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:
In determining the penalty, the Committee had used the following five factors:
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:
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.
Earlier this year, Wise Health Law succeeded on a motion for summary judgment in a dental malpractice case on the basis that the limitation period had expired before the Statement of Claim was issued. The (unreported) decision was delivered orally on the day of the motion.
In part, the plaintiff argued that she did not discover her claim until the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (the “RCDSO” or “College”) rendered its decision, as she did not know if the defendant was negligent when she complained to the RCDSO, but merely had a “suspicion”.
In the midst of COVID-19, the proceedings of many health colleges, and consequently of the health professionals they regulate, have been in limbo while everyone finds a way forward.
On March 25, 2020, the Ontario government enacted the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020 (the “Act”) to help the process along.
The Act empowers statutory tribunals with more discretion over how proceedings before them are held.
Effective 11:59 p.m. on March 24, 2020, the Ontario government ordered the closure of “non-essential” workplaces. The list of “essential” workplaces included “health care professionals providing emergency care including dentists, optometrists and physiotherapists”.
The College of Chiropractors of Ontario (“CCO”) interprets this list as including chiropractors, and we agree.
So the question becomes – what is “emergency care”?