Vicki White

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee Panel finding he engaged in professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a 15-year-old patient.

The appellant argued the Panel misapprehended the evidence by failing to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, improperly considering post-incident conduct, and applying unequal scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicants, including several religious physicians and organizations, challenged two policies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that require physicians who object to providing certain medical services (such as abortion or medical assistance in dying) on religious or conscientious grounds to provide an 'effective referral' to a non-objecting provider.

The applicants argued these policies infringed their rights to freedom of religion and equality under the Charter.

The Divisional Court held that while the effective referral requirements did infringe the physicians' freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, the infringement was justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to ensure equitable access to healthcare for patients.

The court dismissed the applications.

The appellant, an independent health facility, appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering it to pay fees to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for practice assessments.

The appellant argued the College lacked statutory authority to charge these fees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under the integrated legislative scheme of the Independent Health Facilities Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act, the College had the authority to enact by-laws charging fees to non-members for assessments it was required to conduct.

The applicant, a 76-year-old family physician, sought judicial review of an order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Quality Assurance Committee requiring him to practice under clinical supervision.

The order followed peer assessments that identified critical deficiencies in his practice posing an immediate risk to patient safety.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he did not receive a copy of the final review before the Committee's initial letter, and that the Committee failed to consider his responses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness when the process was viewed as a whole, and concluding that the Committee had properly considered the applicant's submissions.

The applicant physician sought a stay of an order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario imposing clinical supervision conditions on his practice, pending his application for judicial review.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court held that the financial cost of supervision did not amount to irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the College due to patient safety concerns.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion for directions regarding the admissibility of certain paragraphs in Dr. Chong's affidavit filed on a motion to stay.

The College argued that the paragraphs contained quality assurance information, which is protected under s. 83.1(6) of the Act.

The court agreed, ruling that the legislation does not permit quality assurance information to be referred to or treated as evidence.

The court excluded the paragraphs from evidence, noting that Dr. Chong's counsel could still refer to the information during argument as it was already in the record of proceedings.

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

The applicant alleged the tribunal failed to address all her allegations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal was not required to address every allegation and that its decision was reasonable based on the evidence.

A physician applied under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for remedies following an unlawful police search of his home computer that uncovered child pornography.

The criminal charges were withdrawn due to an invalid search warrant, but the physician’s professional regulator obtained a copy of the hard drive and commenced disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant sought orders requiring destruction of the copied hard drive and prohibiting the regulator from relying on the evidence in the discipline hearing.

The court assumed serious Charter breaches, including possible bad faith by police, but held that neither destruction nor prohibition was appropriate or just in the circumstances.

The Discipline Committee was best positioned to determine the admissibility of the evidence under s. 24(2) in the administrative proceeding.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee ordering a clinical caution and preceptorship.

The applicant argued the College lacked statutory authority and breached procedural fairness by initiating a broader investigation into his practice before resolving an initial patient complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the College had the authority to initiate the investigation based on reasonable and probable grounds, the request for OHIP records was relevant, and the disposition addressing both record-keeping and clinical concerns was reasonable.

The appellant psychiatrist appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario finding that he sexually abused a patient.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee's structure of analysis effectively reversed the burden of proof by eliminating alternative scenarios based on an absence of evidence.

The Court also found the Committee compounded this error by relying on the absence of mental health evidence after denying the appellant's application for third-party records, and by improperly using prior consistent statements to bolster the complainant's credibility.

The appellant physician was found guilty of professional misconduct involving sexual abuse of young boys.

He appealed the Discipline Committee's decision, arguing that the summons power under s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code violated his s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and that the College's delay in prosecuting the case amounted to an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the summons power is constitutional in the regulatory context as it is properly constrained by relevance and privilege.

The Court also found that the delay was not inordinate given the concurrent criminal proceedings, and the appellant did not suffer significant prejudice.

The appellant, a foreign-trained physician, appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's refusal to issue him a certificate of registration.

The appellant had participated in a practice assessment program but failed to meet the non-exemptible standards for registration, including sufficient knowledge, skill, judgment, and mental competence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board and the College's Registration Committee complied with procedural fairness and reasonably concluded the appellant lacked the required qualifications to practice medicine in Ontario.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his medical license and a costs order of $95,812 imposed by the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons for sexual misconduct involving three young boys.

The appellant, joined by intervenors, also challenged the constitutionality of the College investigator's summons power under s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, arguing it violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the summons power was constitutional in the regulatory context, the Committee had jurisdiction to hear the Charter challenge, and the delay in proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Court upheld the Committee's factual findings, penalty, and costs order as reasonable.

The applicant, a physician, sought judicial review of the decision of the Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to appoint investigators to investigate his practice.

The investigations arose from resolutions of the Quality Assurance Committee and a patient complaint.

The applicant refused to comply and raised constitutional and procedural fairness issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the grounds of prematurity, holding that administrative proceedings should run their full course before judicial intervention, absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which had overturned a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Complaints Committee to take no further action on a complaint.

The complaint alleged the physician treated a patient with contempt and prejudice before the patient's death from pneumonia.

The Divisional Court found that the Board failed to apply the proper standard of reasonableness and deference to the Committee's screening function.

The Court held that the Board's requirement for further investigation into the physician's credibility and use of the word 'lifestyle' was unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Board's decision was set aside, and the Committee's decision was restored.

The moving party, a physician under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion to stay a stated case application initiated by the College pending the outcome of his separate application challenging the constitutionality of the College's investigative summons power.

The stated case application sought to compel the Chief of Police to comply with a summons for a Crown brief related to stayed criminal charges against the physician.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the College to proceed with its investigation in the public interest.

However, the court granted the physician leave to intervene as an added party in the stated case application on consent.

The applicant doctor brought a motion before the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a motions judge's order.

The motions judge had dismissed the applicant's entire judicial review application, even though only a motion for an injunction and mandatory order regarding a College investigation was before him.

The Divisional Court agreed that the motions judge was correct to refuse the injunction and mandatory order, but amended the formal order to clarify that only the motion, not the underlying judicial review application, was dismissed.

The appellant physician engaged in a sexual relationship with a patient and his certificate of registration was revoked pursuant to the mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

He appealed, arguing the provisions violated sections 7, 12, and 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Charter does not protect the purely economic right to practice a profession.

Even if engaged, the provisions did not violate section 7 as they were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under section 12, and did not infringe freedom of association under section 2(d).

The applicant, a physician previously disciplined for professional misconduct, brought an application for judicial review challenging a College by-law regarding the public availability of disciplinary information.

In this motion, the applicant sought an interim order banning the publication of his name and allowing him to use initials in the court record.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the disciplinary information had been public for over 13 years and there was no risk to the administration of justice or need to protect societal values of superordinate importance that would justify an exception to the open court principle.

The applicant physician moved for a stay of the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Discipline Committee decision revoking his medical licence, pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The applicant had a history of professional misconduct findings related to inappropriate breast examinations.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the only evidence provided was hearsay regarding financial harm.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the College due to the risk to the public, given the applicant's history of failing to follow the College's directions regarding proper examination methodology.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.