Digest: Tsatsi v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKCA 53

• Date: July 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 53

Docket Number: CACV 3012 , CA17164

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2019-07-18

Judges:

• Richards
• Ottenbreit
• Herauf

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure � Summary Judgment � Appeal
• Torts � Defamation � Defences � Qualified Privilege � Appeal

Digest: The appellant appealed the decision of a Queen�s Bench judge to dismiss his action against the respondents, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the then-Minister of Health and the Sunrise Heath Region (SHR) (see: 2016 SKQB 389). During a review by the college of the appellant�s work as a radiologist while in the employ of the respondent SHR, concerns were raised regarding his competency. Two assessments by competency committees appointed by the college each reported that the appellant failed to demonstrate the competence required for him to practice independently as a radiologist. A formal hearing into the matter was scheduled for June of 2009. In May of 2009, the college notified the Ministry of Health of its concerns. Those respondents decided to conduct a retrospective review of all diagnostic imaging studies performed by the appellant and to make the review public. At a press conference, the minister, the SHR and the college identified the appellant. The appellant brought an action against them in defamation. The defendants were successful in their application for summary judgment to dismiss the appellant�s claim. The appellant�s grounds of appeal were that the chambers judge erred: 1) in deciding that the case was an appropriate one for determination on a summary procedure basis. He argued that that process was not available to decide defamation actions were malice had been pled. As well, the chambers judge failed to give his counsel an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits relied upon by the respondents; 2) in finding the defence of justification. The judge improperly regarded the conclusions of the competency committee as res judicata and failed to take issue with them; and 3) in finding the defence of qualified privilege was made out. He argued the disclosure made about the findings of the second committee was premature, disproportionate and therefore malicious. As a result, the respondents� comments fell outside the reach of the protective umbrella offered by qualified privilege.�
HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The court found with respect to each ground that the chambers judge had not erred in: 1) holding that a...