Yuz, Re, (1984) 6 O.A.C. 46 (DC)
|Judge:||Galligan, Montgomery and O'Brien, JJ.|
|Court:||Superior Court of Justice of Ontario|
|Case Date:||October 12, 1984|
|Citations:||(1984), 6 O.A.C. 46 (DC)|
Yuz, Re (1984), 6 O.A.C. 46 (DC)
MLB headnote and full text
In The Matter Of The Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 224;
And In The Matter Of The Health Disciplines Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 196;
And In The Matter Of the Review or Investigation of the Health Disciplines Board upon the complaint of Judy Yuz with respect to the decision of the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario with regard to the death of Steven Michael Yuz;
And In The Matter Of Dr. Bernard Laski, Dr. Lionel J. Weinstein, Dr. Klaus Karl Minde, Dr. Robert P. Carr, Dr. Joseph J. Porepa, Dr. Sheldon Arthur Wise, Dr. Deborah McCurdy, Dr. Ronald M. Grant, Dr. Daisy R. Pavri and Dr. Allan Studniberg.
Indexed As: Yuz, Re
Ontario Divisional Court
Galligan, Montgomery and O'Brien, JJ.
October 12, 1984.
A complaint was made against several doctors and was filed with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The College decided not to refer the complaint to its Discipline Committee. Judy Yuz appealed to the Health Disciplines Board. The Health Disciplines Board directed that the hearing of the appeal be held in public rather than in private. The doctors involved applied to the Ontario Divisional Court for review of the decision of the Health Disciplines Board to conduct a public hearing.
The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application and held that the Board had a discretion to conduct a hearing in public or in private.
Administrative Law - Topic 529
The hearing - Conduct of the hearing - Discretion to conduct hearing in public or in private - The Ontario Divisional Court held that where the legislation is silent it is a discretionary matter for a board to decide whether a hearing should be conducted in public or in private - See paragraph 16.
Medicine - Topic 2086
Discipline - Statutory appeals - Hearing, discretion to conduct a hearing in public or in private - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the Health Disciplines Board had a discretion to conduct a hearing in public or in private - See paragraph 18.
Hearts of Oak Assurance Company, Limited v. Attorney-General,  A.C. 392, dist. [para. 11].
Millward v. Public Service Commission (1974), 49 D.L.R.(3d) 295, refd to. [para. 15].
Toronto Star v. Toronto Newspaper Guild (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 278, refd to. [para. 15].
Magor & St. Mellon's Rural District Council v. Newport Corporation,  A.C. 189, refd to. [para. 17].
Health Disciplines Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 196, sect. 8(2) [para. 10]; sect. 12(4) [para. 9]; sect. 53 [para. 6]; sect. 65(1) [para. 8].
L.T. Forbes, Q.C., for applicants, Drs. Laski, Weinstein, Minde, Carr, Porepa, Wise, McCurdy and Studniberg;
E.P. Newcombe, Q.C., for applicant, Dr. Pavri;
R.G. Chapman, Esq., for applicant, Dr. Grant;
R.J. Fraser, Q.C., for the respondent, Health Disciplines Board;
Donald Posluns, Esq., for the respondent, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario;
D.J.M. Brown, Q.C., and B.M. Rogers, Esq., for respondent, Toronto Star;
S. Iseman, Esq., for J. Yuz.
This application was heard by Galligan, Montgomery and O'Brien, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on September 5, 6 and 7, 1984. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered by Montgomery, J., and was released on October 12, 1984.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP