|
RHPA - Screening. Saeed v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [ICRC is screening cttee]
In Saeed v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an RHPA JR, this brought against "a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee ("ICRC") of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College")" that "determined that the Applicant shall attend a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (“SCERP”), which requires clinical supervision and practice reassessment, and notification to the Applicant's employers."
Here the court considers that the primary ICRC process is one of 'screening':[35] The ICRC is a screening committee. It does not make findings of fact or of professional misconduct. This Court has repeatedly held that the degree of procedural fairness owed by the ICRC to a member during an investigation is relatively low, including cases where the individual under investigation is required to undergo remediation: see Silverthorne v. Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (2006), 2006 CanLII 10142 (ON SCDC), 264 D.L.R. (4th) 175, (Ont. Div. Ct.), at para. 14; Gill v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board), 2024 ONSC 2588, 563 C.R.R. (2d) 202 (Div. Ct.), at para. 61, leave to appeal refused, 2024 S.C.C.A No. 474; Maini v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 3326 (Div. Ct.), at para. 25. . Polidoulis v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board
In Polidoulis v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR against the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), when it cautioning a doctor "with respect to being mindful of her tone and clarity" in COVID-related "open letters".
Here the court considered the JR SOR 'reasonableness' test, exercised here in the context of the RHPA 'screening' process:[32] The ICRC reasons for decision must be considered in context. This was a screening decision that resulted in an education-focused caution. “Reasonableness review is expected to reflect the stakes of the decision to the impacted individual. Where a decision has a particularly harsh consequences to the individual, there is a higher onus on the decision-maker to explain its decision. The corollary is that where, as here, a screening committee requires a remedial and educative response to a member’s conduct, a reasonableness review permits less detailed reasons”: Pitter, at para. 22.
[33] We are not persuaded that this screening function, with this result, must include the sort of formality in the reasons for decision that the applicant suggests. The ICRC did rely on the statutory objectives, acknowledged the applicant’s religious speech and, balancing relevant considerations, gave a caution rather than a more serious outcome. The applicant had explained to the College that she intended to communicate about her religious objection, not a medical objection. As noted by the HPARB, the ICRC did not preclude the applicant from expressing her religious views in public. The concern was that she identified herself as a physician when doing so.
|
