… The Board is sympathetic to theThe RN appealed the Board’s findings to the Superior Court, arguing that her evidence and that of the registered psychologist had not been contradicted and had established that she had been suffering from a number of factors including grief, anxiety, and depression which had prevented her from fully appreciating her inability to write the CRNE successfully on her first attempt.
situation. However, theIt is the responsibility of candidates to assess their own personal circumstances in determining when to take the examination. should have known of any side-effects of her medications well before she attempted the examination and she had the opportunity to assess the impact of her mental and emotional state before the attempt.
theThe Court of Appeal found that HPARB’s ultimate conclusion that the RN had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would warrant the annulment of her first examination was reasonable, and there was no basis on which to interfere with that conclusion. What Does This Mean for Other Regulated Health Professions? The successful completion of the CRNE is a non-exemptible requirement for registration under the regulations to the Nursing Act. Many other health professions have similar non-exemptible requirements, as well as limitations that may constrain the number of times an examination can be attempted. It can be very challenging to appeal such requirements, even when there are circumstances that suggest that exemptions should be made, as in this case. If you are a regulated health professional and have questions about registration requirements, or would like to appeal a registration or other decision contact Wise Health Law.We focus exclusively on health and administrative law. Our lawyers have significant trial and appellate experience and are passionate about helping regulated health professionals and others in the medical world across the province understand and protect their legal rights. Contact us online, or at 416-915-4234 for a consultation.
could and should have assessed the side effects of her medications and the impact of her mother’s death well before the examination. That is a reasonable conclusion, given that the appellant’s mother died a year earlier, and the appellant had been taking the medications for some time before the examination.
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.