Ringrose v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.), (1978) 8 A.R. 113 (CA)

• Judge: Clement, Haddad and Morrow, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 25, 1978
• Citations: (1978), 8 A.R. 113 (CA);1978 ALTASCAD 41;83 DLR (3d) 680;[1978] 2 WWR 534;8 AR 113

Ringrose v. College of Physicians (1978), 8 A.R. 113 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Ringrose v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Province of Alberta

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

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

Clement, Haddad and Morrow, JJ.A.

January 25, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of disciplinary proceedings brought against a doctor for professional misconduct in his treatment of three patients. The Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Province of Alberta recommended that he be suspended after a hearing on the charges at which the doctor was represented by counsel. The Council of the College considered the recommendation, reviewed the evidence before the Discipline Committee and heard extensive argument. The Council suspended the doctor. The doctor appealed on the grounds of various alleged errors on the part of the Discipline Committee.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the proceedings had been properly conducted and that the correct principles had been applied.

See also a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on a previous certiorari application in this matter reported 9 N.R. 383; 1 A.R. 1, affirming [1975] 4 W.W.R. 43; 52 D.L.R.(3d) 584.

See also Cryderman v. Ringrose (1977), 6 A.R. 21.

Evidence - Topic 4703

Examination of witnesses - Cross-examination - Range of cross-examination - A doctor alleged on an appeal from disciplinary proceedings against him that he was asked irrelevant and prejudicial questions on his cross-examination - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that his cross-examination was proper - The Court of Appeal stated the purpose and scope of the cross-examination of a witness - See paragraphs 3 and 11 to 13.

Medicine - Topic 2061

Discipline for professional misconduct - Hearing - Conduct of hearing by disciplinary tribunal of governing body - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that, while professional discipline tribunals are not expected to conduct themselves in every respect like courts of law, they are under a duty to act judicially - See paragraph 8.

Medicine - Topic 2075

Discipline for professional misconduct - Hearing - Procedure - Disciplinary proceedings were brought by a medical society against a doctor respecting his treatment of three patients - The charges respecting all three were heard at one hearing in which the doctor participated without protest - The tribunal in its decision distinguished the evidence respecting each patient - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the tribunal properly considered the three cases together and that there was no need to hear them separately in the circumstances - See paragraphs 3 and 5 to 10.

Medicine - Topic 2104

Discipline for professional misconduct - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the burden of proof of professional misconduct by a doctor was that of civil burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence - The Court of Appeal stated that the more serious the alleged office, the more cogent the evidence must be to prove it - See paragraphs 3 and 14 to 19.

Medicine - Topic 2106

Discipline for professional misconduct - Evidence and proof - Expert knowledge of tribunal - A doctor was disciplined for professional misconduct after a hearing before a disciplinary tribunal - The doctor complained on appeal that the tribunal acted on the opinions and assumptions of its members, which were not in evidence - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the tribunal acted properly - The Court of Appeal held that expertise on the part of a professional disciplinary tribunal, properly employed, affords no ground of attack on its decision - See paragraphs 3 and 20 to 22.

Medicine - Topic 2124

Discipline for professional misconduct - Judicial review - Scope of review of disciplinary findings by tribunal - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the fact findings of a disciplinary tribunal of a medical society, which are based on credible evidence, should not be interfered with on appeal - See paragraphs 3 and 25 to 31.

Medicine - Topic 2125

Discipline for professional misconduct - Judicial review - Scope of review respecting punishment - The disciplinary tribunal of a medical society suspended a doctor for professional misconduct - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the Court on appeal should not interfere with the imposition of a penalty by such a professional society, which has been given the statutory power to discipline its members - See paragraphs 3 and 23 to 24.

Medicine - Topic 2135

Discipline for professional misconduct - Judicial review - Admission of new evidence on appeal - Disciplinary proceedings were brought by a medical society against a doctor - After the decision by the tribunal against him the doctor applied on appeal for an order for the admission of new evidence from a medical witness - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the application on the ground that the new evidence would merely be controversial and not conclusive - See paragraphs 32 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Casullo, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 2; 9 N.R. 239, appld. [para. 8].

Crawford v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, [1929] 3 D.L.R. 62, appld. [para. 8].

Kerster v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (1970), 72 W.W.R. 321; 13 D.L.R.(3d) 453, appld. [para. 9].

R. v. Kray et al., [1969] 3 All E.R. 941, appld. [para. 9].

R. v. Clark (1975), 22 C.C.C.(2d) 1, appld. [para. 13].

Scott et al. v. Cresswell et al. (1975), 56 D.L.R.(3d) 268, appld. [para. 13].

Re Glassman v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (1966), 55 D.L.R.(2d) 674, appld. [para. 14].

R. v. Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan ex parte. Sen (1969), 6 D.L.R.(3d) 520, refd to. [para. 14].

Re Hosein v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (1974), 50 D.L.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [para. 14].

Re Bernstein v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (1977), 15 O.R.(2d) 477, refd to. [para. 14].

Hanes v. Wawanesa Mutual Ins. Co. [1963] S.C.R. 154. appld. [para. 16].

Read v. Town of Lincoln (1975), 6 O.R.(2d) 391, appld. [para. 17].

Smith v. Smith & Smedman, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 312, appld. [para. 17].

Shumiatcher v. Law Society of Saskatchewan (1966), 58 W.W.R.(N.S.) 465, refd to. [para. 19].

McCoan v. General Medical Council, [1964] 3 All E.R. 143, appld. [para. 24].

Watt v. Thomas, [1947] A.C. 484, appld. [para. 25].

Lamb v. Canadian Reserve Oil & Gas Ltd., [1976] 4 W.W.R. 79; 8 N.R. 613, appld. [para. 26].

Caswell v. Alexandra Petroleums Ltd., [1972] 3 W.W.R. 706, appld. [para. 26].

City of Vancouver v. Simpson, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 71; 7 N.R. 550, appld. [para. 28].

Kolesar Estate v. Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital and Malette (1977), 15 N.R. 302, appld. [para. 29].

Hunt v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, [1925] 4 D.L.R. 834, appld. [para. 30].

German v. Law Society of Alberta, [1974] 5 W.W.R. 217, appld. [para. 30].

Latimer v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [1931] 3 D.L.R. 304, appld. [para. 30].

Re Hett, [1937] 3 D.L.R. 687, appld. [para. 30].

Dormuth et al. v. Untereiner et al., [1964] S.C.R. 122, appld. [para. 34].

Imperial Bank of Canada v. Latham et al. (1962), 36 D.L.R.(2d) 486, appld. [para. 34].

Gilroy v. Portage Animal Hospital Ltd. et al. (1965), 53 D.L.R.(2d) 479, consd. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Medical Profession Act, S.A. 1975, sect. 34(1), sect. 45(1), sect. 48(2), sect. 51(1), sect. 53, sect. 55(1), sect. 55(3), sect. 56(1), sect. 58(1), sect. 59(1), sect. 61(1) [para. 4].

Counsel:

J.E. Redmond, Q.C., for the appellant doctor;

D.J. Boyer, for the respondent.

This case was heard before CLEMENT, HADDAD and MORROW, JJ.A., of the Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

On January 25, 1978, CLEMENT, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Appellate Division: