Dr. Q., Re, (2003) 179 B.C.A.C. 170 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 03, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 179 B.C.A.C. 170 (SCC);2003 SCC 19;[2003] SCJ No 18 (QL);[2003] 5 WWR 1;JE 2003-714;[2003] ACS no 18;AZ-50169035;11 BCLR (4th) 1;223 DLR (4th) 599;302 NR 34;295 WAC 170;EYB 2003-39403;121 ACWS (3d) 178;[2003] CarswellBC 713;179 BCAC 170;48 Admin LR (3d) 1;[2003] 1 SCR 226

Dr. Q., Re (2003), 179 B.C.A.C. 170 (SCC);

    295 W.A.C. 170

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2003] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.001

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (appellant) v. Dr. Q. (respondent)

(28553; 2003 SCC 19; 2003 CSC 19)

Indexed As: Dr. Q., Re

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.

April 3, 2003.

Summary:

An Inquiry Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons found a doctor guilty of "infamous conduct" for having a sexual relationship with a patient. The Col­lege suspended the doctor from practice for 18 months and imposed strict conditions for his return to practice. The doctor appealed under the Medical Practitioners Act.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (1999), 16 B.C.T.C. 241, allowed the appeal, setting aside the Inquiry Committee decision and the suspension. The College appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2001), 154 B.C.A.C. 12; 252 W.A.C. 12, dismissed the appeal. The College appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the Inquiry Committee's decision and the suspension. The reviewing judge erred in applying a correctness stan­dard, when the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter. The Court of Appeal erred in finding that the reviewing judge was not "clearly wrong", when it should have held that on a correct­ness standard the reviewing judge applied the wrong standard of review. Applying the reasonableness standard, the College's deci­sion was not unreasonable.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or stan­dard of review - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the term 'judicial review' embraces review of administrative decisions by way of both application for judicial review and statutory rights of appeal. In every case where a statute dele­gates power to an administrative decision-maker, the reviewing judge must begin by determining the standard of review on the pragmatic and functional approach. ... it is no longer sufficient to slot a particular issue into a pigeon hole of judicial review and, on this basis, demand correctness from the decision-maker. Nor is a review­ing court's interpretation of a privative clause or mechanism of review solely dispositive of a particular standard of review. ... The pragmatic and functional approach demands a more nuanced analysis based on consideration of a number of factors. This approach applies whenever a court reviews the decision of an adminis­trative body. ... In the pragmatic and func­tional approach, the standard of review is determined by considering four contextual factors -- the presence of a privative clause or statutory right of appeal; the expertise of the tribunal relative to that of the re­viewing court on the issue in question; the purposes of the legislation and the provi­sion in particular; and, the nature of the question -- law, fact, or mixed fact and law. ... Where the balancing of the four factors above suggests considerable defer­ence, the patent unreasonableness standard will be appropriate. Where little or no deference is called for, a correctness stan­dard will suffice. If the balancing of fac­tors suggests a standard of deference some­where in the middle, the reasonableness simpliciter standard will apply." - See paragraphs 15 to 35.

Medicine - Topic 2124

Discipline for professional misconduct - Judicial review (appeals) - Scope of review respecting disciplinary findings - An Inquiry Committee of the College of Phy­si­cians and Surgeons found a doctor guilty of "infamous conduct" on the basis of clear and cogent evidence of a sexual relation­ship between the doctor and a patient - The College suspended the doctor from practice for 18 months - The critical issue was the credibility of the patient and the doctor - The reviewing judge (on appeal under the Medical Practitioners Act) applied a correctness standard, disagreed with the Committee's credibility findings and set aside its decision on the ground of a lack of clear and cogent evidence - The Court of Appeal held that the reviewing judge was not "clearly wrong" - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the finding of "infamous conduct" and the suspension - The correct standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter, not correctness - The reviewing judge exceeded his jurisdiction in substituting his credibility findings - The Court of Appeal should have corrected the reviewing judge's error and applied the correct stan­dard - Had the Court of Appeal done so, it would have restored the College's decision on the ground that there was ample evi­dence to support the College's conclusions on credibility, burden of proof and applica­tion of that burden to the factual findings.

Medicine - Topic 2125

Discipline for professional misconduct - Judicial review (appeals) - Scope of review respecting punishment - [See Medicine - Topic 2124 ].

Cases Noticed:

Jory v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.), [1985] B.C.J. No. 320 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Syndicat national des employés de la com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, Local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 21].

Union des employés de service, Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, Local 298 (FTQ).

Bibeault - see Syndicat national des em­ployés de la Commission scolaire région­ale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, Local 298.

U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Union des employés de service.

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 21].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 23].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 24].

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., [1947] 2 All E.R. 680 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Mount Sinai Hospital Centre et al. v. Que­bec (Minister of Health and Social Ser­vices), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281; 271 N.R. 104, refd to. [para. 24].

Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) v. Mattel Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 100; 270 N.R. 153, refd to. [para. 25].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [para. 28].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Com­mission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al. (2002), 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359, refd to. [para. 33].

Toneguzzo-Norvell et al. v. Savein and Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114; 162 N.R. 161; 38 B.C.A.C. 193; 62 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [para. 33].

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 280 N.R. 268 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick (2003), 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mullan, D.J., Administrative Law (2001), p. 108 [para. 25].

Counsel:

David Martin and Karen Weslowski, for the appellant;

Christopher E. Hinkson, Q.C., and Nigel L. Teventhan, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Miller Thomson, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Harper Grey Easton, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 2, 2002, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobuc­ci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 3, 2003, McLachlin, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.