Those kinds of reviews and/or appeals are totally rigged. If an appeal, by a standard of correctness (based on an error in law), then the one who hears it simply avoids the facts that, normally, cause a decision to go the other way ... aka, negligence, which isn't subject to an appeal. If a judicial review, by a standard of reasonableness (based on errors in facts, or on mixed facts and law), then there's all manner of legal clauses, say, that the governing or regulating College, here the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, doesn't have to even read all of a complaint, let alone have to much investigate it, even though they have every legal right, and, then, power, to do so.
However, the doctor didn't realize that the courts must hear of the proceedings of appeals and/or reviews, and, that the courts don't have to form the same opinions as the thus Colleges' panels, or, the ones who review them. Here, HPARB, for health professions appeals & reviews board, in caps of course, if I recall. I was involved in one thus case, in which one of the lawyers for the other side thought that it was professionals, was corrected for it. Anyway, what would there be to win in a civil case, given that the the guy I'm helping was becoming a "vegetable" with a big tube down his throat? Once the kidneys, etc, shut down, that's it. From past cases, I can conclude that it's likely that the doctor would lose her licence.





Reply With Quote