by Written on behalf of Wise Health Law November 01, 2019 2 min read

Introduction

When a healthcare professional is engaged in disciplinary proceedings and found to have been at fault, the issue of the appropriate penalty or sanction arises. In a recent decision of the Ontario Divisional Court (ONSC) a rheumatologist was successful in appealing the penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee (DC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO). The finding below was that he had engaged in both sexual abuse of two female patients and in disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct. The findings were such that there was no automatic call for a revocation of his certificate of registration. Using its discretion, the DC imposed a lifetime revocation anyway.

The behaviour found to have occurred was as follows:

  • remarks of a sexual nature;
  • asking medically irrelevant questions regarding the sex lives of the patients;
  • using sexually explicit language;
  • rubbing his groin against the hip of a patient while administering an injection.

Discipline Committee's Assessment

In determining the penalty, the Committee had used the following five factors:

  1. Public protection;
  2. Maintaining the reputation and integrity of the profession and public confidence in the College’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest;
  3. Specific deterrence of the member;
  4. General deterrence of the profession; and
  5. Opportunity for the rehabilitation of the member.

Judicial Review

The ONSC agreed with the DC that the five criteria used were appropriate but also found that the DC had made several errors in applying the criteria, as follows:

  1. The DC had failed to balance the evidence with respect to each of the five criteria, focusing on criterion two and three, sometimes to the exclusion of the other criteria;
  2. The DC had failed to consider proportionality by not considering the differences in the conduct, and the impact of said conduct, as experienced by the two patients.;
  3. The DC had failed to apply the principle of consistency and precedent in imposing their penalty by refusing to consider a list of prior decisions raised by the member. Those authorities clearly show in past cases where there was more serious conduct with a greater negative impact on the patients, that the DC had only determined that a suspension and not a revocation was appropriate.

The ONSC held that a penalty determination will only be overturned where there is an error in principle or the penalty administered is unfit. Here, there were multiple errors making the penalty unreasonable. The matter was referred back to the DC for a proper determination of the appropriate penalty.

At Wise Health Law, we focus on health and administrative law, including appealing and seeking judicial review of disciplinary committees. Our lawyers have significant trial and appellate experience and are passionate about helping regulated health professionals and healthcare organizations understand and protect their legal rights. We will guide you through the process, help you understand potential risks and legal implications, and assist you with or skillfully represent you at the proceedings. To find out how we can assist, contact us online, or at 416-915-4234 for a consultation.



Also in Blog

Cases to Watch: Marchi v. Nelson

by Mina Karabit September 22, 2020 3 min read

In August 2020, the Supreme Court heard and granted leave to appeal in Marchi v. Nelson, a case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision is one to watch as it will likely result in a renewed discussion of the distinction of policy versus operational decisions and their impacts on liability in tort law. The discussion will likely impact many of the anticipated post-COVID-19 lawsuits against public and government institutions.
Judicial Review: New Time Limits and a Helpful Primer

by Mina Karabit September 17, 2020 4 min read

In December 2019, Ontario’s Attorney General introduced Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act (the “Act”), which became law on July 8, 2020. The Act hopes to simplify a complex and outdated justice system by bringing changes to how legal aid services are delivered, how class actions are handled, and how court processes are administered.

Of note, the Act has amended the Judicial Review Procedures Act (JRPA) to establish new rules as to when an application for judicial review may be brought.

Any decisions made on or after July 8, 2020 are now subject to a 30-day limit for bringing an application for judicial review unless another Act provides otherwise. Courts, however, retain powers to extend the time for making an application for judicial review if satisfied that there are apparent grounds for relief and that no prejudice or hardship will be incurred by the delay. Before these amendments, the JRPA did not set out any time limits for bringing an application, but courts had powers to extend the time to bring an application if another Act prescribed the limit.

Recent Exemptions for Psychedelic Therapy in Canada

by Mina Karabit August 14, 2020 3 min read

In early August 2020, the Federal Minister of Health granted an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) to four terminally ill Canadians to use psilocybin in their end of life care.

Psilocybin is one of the active ingredients/chemicals in “magic mushrooms,” the other is psilocin. Both psilocybin and psilocin are controlled substances under Schedule III of the CDSA. The sale, possession, production, etc. are prohibited unless authorized for clinical trial or research purposes under Part J of the Food and Drug Regulations. Both have been illegal in Canada since 1974. According to Health Canada, there are no approved therapeutic products containing psilocybin in Canada. However, the purified active ingredient, i.e. psilocybin, is being studied in supervised clinical settings for its potential to treat various conditions such as anxiety and depression.