Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario

Articles Tagged

Health Professions Procedural Code

The Health Professions Procedural Code is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and it sets out the common procedural framework for complaints, investigations, and discipline across all of Ontario’s regulated health colleges. Although each college has its own profession-specific act (the Medicine Act, 1991, for physicians; the Nursing Act, 1991, for nurses; and so on), the procedural rules that govern how complaints are received, investigated, and adjudicated come from the Code.

For medical malpractice lawyers and their clients, the Code matters in two main ways. First, it governs the parallel regulatory process that a patient may pursue at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, separate from any civil claim. Second, it defines the framework within which the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal operates, including the categories of professional misconduct, the available penalties, the rights of the complainant and the registrant, and the rules around publication of decisions.

Posts tagged Health Professions Procedural Code analyze how Ontario tribunals and courts have interpreted the Code, including decisions on procedural fairness, the scope of mandatory reporting, and the interaction between regulatory and civil proceedings.

10 articles View all topics →
Dark-blue banner with the title 'CPSO v Iracleous' and subtitle 'Revocation for false OHIP claims and a refusal to cooperate' indicating a legal case comment.

CPSO v Iracleous: Billing for Care He Never Provided, and Revocation

An emergency physician was struck off after billing OHIP $125,353 for services he never rendered, including critical care and cardioversions with no record they ever happened, and then refusing to cooperate with the College’s investigation. A look at why records integrity and the duty to cooperate sit at the centre of physician accountability.

Read More »
Navy title card reading "CPSO v Maharaj, Case Comment" with the line "Revocation after unconsented, non-evidence-based care," from paulcahill.ca

CPSO v Maharaj: A Revoked Licence, and What It Means For Patients

The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal revoked Dr. Maharaj’s licence after finding his care of 17 patients fell below the standard of practice and that he was incompetent. A look at the consent, evidence-based-treatment and privacy findings, and what a discipline decision does and does not mean for an injured patient.

Read More »
Have a Case Like This?

Concerned about medical negligence?
Talk to Paul directly.

Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.