Opinions expressed on social media diverged from public health guidelines
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed applications by Dr. Kulvinder Gill, a specialist physician, seeking judicial review of decisions made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding her conduct on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court found the college's actions to be reasonable and proportionate. Dr. Gill, who practices at allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology clinics in Brampton and Milton, faced seven complaints about her social media posts concerning COVID-19. These complaints led to investigations by the College's Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC). While five complaints were dismissed, two resulted in Dr. Gill being cautioned for her social media use.
Dr. Gill sought judicial review of the ICRC's decisions and those of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which upheld the ICRC's findings. Additionally, Dr. Gill challenged a formal investigation initiated by the College's Registrar based on her online posts, concluding with an order for her to appear for a caution.
The Superior Court noted that Dr. Gill expressed opinions on social media that diverged from public health guidelines and government policies, which led to public complaints. The ICRC and HPARB decisions centred on whether her statements were verifiably false and potentially harmful.
The court found that the ICRC and HPARB appropriately balanced Dr. Gill's Charter rights to free expression with the College's statutory duty to maintain professional standards and protect public health. The court emphasized that the College's mandate includes ensuring that physicians do not disseminate false or misleading medical information, especially during a public health crisis.
Among the complaints was one that claimed Dr. Gill’s posts about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a COVID-19 treatment were dangerous. The ICRC found that while HCQ was controversial, Dr. Gill's comments were not verifiably false at the time and dismissed the complaint.
In contrast, other tweets by Dr. Gill were deemed problematic. These included statements claiming there was no scientific basis for lockdowns and that COVID-19 vaccines were unnecessary. The ICRC found these assertions misleading and potentially harmful, leading to cautions.
Dr. Gill argued that the ICRC and HPARB failed to properly consider her Charter rights. The court disagreed, noting that the college acknowledged the importance of free speech but drew the line at misinformation. The ICRC's findings were that Dr. Gill’s statements on lockdowns and vaccines were not supported by scientific evidence and could undermine public health efforts.
The court also addressed procedural fairness, rejecting Dr. Gill's claim that issuing multiple decisions on the same tweets was unfair. The court noted that the college’s statutory framework required it to investigate each complaint individually, even if they involved similar issues.
Ultimately, the court upheld the decisions of the ICRC and HPARB, concluding that they reasonably balanced Dr. Gill's right to free expression with the college's duty to regulate the profession and protect public health.
