Decision re: Dr. James B. Hanley

September 15, 2011

Summary of Adjudication Tribunal Decision

(Published in accordance with subsection 50(3) of the Medical Act, 2011)

On August 25 and 26, 2011, an Adjudication Tribunal established under the Medical Act, 2011, held a supplementary hearing to consider an application by Dr. James B. Hanley to vary the Order of an earlier Adjudication Tribunal dated March 28, 2007 that, among other things, removed Dr. Hanley’s right to obtain a medical licence in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Adjudication Tribunal accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts that set out the circumstances that led to the supplementary hearing. The Tribunal accepted and applied a seven point test for restoration of a professional license as set out in a Decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Evans (2008), 91 O.R. (3d) 163, 295 D.L.R. (4th) 281.

The Tribunal heard evidence from Dr. Hanley and also received submissions on behalf of Dr. Hanley and on behalf of the College. The Tribunal also considered expert testimony on the likelihood of reoffending and the other elements of the seven point test.

The Tribunal was satisfied “that there is independent, corroborating evidence that it is extremely unlikely that the misconduct will recur if the respondent is permitted to return to practice.”

After reviewing all the evidence, the relevant sections of the Medical Act, 2011, and the jurisprudence, Tribunal ordered that pursuant to Section 53(5) of the Medical Act, 2011, that the original Tribunal Order of March 28, 2007 should be varied, and that Dr. Hanley’s licence to practice should be restored and his name reinstated in the Medical Register, subject to the following terms and conditions:

  • while Dr. Hanley’s right to apply to the College for a medical licence is restored, Dr. Hanley’s right to obtain a current medical licence is subject to the provisions of the College’s Registration and Licensing Regulations, in particular paragraph 10.4 entitled Medical Practice Inactivity;
  • any licence issued by the College to Dr. Hanley in the future would contain a condition and restriction that Dr. Hanley not work in a private office practice;
  • Dr. Hanley be ordered to pay costs in the amount of $10,000 representing a portion of the costs incurred by the College in relation to Dr. Hanley’s application for restoration of his medical licence and reinstatement of his name to the Medical Registers;
  • Dr. Hanley be required to commence repayment of the costs awarded at both the initial Adjudication Tribunal Hearing in the amount of $12,500 and this present Adjudication Tribunal Hearing in the amount of $10,000 on a monthly basis starting January 1, 2012 in the monthly amount of $500.00;
  • the Registrar shall within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the decision of the Adjudication Tribunal publish a summary of the decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Medical Act, 2011; and
  • the summary of the prior Adjudication Tribunal Decision and a summary of the Decision of this Adjudication Tribunal shall be included in any Certificate of Good Standing issued in relation to Dr. Hanley.

Robert W. Young, MD, FRCPC