R.A.R. v. College of Physicians, (2005) 195 O.A.C. 386 (DC)

• Judge: Howden, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: March 04, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2005), 195 O.A.C. 386 (DC)

R.A.R. v. College of Physicians (2005), 195 O.A.C. 386 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.091

Dr. R.A.R. (appellant/respondent) v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (respondent/moving party)

(213/03)

Indexed As: R.A.R. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Howden, J.

March 10, 2005.

Summary:

The Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons found that a doctor committed acts of sexual impro­priety and sexual abuse in relation to a patient with whom he had lived in a com­mon law rela­tionship. The Health Pro­fessional Procedural Code made revocation of a doctor's certifi­cate of regis­tration man­datory upon a find­ing of sexual abuse. The doctor appealed and moved for a stay of the man­datory revoca­tion order. Lang, J., granted a stay of the revoca­tion order. The College moved to lift the stay.

The Ontario Divisional Court, per Howden, J., dismissed the College's motion.

Medicine - Topic 2166

Discipline for professional misconduct - Practice - Stay of proceedings - The Disci­pline Committee of the College of Phy­sicians and Surgeons found that a doctor committed acts of sexual impro­priety and sexual abuse in relation to a patient with whom he had lived in a com­mon law relationship - The Health Pro­fessional Pro­cedural Code made revocation of a doc­tor's certificate of regis­tration man­datory upon a finding of sexual abuse - The doc­tor appealed and moved for a stay of the man­datory revocation order - Lang, J., granted a stay of the revoca­tion order - The Col­lege moved to lift the stay - The College argued that there was no longer a serious issue to be tried because since the stay was imposed the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal had both upheld the constitutional validity of the mandatory revoca­tion provi­sions - The Ontario Divi­sional Court, per Howden, J., dismissed the Col­lege's motion - There were still serious issues to be advanced - The factors of irreparable harm and balance of con­veni­ence weighed heav­ily in favour of main­taining the stay - The doctor repre­sented no threat to the public in continuing his practice within the terms of the stay.

Cases Noticed:

Mussani v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (2004), 193 O.A.C. 23 (C.A.), affing. (2003), 172 O.A.C. 1; 64 O.R.(3d) 641 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 2].

Fancy v. Shephard (1997), 164 N.S.R.(2d) 274; 491 A.P.R. 274; 155 D.L.R.(4th) 680 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Boodoosingh v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (1990), 39 O.A.C. 51; 73 O.R.(2d) 478 (Div. Ct.), affd. (1993), 63 O.A.C. 173; 12 O.R.(3d) 707 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Melunsky v. College of Physiotherapists (Ont.), [1999] O.A.C. Uned. 8 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Case Comment on College of Physicians and Surgeons v. Genereux, CPSO Mem­ber Dialogue (1994), generally [para. 7].

Counsel:

Lisa Brownstone, for the College of Phy­sicians and Surgeons of Ontario, moving party;

Mark Adilman, for the appellant/respond­ing party.

This motion was heard on March 4, 2005, before Howden, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who delivered the following endorse­ment on March 10, 2005.