by Written on behalf of Wise Health Law December 13, 2018 3 min read

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) is an independent adjudicative body established under the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA). The RHPA reviews certain types of decisions made by regulatory health care bodies and Colleges in Ontario. It is the final legislative venue of review. The most common type of adjudication follows the request by a health care professional or patient, to review the decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of one of the applicable self-regulating health profession colleges in Ontario.

Complaint Review Mandate

The HPARB is granted authority to review the outcomes of decisions made by the applicable health professional college’s following a complaint pursuant to the Health Professions Procedural Code (HPPC) which is found as Schedule 2 to the RHPA. That authority though is limited to considering, in its review, the adequacy of the committee's investigation or the reasonableness of its decision or both. Either party to the process may request a review of the Committee’s decision. The parties are entitled to have a lawyer or agent represent them. The parties do generally attend the hearings. The health care workers are invariably represented by counsel. The applicable College, although not a party, is generally present through a representative.

Venue

Complaint reviews are conducted orally in person, by teleconference or by written proceedings. They are conducted in most major centres throughout the province.

Adequacy of an Investigation

The requirement is to ensure that the relevant Committee has conducted its investigation such that all of the essential information had been obtained which is relevant in order to be able to make an informed decision regarding the complaint. It does not need to be an exhaustive investigation. This means that not every possible document, record, and/or memorandum needs to be obtained and reviewed. If additional material is suggested as being relevant, which the Committee did not have or ignored, the test for adequacy is whether the information, if it had been obtained or reviewed, would be expected to have changed the Committee’s decision. If it would the investigation is considered inadequate, the converse being if it would not, the investigation would be considered adequate.

Reasonableness of the Decision

The HPARB role is not to decide whether it would have arrived at the same decision as the Committee below. Rather the Board must consider whether the decision below can reasonably be supported by the information it had before it and that it can further, withstand a somewhat probing examination. In doing so the Board considers whether the decision made falls within a range of reasonable, possible and acceptable outcomes. The decision must also be defensible based on the facts and the law.

Outcomes

Decisions can be given orally at the hearing but that is a rarely done. Most often the decision is rendered in writing and delivered to all parties a few months after the hearing. The Board may,
  • Confirm all or any part of the Committee’s decision;
  • Make recommendations to the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (regarding, for example, professional standards or practice issues); or
  • Require the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee to do things it has the jurisdiction to do, such as further investigating and/or considering all or particular aspects of the complaint, or to make a particular disposition of the matter such as;
  • Taking no further action;
  • Requiring remedial action of the member who is the subject of the complaint; or
  • Referring the health care professional under investigation to the applicable Discipline Committee.
The Board cannot recommend or require the Committee to do things outside its jurisdiction. This includes requesting a finding of misconduct or incompetence. It also may not require a referral of allegations to the applicable Discipline Committee that would not, if proved, constitute either professional misconduct or incompetence. At Wise Health Law, we focus on health and administrative law, including matters relating to appearances and representation before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. 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 HPARB hearing 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.