Revocation will convey to the public and the profession that a member who engages in such exploitation will not be tolerated…The practice of medicine is a privilege, not a right.In this case, the patients were both vulnerable women with chronic conditions who had depended on the physician for treatment. Patient A had testified that she had been confused following the doctor’s remarks, and that, afterward, she “dreaded every encounter and appointment”. The patient that she had been concerned about coming forward with her allegations for fear that other doctors would think she was a “troublemaker” and would refuse to treat her. The College ultimately argued in favour of revocation of the physician’s license and sought to have him post a letter of credit for $32,000 to cover therapy costs for the two patients and $25,000 in costs for the discipline hearings.
The Divisional Court recently held . . . that the committee’s prior penalty ranges in cases of physician sexual abuse are out of step with present day society’s values and expectations…The committee recognizes that changing societal values speak to a need for more serious penalties in cases such as this one.In addition to revoking the license, the committee also ordered the physician to pay the $32,000 in therapy costs and $25,000 in costs for the proceedings, stating:
The committee hopes that its order in this case will send a clear message to other victims of sexual abuse by physicians that reporting such behaviour is encouraged and will be taken seriouslyAt Wise Health Law, we have extensive experience navigating through the medical, regulatory, and legal worlds and have significant experience and expertise assisting physicians and other health professionals in the civil and regulatory contexts, including in appeals and judicial reviews. Contact us for forward-thinking and expert advice about health law and regulatory matters. For the convenience of our clients, we have offices in both Toronto and Oakville, Ontario, and are easily accessible. Contact us online, or at 416-915-4234 for a consultation.
As of July 1, 2021, all Ontario long-term care homes must implement COVID-19 immunization policies for their staff, students, and volunteers — regardless of the frequency or duration of these individuals’ attendance in a home. Current staff, students, and volunteers will have until July 31, 2021 to meet the policy requirements, subject to reasonable extension for unforeseen circumstances. Newly hired individuals will have 30 days from the first day they begin attending at the home.
It is no surprise that the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the delivery of health services and the regulation of various health professions.
In a welcomed move, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) Council recently approved a new registration policy allowing the Registration Committee to issue a Certificate of Registration authorizing Independent Practice to applicants who have not completed Part II of the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE).
The test for the standard of care in medical negligence cases has remained untouched since the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1995 decision in ter Neuzen v. Korn.
On January 18, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal in Armstrong v. Ward. Their unanimous decision maintains the status quo with respect to the standard of care in medical negligence cases.