Court dismisses appeal of physician seeking to overturn decision to not renew privileges

16. August 2022 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Health Professions Appeal and Review Board – Judicial review – Fresh evidence – Stay of proceedings – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming Talwar v. Grand River Hospital, [2022] O.J. No. 2956, ...

It’s all in the context: the content of hospital privileges and assessment of what constitutes constructive revocation of privileges is highly contextual, to be examined on a case by case basis

20. July 2021 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Hospital Appeal Board – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Physicians – Hospital privileges Provincial Health Services Authority v. Campbell, [2021] B.C.J. No. 943, 2021 BCSC 823, British Columbia Supreme Court, April 30, 2021, N.P. Kent J. The petitioner, the Provincial Health Services Authority, is ...

SKQB holds that its jurisdiction, with respect to the suspension of surgical privileges, did not arise until after the Tribunal rendered a decision in discipline process

20. February 2018 0
Dr. Patel had surgical privileges in the respondent, Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority (the “Health Authority”). Dr. Patel commenced an application for judicial review while he was still involved in a discipline process of the Health Authority. The Health Authority’s Senior Medical Officer successfully applied to quash the application for judicial review. Administrative law – ...

Court ordered a reconsideration of doctor’s hospital privileges application for lack of procedural fairness

24. November 2016 0
The administrative decision-maker was held to have breached its duty of procedural fairness because it failed to share all relevant information with the applicant and failed to provide him with a reasonable opportunity to respond before the decision was made. Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Duty to disclose evidence – Health authorities ...

A gastroenterologist (“Dr. Gopinath”) secured a ruling from the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“Appeal Board”) renewing his privileges without condition. The Toronto East General Hospital (the “Hospital”) was unsuccessful on an appeal where it attempted to restore the earlier decision of the Hospital Board denying him privileges unless he signed an undertaking and agreement to participate in the Physician Health Program (“PHP”).

24. June 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Hospital Appeal Board – Hearings – Hearing de novo – Physicians and Surgeons – Hospital privileges – Disruptive behaviour – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Evidence Toronto East General Hospital v. Gopinath, [2014], O.J. No. 2248, 2014 ONSC 2731, Ontario Superior Court ...

The Appellant Health Authority successfully appealed a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench which had upheld the decision of the Practitioner Staff Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal had decided it could hear an appeal brought by the Respondent physicians, Drs. Kutzner and Blackwell relating to a reduction in their operating room time.

28. December 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health authorities – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Prairie North Regional Health Authority v. Kutzner, [2010] S.J. No. 650, 2010 SKCA 132, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, October 27, 2010, J. Klebuc C.J.S., ...

The Applicant (“Dr. Khan”) unsuccessfully brought an application for judicial review in respect of a recommendation made by the Respondent Hospital’s Executive Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”). The Committee recommended that Dr. Khan’s hospital privileges be terminated.

23. March 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Hospital Appeal Board – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Bias – Judicial review application – Striking out – Premature – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction Khan v. Scarborough General Hospital, [2009} O.J. No. 5437, Ontario Superior ...

An appeal by the Defendant St. Paul’s Hospital (the “Hospital”) from dismissal of a motion to strike out a Statement of Claim issued by a surgeon (“Munro”) as disclosing no cause of action was dismissed where the Court held that it was not plain and obvious that Munro’s claim in contract would fail and the Hospital did not establish that the Court should decline jurisdiction to hear the tort claims

25. August 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Hospital Appeal Board – Statutory powers – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Remedies – Alternative remedies Munro v. St. Paul’s Hospital, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1475, British Columbia Court of Appeal, July 24, 2009, I.T. Donald, P.D. Lowry ...

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Medical Advisory Committee (“MAC”) and overturned the decision of the Ontario Superior Court. The Ontario Superior Court held that the arbitrator had erred in deciding the dispute between the MAC and the Respondent Physician. The Court of Appeal held the arbitrator’s decision was subject to judicial review on the reasonableness standard and the decision was reasonable.

27. January 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Medical Advisory Committee – Physicians and Surgeons – Hospital privileges – Arbitration Board – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Smyth v. Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital, [2008] O.J. No. 4752, Ontario Court of Appeal, November 26, 2008, J.C. MacPherson, E.A. Cronk and ...

The Appellant hospital appealed from a decision concluding that the Hospital Privileges Appeal Board had jurisdiction to hear the Respondent doctor’s appeal from a refusal by the hospital’s Operating Room Committee to increase his operating room time. The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the reviewing judge had failed to consider the preliminary question of whether the doctor had, as required, raised an issue of law in order to appeal from the Board’s decision, and also in applying the correctness standard to the Board’s decision. The appropriate standard of review is reasonableness, and the failure of the majority to provide reasons meant it was impossible to determine if the decision was reasonable.

23. September 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Hospital Appeal Board – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Physicians and surgeons – Hospital privileges – Appeals – Compliance with legislation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness – Failure to provide reasons Macdonald v. Mineral Springs Hospital, [2008] A.J. No., 891, Alberta ...