Litchfield v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.), (2005) 390 A.R. 126 (QB)

• Judge: Hillier, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 24, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 390 A.R. 126 (QB);2005 ABQB 962

Litchfield v. College of Physicians (2005), 390 A.R. 126 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. JA.041

In The Matter Of the Medical Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-11 as amended;

And In The Matter Of a decision of the Investigating Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta dated February 10, 2005.

Dr. Bryant F. Litchfield (applicant) v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (respondent)

(0503 13776; 2005 ABQB 962)

Indexed As: Litchfield v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Hillier, J.

December 15, 2005.

Summary:

An Investigating Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons found Litchfield guilty on nine charges related to improper or inappropriate examinations. Litchfield sought judicial review of the decision. The College submitted that the application was premature. The Medical Profession Act provided for a further hearing by a Council of the College and a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application as premature.

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - General - Bars - Alternate remedy - An Investigating Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons found Litchfield guilty on nine charges related to improper or inappropriate examinations - Litchfield sought judicial review of the decision - The College submitted that the application was premature - Under the Medical Profession Act (MPA), the Committee reported to the Council of the College, which, on determining that a physician was guilty of unbecoming conduct, could impose punishment - There was a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal of that decision - Litchfield submitted that the MPA did not provide a sufficient remedy for allegations including a failure to perform a reasonable investigation - Litchfield provided two affidavits that were not before the Investigating Committee - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application as premature - The MPA process was not merely adequate but was the preferred recourse - Litchfield's affidavit evidence was relevant - However, the Council was authorized to consider new evidence - Further, both the Council and the Court of Appeal had broad powers to reconsider the Committee's findings and to address the procedural and substantive errors alleged by Litchfield.

Medicine - Topic 2133

Discipline for professional misconduct - Judicial review (appeals) - Time for - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Professional Occupations - Topic 55

General - Discipline - Judicial review - Time for - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Cases Noticed:

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, appld. [para. 31].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 33].

Montgomery v. Edmonton Police Service et al. (1999), 253 A.R. 222; 1999 ABQB 913, refd to. [para. 34].

Youngberg et al. v. Discipline Committee of the Alberta Teachers' Association et al. (1977), 8 A.R. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Finch v. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists (B.C.) (1996), 73 B.C.A.C. 295; 120 W.A.C. 295; 18 B.C.L.R.(3d) 361 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1996), 206 N.R. 314 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Solicitor, Re (1967), 64 D.L.R.(2d) 140 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Fooks and Johnstone v. Alberta Association of Architects (1982), 38 A.R. 132; 21 Alta. L.R.(2d) 306 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 60].

Bromley v. Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists (Alta.) (1989), 93 A.R. 185; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 325 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 61].

BP Canada Energy Co. et al. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) (2003), 356 A.R. 363; 2003 ABQB 875, refd to. [para. 64].

Kaburda v. College of Dental Surgeons (B.C.) (2000), 27 B.C.T.C. 70; 19 Admin. L.R.(3d) 297; 2000 BCSC 16, refd to. [para. 65].

Howe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Ont.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 26; 19 O.R.(3d) 483 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1995), 186 N.R. 78; 85 O.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

Kullman et al. v. Borbridge et al. (1995), 168 A.R. 227 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 69].

Kullman v. Calgary (City) Police Commission - see Kullman et al. v. Borbridge et al.

Anderson et al. v. Board of Education of Twin Rivers School Division No. 65 (1994), 154 A.R. 126; 25 Admin. L.R.(2d) 20 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 69].

Eggertson v. Alberta Teachers' Association (2001), 284 A.R. 139; 2001 ABQB 116, revd. (2002), 327 A.R. 59; 296 W.A.C. 59; 2002 ABCA 262, refd to. [para. 69].

Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848; 99 N.R. 277; 101 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 80].

Craig Media Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1900, et al. (2003), 342 A.R. 371; 2003 ABQB 841, refd to. [para. 83].

A-Channel Edmonton v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1900 - see Craig Media Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1900, et al.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (Looseleaf), para. 3:2250 [para. 80].

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (4th Ed. 2004), pp. 601, 602 [para. 80].

Counsel:

Dana J. Schindelka (Davis & Company), for the applicant;

Craig Boyer (Shores Belzil Jardine), for the respondent.

This application was heard on November 24, 2005, by Hillier, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on December 15, 2005.