… 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.
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”?