Dr. Q., Re, (2003) 302 N.R. 34 (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), 302 N.R. 34 (SCC);2003 SCC 19;[2003] 1 SCR 226;223 DLR (4th) 599;[2003] 5 WWR 1;11 BCLR (4th) 1;179 BCAC 170;302 NR 34;48 Admin LR (3d) 1;[2003] CarswellBC 713;AZ-50169035;EYB 2003-39403;JE 2003-714;[2003] SCJ No 18 (QL);121 ACWS (3d) 178;[2003] ACS no 18;295 WAC 170 |
Dr. Q., Re (2003), 302 N.R. 34 (SCC)
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] N.R. TBEd. AP.003
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), 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Dulude (L.R.), 2008 BCSC 510
...a sentence of imprisonment for life imposed otherwise than as a minimum punishment on conviction for an offence set out in Schedule 1 or 11 to that Act that was prosecuted by way of indictment, the court may, if satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence ......
-
British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Farm Industry Review Board (B.C.), [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2331
...(BC) Act . 20.2 (1) The society [the SPCA] may review the decision of an authorized agent to take custody of an animal under section 10.1 or 11 (a) on a request of a person who owns, or if an operator in relation to, the animal, (b) on request of a person from whom custody of the animal was......
-
Abbott Laboratories et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., (2008) 354 F.T.R. 1 (FC)
...: A skilled person would understand that claim 10 and 20 of the '102 Patent are claims to the use of Forms II and I (as described in claims 1 or 11), respectively, in the manufacture of an antibiotic medicament. 'Antibiotic medicament' means, as described above, a medicine in a form capable......
-
ViiV Healthcare Company v. Gilead Sciences Canada, Inc., 2020 FC 486
...bictegravir does not fall within the scope of claims 1, 11, and 16 of the 282 Patent. Because all other asserted claims depend on claims 1 or 11, Gilead does not infringe any of the asserted claims of the 282 Patent. VII. [178] For the foregoing reasons, bictegravir does not fall within any......
-
R. v. Dulude (L.R.), 2008 BCSC 510
...a sentence of imprisonment for life imposed otherwise than as a minimum punishment on conviction for an offence set out in Schedule 1 or 11 to that Act that was prosecuted by way of indictment, the court may, if satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence ......
-
British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Farm Industry Review Board (B.C.), [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2331
...(BC) Act . 20.2 (1) The society [the SPCA] may review the decision of an authorized agent to take custody of an animal under section 10.1 or 11 (a) on a request of a person who owns, or if an operator in relation to, the animal, (b) on request of a person from whom custody of the animal was......
-
Abbott Laboratories et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., (2008) 354 F.T.R. 1 (FC)
...: A skilled person would understand that claim 10 and 20 of the '102 Patent are claims to the use of Forms II and I (as described in claims 1 or 11), respectively, in the manufacture of an antibiotic medicament. 'Antibiotic medicament' means, as described above, a medicine in a form capable......
-
ViiV Healthcare Company v. Gilead Sciences Canada, Inc., 2020 FC 486
...bictegravir does not fall within the scope of claims 1, 11, and 16 of the 282 Patent. Because all other asserted claims depend on claims 1 or 11, Gilead does not infringe any of the asserted claims of the 282 Patent. VII. [178] For the foregoing reasons, bictegravir does not fall within any......