The restriction initially limited the medical professional to 40 in-person patients daily
The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island partially denied a doctor’s request to stay restrictions on their medical license but allowed limited virtual care specifically for communicating test results.
Dr. Susan Hove, who has over 40 years of practice experience, faced restrictions from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Prince Edward Island limiting her to 40 in-person patients per day and prohibiting virtual care. The restrictions were imposed as part of an ongoing investigation into complaints related to her practice.
The case arose from complaints received by the College in 2022, leading to an investigation by its internal Investigation Committee. The council’s primary concerns revolved around Dr. Hove’s heavy reliance on virtual consultations and deficiencies in medical record-keeping, based on two practice audits and interviews conducted during the investigation. Dr. Hove appealed the council’s orders that placed the patient cap and in-person care requirement on her license, arguing that these restrictions were unnecessary and financially damaging.
In her application, Dr. Hove requested that the court not only stay both orders but also halt the ongoing investigation, including a directive that she undergo a competency assessment. While she acknowledged the council’s concern about her past emphasis on virtual care, Dr. Hove maintained that since September 2023, she had fully resumed in-person consultations.
The Supreme Court applied the three-part test set out in case law to assess Dr. Hove’s stay request: whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether she would suffer irreparable harm, and where the balance of convenience lay. The court found that Dr. Hove had shown there were serious issues to be tried and that she would suffer irreparable harm, including financial and reputational damage if a stay was not granted. However, it concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour a full stay, citing public safety concerns related to the identified deficiencies in her practice.
In its ruling, the court allowed Dr. Hove to provide virtual care specifically for communicating test results, noting this as an exception to the 40-patient cap. The court stated this adjustment would alleviate some financial and professional pressures without compromising patient safety.
However, the court declined to stay the ongoing investigation by the College’s investigation committee, including the directive for Dr. Hove to undergo a competency assessment. It reasoned that intervening in the committee’s work would not align with public safety and regulatory oversight principles.
Ultimately, the court’s decision permitted Dr. Hove to continue practising under the adjusted restrictions while the appeal on the substantive issues proceeds.
