Kadoke v. Health Disciplines Board (Ont.); Von Bistram v. Health Disciplines Board (Ont.), (1987) 23 O.A.C. 75 (DC)

• Judge: Callaghan, A.C.J.H.C., Craig and Barr, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: October 15, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1987), 23 O.A.C. 75 (DC)

Kadoke v. Health Disciplines Bd. (1987), 23 O.A.C. 75 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Irmgard Kadoke v. Health Disciplines Board the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Of Ontario

Alfred Von Bistram v. Health Disciplines Board

Indexed As: Kadoke v. Health Disciplines Board (Ont.); Von Bistram v. Health Disciplines Board (Ont.)

Ontario Divisional Court

Callaghan, A.C.J.H.C., Craig and Barr, JJ.

October 15, 1987.

Summary:

Two complainants filed complaints under the Health Disciplines Act. The Complaints Committee dismissed the complaints. The complainants applied to the Health Disciplines Board for a review. In both instances the Board refused to disclose to the complainants certain documentation included in the record of materials considered by the Complaints Committee. The complainants appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeals. The court stated that the general rule was that the record of materials considered by the Committee should be disclosed. The court stated that the Board's discretion to withhold such documentation should be exercised sparingly.

Medicine - Topic 5048

Statutory regulation - Boards - Duty of disclosure of materials in its possession - A complainant unsatisfied with the decision of the Complaints Committee could apply under s. 8(2) of the Health Disciplines Act for the Health Disciplines Board to review the decision - The complainant was entitled to make submissions as to the quality of the Committee's decision - The Ontario Divisional Court held that fairness dictated that as a general rule the Board should disclose to the complainant the record of materials considered by the Committee - The Board's discretion to withhold material should be exercised sparingly.

Cases Noticed:

Re Yuz and Laski (1986), 17 O.A.C. 228; 57 O.R.(2d) 106 (C.A.), appld. [para. 4].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 6].

Re Stumbillich (1984), 1 O.A.C. 170; 44 O.R.(2d) 197 (Div. Ct.), affd. 6 O.A.C. 51; 47 O.R.(2d) 545 (C.A.), appld. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Health Disciplines Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 196, sect. 8(2) [para. 3].

Counsel:

S.C. Purdy, for the applicant, Kadoke;

T. Kerzner, Q.C., for the respondent, Health Disciplines Board;

R. Steinecke, for the respondent, Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario;

J. Finlay and C. MacDonald, for the intervening party, Dr. Robert Peter Welsh;

E. Newcombe, Q.C., and M.W. Mason, for the intervening party, Karl E. Matzinger, M.D.;

B.H. Masters, for the applicant, Alfred von Bistram.

These appeals were heard on September 21 and 22, 1987, before Callaghan, A.C.J.H.C., Craig and Blair, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The judgment of the Divisional Court was delivered orally by Callaghan, A.C.J. H.C., and released on October 15, 1987.