical records and her status as a victim of sexual assault.

The applicant sought an interim publication ban pending a motion for a full publication ban.

The court granted the interim ban to preserve the applicant's ability to argue the privacy and security interests of her family, finding that the salutary effects outweighed any minimal deleterious effects on the media.

The applicant was directed to notify the media of the pending motion in accordance with the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction.

The applicant sought a full panel review of a case management order.

The court previously raised concerns that the motion was moot because the respondent had already conducted the investigation the applicant originally sought to compel.

The court invoked Rule 2.1.02 and directed the applicant to file submissions explaining why the motion should proceed.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The court dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and prohibited the applicant from bringing further motions without leave.

The applicant sought to review a case management judge's order that vacated a hearing date for her application to compel the College of Physicians and Surgeons to investigate her complaint.

The hearing date had been vacated because the applicant failed to serve materials and the College had already released its decision, rendering the application moot.

The court found the applicant's motion to review the order appeared to be without purpose and directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the applicant to explain why her motion should not be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.