The COVID-19 tag collects posts on medical malpractice, regulatory, and policy issues arising from the pandemic. The pandemic-era case law in Ontario includes a substantial cluster of discipline decisions against physicians who issued vaccine or mask exemptions without proper clinical justification, who spread health misinformation, or who otherwise conducted themselves in ways the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario considered inconsistent with the standards of the profession. Other COVID-19 posts address the effect of pandemic conditions on the standard of care, including the impact of personal protective equipment shortages, intensive care unit capacity constraints, and the deferral of non-urgent investigations and procedures.
Many of the discipline cases turned on the tension between physician autonomy and the College’s policy direction, and on the Charter analysis under Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12 of restrictions on professional speech. The clinical malpractice issues raised by pandemic-era care, particularly in long-term care, the emergency department, and intensive care, have begun to surface in civil litigation but the case law remains in its early stages.
Posts tagged COVID-19 analyze Ontario decisions and policy issues arising from the pandemic, including discipline outcomes for misinformation and exemption misuse, and the broader question of how pandemic conditions affect the standard of care.
The Divisional Court affirms the OPSDT’s revocation of Dr. Trozzi’s licence. The Doré framework, the non-cooperation duty, and the limits of physician speech.
An Ontario tribunal ruled physicians have no Charter privacy interest in their patients’ records. Subsequent proceedings produced a 12-month suspension.
A Northern Ontario physician’s certificate of registration was revoked for online misinformation, sharing of confidential investigative information, and clinical deficiencies.
A family physician refused to cooperate with multiple CPSO investigations during the pandemic. The OPSDT held that the refusal was itself professional misconduct.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.