The Court of the Medical College of Ontario, dismissed the motion Three doctors critical of COVID-19 policies tried to stop disciplinary hearings against them.
Because doctors allegedly committed professional misconduct in certain actions they engaged in while taking issue with some of the COVID-related public health directives given by the Medical College of Ontario (CPSO). , you risk losing your license. in vaccination and treatment.
The doctors involved were Mark Trozzi, Patrick Phillips, and Crystal Luqiu, who argued in their motion that the CPSO’s indictment against them was “illegal” for jurisdictional reasons.
The allegations against them include “making misleading, inaccurate, or inflammatory statements about vaccinations, treatments, and public health measures related to COVID-19,” “refusing to cooperate with university investigations,” and “issuance of vaccine exemptions”.
The trio have spoken out publicly against COVID-19 mandates and restrictions, videos and interviewsTheir practice has now been suspended and they have asked the Ontario Disciplinary Tribunal of Physicians and Surgeons to dismiss their case without referring it to a merit hearing.
Their claims were based on both administrative law and constitutional law. The administrative law claim argued that the allegations were based on an investigation conducted by the university registrar. Dr. Nancy Whitmore I didn’t have the legal authority to boot. The constitutional argument was that the allegations relied on the university’s COVID-related directives, which themselves violated two guarantees. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: freedom of expression and the right to life, liberty or security of person.
The court dismissed their motion on January 19.
“In our view, several court decisions made prior to the motion hearing (including physicians, including three petitioning parties before us) effectively dealt with the administrative law debate. I did,” the court ruled.
The court added that a charter decision should not be made on this petition because the doctor’s charter claim could be relevant to the disciplinary hearing. [CPSO’s] A statement can support a finding of professional misconduct. ”
“just a guideline”
The court noted that in 2021 and 2022, the CPSO released statements on its website as guidance to professionals on COVID-19.
The statement addresses medical exemptions for vaccines, whether prophylactic medications should be prescribed to combat COVID-19, and some physicians who “reject scientific evidence and encourage actions such as: Concerns centered on “misleading or deceptive comments” that endanger the public by Contrary to public health orders and recommendations.”
Physicians said the statement was “merely a guideline” rather than a “binding legal code,” and that the university sought to restrict free speech, and that the university did not have the legal authority to mandate prohibitions or orders that they could impose. He objected that he was trying to punish the
They stated that “the statement limits medical waivers, curtails physician commentary on COVID-19, targets ‘anti-vaxor’ and ‘anti-masker’, and addresses patient informed consent to preventive drug use.” He said that it corresponds to the direction of hindering the discussion. ’” the court said in its ruling.
The CPSO disagreed with the doctor’s opinion. The court determined that the university was not seeking a certification of professional misconduct based on violations of the statement, but rather for other alleged conduct.
Additionally, the court ruled that the Physician’s Charter challenge to this allegation became a “hypothetical” because the university agreed that its COVID statement was “only a guideline.”
The doctors claimed it was beyond her jurisdiction when Whitmore allowed investigators to engage in an overly broad “fishing expedition” and requested that she cooperate and provide documents. [his or her] Completion of medical exemptions for COVID-19 vaccination and diagnostic testing. ”
The Registrar said he had “reasonable and probable grounds” to believe that the doctor had committed professional misconduct or was incompetent, the court heard.
Challenges to the investigation have been previously heard in the District Court and Superior Court, without success.
Attorney Michael Alexander, who represents all three doctors, told the Epoch Times in an email that he and his client are seeking a review of the court’s ruling.
“The hearing simply refused to address our important submission that the Registrar, Dr. Nancy Whitmore, had no reasonable and probable basis for ordering a physician investigation.” he wrote.
“Furthermore, the committee ignored our submission that the university was unable to establish that the physician violated its standards of practice.”
Regarding the Court’s position that the CPSO’s statement is merely a guideline and not a binding rule or regulation, Alexander said, “By taking this position, the Panel will explain the basis of the charges brought against the physician. I couldn’t do it,” he said.
“This decision does not meet the most basic criteria of legal basis. We therefore plan to appeal the decision within the University and file another motion to resolve these issues,” he said. Told.
A disciplinary hearing date has not yet been scheduled.