|
Medical Law - The 'Taking on' of Patients. Georgiou v. Ministry of Health et al.
In Georgiou v. Ministry of Health et al. (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court granted a motion to quash a JR, this where the underlying JR advanced a number of remedies respecting medical referral.
Here the court considers aspects of law regarding the taking on of patients:[57] As set out above, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant most of the relief being requested by the Applicant.
[58] Further, this Court cannot order the hospitals or doctors to take the Applicant as a patient. The decision to take on patients is not a decision subject to judicial review.
[59] As set out above, although the hospitals may operate pursuant to the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.40, the decision whether to take on a patient is not an exercise of power subject to their statutory mandate. Instead, they are making operational decisions (see the discussion of Stoffman and West Grey above).
[60] Further, whether a patient is accepted or discharged from a hospital’s clinical services is also informed by medical decision-making and judgment. Section 11 of the Hospital Management Regulations, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 965, under the Public Hospitals Act provides that:(2) No physician, registered nurse in the extended class, dentist or midwife shall order the admission of a person to a hospital unless, in the opinion of the physician, registered nurse in the extended class, dentist or midwife, it is clinically necessary that the person be admitted.
(3) No person shall be registered in a hospital as an out-patient except,
(a) on the order or under the authority of a member of the medical staff, midwifery staff or extended class nursing staff;
(b) on the order or under the authority of a member of the dental staff who is an oral and maxillofacial surgeon;
(b.1) in the case of a person who is an out-patient solely for the purpose of attending a dental clinic in a hospital, on the order or under the authority of a member of the dental staff […] [61] I therefore find that the Court does not have jurisdiction to judicially review the decisions of the proposed Respondents and therefore it is plain and obvious that the Applicant’s claims against the proposed Respondents cannot succeed.
|
