The court ordered limited production of the deceasedâs medical records in a will-dispute application, but refused police and executor-held private records.
The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was suspended for failing to comply with his employer's mandatory COVIDâ19 vaccination policy and that his deliberate refusal to disclose vaccination status or comply constituted misconduct under sections 30 and 31 of the Employment Insurance Act, thereby disentitling him from EI benefits; employer conduct, collective agreement disputes and Charter/privacy claims were not determinative for the EI misconduct inquiry.
On appeal the correctness standard applies to statutory interpretation; the Pharmacy Act vests authority to conduct quality assurance assessments in a quality assurance committee and its assessors, and the Board lacked authority to designate a person to conduct the practice site assessment absent appointment of that committee and assessors, therefore the adjudication tribunal's finding of conduct deserving of sanction was set aside.
The appeal was allowed and the judgment set aside because the motion judge failed to explain how he resolved clear, contested factual conflicts that required credibility findings and did not expressly consider or invoke the procedural powers under rr.20.04(2.1)-(2.2); this absence of explanation risked substantive injustice and required remittance for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that patients may inspect and copy information in their medical records used in treatment, though the physician owns the physical files.