Canada’s top court has denied an Ontario doctor who was critical of pandemic lockdowns the chance to appeal three directives mandating cautions be placed on her public file by the province’s medical regulatory college.
The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed with costs Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill’s application to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision that upheld orders for public “cautions” against her issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).
Gill sought to argue before the Supreme Court that the standard of review should be correctness rather than reasonableness in cases where courts review administrative decisions related to the Charter of Rights.
The court did not explain its reasons for dismissing the Brampton, Ont., doctor’s appeal. The Divisional Court, whose ruling Gill was attempting to appeal, had said the CPSO had appropriately balanced its statutory mandate to regulate doctors in the public interest with Gill’s Charter-protected right to free expression. The court ruled that the college’s decision to issue a remedial caution was “sufficiently justified.”
The caution orders were initiated by the college after two August 2020 social media posts by Gill that were critical of the lockdown orders in Ontario.
The first post on the platform, now known as X, read: “There is absolutely no medical or scientific reason for this prolonged, harmful and illogical lockdown.” The second said, “If you have not yet figured out that we don’t need a vaccine, you are not paying attention.”
Gill, who became well known during the COVID-19 pandemic for her online challenges to the government’s public health restrictions, said she was following her conscience with her social media posts.
“It is shocking to me that I would be publicly censured by the CPSO’s committee for speaking the truth and upholding the Hippocratic Oath, and even more shocking that the Courts in Canada would simply defer to the CPSO’s committee which had itself deferred to the government,” she said in a May 1 statement. “The truth is not blasphemy simply because it contradicts the government.”
She also took to social media in response to the Supreme Court ruling, describing the past five years as an “unjust journey.”
Gill’s lawyer Lisa Bildy said the orders issued by the college infringe on her client’s Charter rights, adding that the decisions of regulatory bodies like the CPSO “should be held to a stricter standard.”
“Dr. Gill turned to the Supreme Court in the hope that it would engage in its historical role as guardian of the constitution, but unfortunately it declined to do so in this case,” Bildy said. “The speech of professionals will continue to be chilled over fears of discipline or censure by their regulators, which is not in the public interest.”
The CPSO did not respond to requests for comment on the court’s decision. In a Notice of Hearing against Gill, dated Oct. 13, 2022, it said she had engaged in “disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct” on social media. It said the conduct included “making misleading, false or inflammatory statements about vaccinations, treatments and public health measures for COVID-19.”
Social Media Views
Gill, an expert in pediatrics, allergy, and clinical immunology, gained a substantial audience on social media during the pandemic, where she voiced her views and apprehensions about the government’s response, including the potential negative impacts of lockdowns and other mandates.She became the subject of seven public complaints lodged with the CPSO, because of her online remarks and was also the subject of a separate inquiry conducted by the college’s registrar as a result.
Each case was reviewed in February 2021 by the CPSO committee known as the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC). While the committee dismissed five of the complaints, it issued orders for three separate cautions to be placed on her public file.
In its decisions, the CPSO wrote that Gill showed a “lack of professionalism” and did not “exercise caution in her posts on social media,“ which it said amounts to ”irresponsible behaviour for a member of the profession and presents a possible risk to public health.”
Lengthy court battles to avoid the blemishes on her public file cost Gill her life savings and she faced an additional $300,000 in court costs for trying to have the caution orders overturned. She was given “mere weeks” to pay, Gill said in a March 2024 X post.
A GoFundMe page was set up at the time to help Gill raise the necessary funds but she had achieved just 50 percent of her target with only four days remaining before the court costs came due.
X, which is owned by Elon Musk, announced its plan to help Gill pay her legal bills after seeing her posts asking for the public’s help.
“When Elon Musk learned earlier this week about her crowdfunding campaign to pay the judgment, he pledged to help,” X said in its post. “X will now fund the rest of Dr. Gill’s campaign so that she can pay her $300,000 judgment and her legal bills.”
Gill expressed her appreciation in a separate post, noting that X had contacted her directly to verify the commitment.
Bildy, who works with Libertas Law, said her client had been unfairly labelled as an “anti-vaxxer” because of her comments, which she said was demonstrably untrue.
“She has always been a proponent of routine childhood vaccines in her clinical practice,” a 2024 press release from the law firm said, adding that “she also supports Covid vaccines for high-risk individuals with informed consent.”
The firm noted that Gill’s online commentary came at a time when there was no COVID-19 vaccine authorized anywhere in the world.
“The comment was in relation to a press conference that day by Dr. Theresa Tam in which she stated that, despite the anticipated authorization of a vaccine, possibly by that year’s end, it would not be a silver bullet and lockdowns and restrictions could persist for at least another two or three years,” said the release.
The CPSO argued that the evidence indicated lockdowns in China and South Korea were having an effect and accused Gill of failing to maintain the “standard of practice” for her profession.
