Ruling notes insufficient analysis on why medical assessment by phone breached standard of care
The New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench has quashed a decision finding a doctor who conducted an assessment via telephone negligent, suspending her medical privileges for 12 months, and imposing an indefinite supervision condition on her practice.
Dr. Cyr v Vitalité Health Network, 2026 NBKB 132, arose from an incident involving a 33-year-old female patient’s death in a hospital’s emergency department on Jan. 26–27, 2025.
During the 14th hour of a doctor’s 20-hour hospital shift, a nurse informed her of the arrival of a patient who had a history of myocarditis and complained about chest pain.
On the telephone while resting in a room adjacent to the emergency department, the doctor assessed the situation and instructed the nurse to conduct tests for further assessment. After the patient’s condition deteriorated, the doctor went to her bed and attempted to resuscitate her.
After the death, Vitalité Health Network immediately removed the doctor from the hospital schedule and began investigating a complaint against her.
The doctor responded to the complaint, which was not provided to her, without knowledge of the complainant or access to the relevant medical charts.
The Review Panel found the doctor negligent. In its Oct. 30, 2025, report, the Review Panel did not address:
- the credibility or reliability of certain witnesses despite significant factual disputes
- another doctor’s opinion evidence
- why it preferred the evidence of some witnesses over others
- why the doctor’s care or decisions breached the standard of care expected of an emergency physician or constituted negligence
- why assessing the situation via telephone and directing investigative testing before bedside evaluation would fall below the standard of care
The Review Panel report also did not summarize the witnesses’ evidence, include factual findings where the evidence was contradictory, or consider the Vitalité bylaws’ factors regarding the appropriate disciplinary sanctions.
On Dec. 16, 2025, Vitalité’s board of directors issued a majority decision suspending the doctor’s privileges and imposing a condition of indefinite supervision on her practice. The board entirely adopted the Review Panel’s report and recommendations.
The doctor applied for a judicial review. She sought to quash the decision and the Review Panel report.
The doctor also wanted to remove all references to the report, the decision, and the suspension from her records and to prevent Vitalité from communicating the report, the decision, and the suspension to anyone for any purpose.
The doctor alleged that the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair. Vitalité countered that it adhered to the process in its bylaws.
Decision and report quashed
The Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick quashed the board decision and the Review Panel report. The court granted the doctor’s judicial review application and remitted the matter for a determination in line with its directions.
The court noted that the board imposed a 10-minute speaking limit on each party and refused to consider copies of the record before the Review Panel, hear submissions on the evidence, or provide the reasons for its decision.
The court determined that the board’s failure to hear the doctor and its consideration of the Review Panel’s deficient report breached procedural fairness.
The court held that the board gave no reasons for its decision and relied solely on the Review Panel’s report and line of reasoning and counsel’s brief and time-limited submissions.
The court ruled that the Review Panel report, which was three pages long and had a five-paragraph analysis, was unintelligible and unreasonable. The court explained that the report:
- had bare conclusions of negligence without factual findings or context
- lacked a discernible line of analysis connecting the evidence with the conclusions on negligence
- failed to identify the witnesses upon which it relied and how it resolved inconsistent testimonies
- disregarded uncontradicted expert opinion evidence without explanation
- lacked an analysis or justification for the suggested 12-month suspension
The court ordered Vitalité to pay the doctor’s costs of $6,500, including disbursements.
