Recommendations from the QCIPA Review Committee

In 2014 the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care called for the formation of a committee to look at current practices in the interpretation and implementation of the Quality of Care Information Protection Act and to make recommendations for improvement. The resulting QCIPA Review Committee, which submitted its report to the Ministry in December 2014, issued 12 recommendations. These recommendations include among other things propositions related to: (i) changes in the legislation; (ii) an increased emphasis on patient involvement in investigations; and (iii) mechanisms to better utilize the lessons learned through investigations. Michael Gleeson was recently interviewed on the topic. See:

ECFAA provides hospital boards with a broad mandate for oversight of patient care

The Medical Advisory Committee (“MAC”) of a hospital has traditionally been the primary mechanism for a board of directors to ensure that a hospital is providing the appropriate quality of care to its patients. However, the Quality Committee of a hospital, as required by the Excellent Care for All Act, may be equally as important for a board. While the MAC is critically important for oversight and evaluation of the patient care provided by privileged health care providers, it has a relatively limited mandate as compared to the Quality Committee. The Quality Committee is tasked with responsibility for, and granted the tools necessary to oversee, all aspects of patient care within a hospital; not just care provided by privileged doctors, dentists, extended class nurses and midwives. Michael Gleeson was recently interviewed on the topic of board oversight of patient care. See:

The Risk of Remaining Silent on Jurisdiction in Contracts

How a contract is interpreted by a court is in large part based on the terms set out in the jurisdiction and governing law sections of the contract. In some situations, parties may be tempted to omit these sections of a contract. Before omitting these sections, a party should be aware of the risks. By omitting jurisdiction and governing law clauses a party could be exposing itself to the possibility of: (i) bearing costs related to engagement of legal counsel in a foreign jurisdiction; (ii) bearing costs related to travel to a foreign jurisdiction; and (iii) being subject to a legal regime with remedies and penalties that the party did not consider when negotiating the relevant contract. Michael Gleeson was recently interviewed on the topic. See:

Template by-law for compliance with Ontario’s Not-For-Profit Corporations Act, 2010

As part of the required transition to Ontario’s Not-For-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 (the “Act”), each corporation that is subject to the Act will need to ensure that its corporate by-laws are in compliance with the Act. Ontario’s Ministry of Consumer Services (the “Ministry”) has made available on its website a default by-law that may be adopted by a corporation or used as a guide to make sure that a corporation’s by-laws are in compliance with the Act. Read More

Health care procurement tips – avoiding common traps

With the release of the Broader Public Sector procurement directive in 2011, health care organizations in Ontario have been forced to change the way that they procure goods and services. DDO is working with our clients to implement procurement procedures that are both practical and in compliance with Ontario’s regulatory requirements. Read More

Drug allocation strategies – lessons from the Sandoz drug shortage

Since becoming aware of production issues at the drug manufacturing facilities of Sandoz Canada Inc., the sole supplier of a large number of the generic injectable drugs used in Ontario, health care providers have been rushing to prepare for possible drug shortages. Hospitals, pharmacies and long-term care facilities have found themselves unprepared for such a crisis. Read More