Ontario (College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario) v O’Donnell, 2019 ONCDHO 3
Straight forward case that reminds me of all the times I completed assignments in law school where I attested to complete on my own (and which I did). The case involves a registered dental hygienist who acknowledged that as part of her understanding of a quality assurance (QA) exam. She did not complete it on her own. This constitutes a false or misleading statement, among other things. As a result, this constitutes misconduct under Regulated Health Professions Act.
11945 v Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2019 ONLAT HTRA MED
A case where an older gentleman experienced a series of unfortunate events that led to his case. The case involves a 45-year-old process engineer who has a history of drinking. Physicians and other health care practitioners are required to report any person who is suffering from a prescribed condition which may make it dangerous for the person to drive. On one particular evening, he was taken to the emergency room by the police. Prior to the police arriving, he started drinking after a tow truck driver pulled up beside him, accusing him of having hit a car. The situation escalated. He felt the tow truck driver was trying to scam him and he found the situation frightening. After losing the tow truck driver, he went home, called 911 and started drinking. The police arrived two hours later. In the ER, the doctor indicated that appellant suffers from a mental health condition. He was held for a period of three days as a result of this ER visit. He did not have mental health issues. He testified that he was never diagnosed with a mental health condition, and never prescribed any medication of any kind. The appellant’s family physician completed a medical assessment form and indicated that the appellant suffered from moderate substance use disorder. The panel accepted the appellant’s testimony, namely that he did not, for the most part, drink and drive, among other things, and concluded that the disorder would not significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
Ontario Nurses’ Association v Cambridge Memorial Hospital, 2019 ONSC 3951
This is an application for judicial review by the Ontario Nurses Association seeking to quash and set aside the labour arbitration decision. The respondent, the Hospital, terminated employment of a nurse after she misappropriated narcotics. The nurse filed a grievance against the hospital alleging her termination was contrary to Ontario human rights codes and without just cause. The court granted the application after finding that the arbitrator’s awards was neither transparent nor intelligible, two fundamental requirements of reasonableness. The standard of review was reasonableness and the court held that the unreasonableness in the arbitrator’s award was due to the fact that the arbitrator applied the wrong test. The hospital agreed that the test relied on was no longer good law. The arbitrator also held that the nurse would have not engaged in the misconduct but for her addiction, which the hospital attempted to argue this was not the arbitrator’s finding. The court did not agree and referred to several “but for” references throughout the award. Court set aside award and remit grievance to new mutually agreeable arbitrator.