Superior Court overturns decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board on the basis that the ICRC fundamentally erred in its review of the medical record.
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Health Professions Appeal and Review Board – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Physicians and surgeons – Competence
Montour v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board),  O.J. No. 3032, 2019 ONSC 3451, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 11, 2019, H.E. Sachs, D.L. Corbett and M.L. Edwards JJ.
Dr. Montour applied for judicial review of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”), upholding the decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”).
The ICRC was critical of Dr. Montour for her failure to attend at the hospital to assess a patient when notified of the patient’s deteriorating condition and required that Dr. Montour be cautioned in person at the College.
The court held that the ICRC had misstated the medical records, and that the records and expert evidence supported a finding that Dr. Montour had responded appropriately to the patient’s medical issues during the subject timeframe. The medical records confirmed that the patient was not deteriorating during the period of time that the patient’s status was reported to Dr. Montour.
The ICRC’s finding was therefore unreasonable and the HPARB’s decision to uphold the ICRC disposition was similarly unreasonable. The court therefore quashed the decision of the HPARB and the decision of the ICRC was set aside.
This case was digested by JoAnne G. Barnum, and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter. If you would like to discuss this case further, please contact JoAnne G. Barnum at firstname.lastname@example.org.
To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.