by Written on behalf of Wise Health Law July 12, 2017 2 min read

There is a range of meaning to the term “sexual abuse” or “sexual assault” in law, depending whether the context is criminal, civil, or regulatory. Criminal: A patient can consent, at law. In the criminal context, the offence of sexual assault is made out if there is sexual contact without the voluntary consent of both parties. A patient can consent. To establish guilt, the Crown must prove its case against the defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Civil: A patient can consent, at law. In the civil context (i.e.- a lawsuit in the civil courts, typically for monetary compensation), the definition of sexual assault is sexual contact without the voluntary consent of both parties. A patient can consent. To prove liability, the plaintiff must prove the sexual contact without consent “on a balance of probabilities”. College Regulatory Proceeding: A patient can never consent, at law. In the regulatory context (i.e., at a discipline hearing before a regulatory College under the RHPA), the definition of sexual abuse is simply types of sexual touching (or even sexual comments) with a patient. The patient cannot consent as a matter of law. A patient remains a “patient” within the definition of the RHPA for at least a year (possibly longer if so prescribed) – so cannot consent as a matter of law throughout this period of time. The College prosecutor must prove his or her case “on a balance of probabilities” based on “clear, convincing and cogent” evidence. In some cases (depending on the nature of the sexual touching), the mandatory penalty is revocation of the professional’s certificate of registration. This penalty is mandatory, even if the touching would not meet the definition of either civil or criminal sexual assault – as a patient cannot consent, as a matter of law. Health professionals faced with allegations of sexual abuse or assault – in any of the above contexts – must take the matter very seriously and seek legal advice at the earliest possible opportunity. At Wise Health Law, we have vast experience and expertise assisting health professionals in the civil and regulatory contexts, and have an established network of criminal lawyers with whom we work. 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.


Also in Blog

Bill 218: Supporting Ontario’s Recovery Act, 2020

by Valerie Wise October 23, 2020 3 min read

On October 20, 2020, the Ontario government introduced legislation to provide protection from liability for workers, volunteers and organizations who make “good faith efforts” to comply with federal, provincial or municipal law and public health guidance relating to COVID-19.   
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.