Sydiaha v. College of Psychologists (Sask.), 2015 SKCA 113

• Judge: Ottenbreit, Herauf and Whitmore, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: September 25, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKCA 113;(2015), 467 Sask.R. 210 (CA)

Sydiaha v. College of Psychologists (2015), 467 Sask.R. 210 (CA);

    651 W.A.C. 210

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.033

Daniel Sydiaha (appellant) v. Saskatchewan College of Psychologists (respondent)

(CACV2544; 2015 SKCA 113)

Indexed As: Sydiaha v. College of Psychologists (Sask.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Ottenbreit, Herauf and Whitmore, JJ.A.

November 4, 2015.

Summary:

Sydiaha was registered with the College of Psychologists (Sask.) as a non-practising psychologist. Under the College's regulatory bylaws, non-practising membership entitled a person to use the designation "psychologist (non-practising)". Sydiaha identified himself in advertising as a "psychologist". A discipline committee found Sydiaha guilty of professional misconduct for the manner in which he advertised. The College's council upheld the decision. Sydiaha appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2014), 443 Sask.R. 139, dismissed the appeal. Sydiaha appealed. Asserting a lack of jurisdiction, the College applied to quash the appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at (2014), 446 Sask.R. 196; 621 W.A.C. 196, dismissed the application.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 9122

Boards and tribunals - Administrative appeals - Scope of appeal or standard of review - Sydiaha was registered with the College of Psychologists (Sask.) as a non-practising psychologist - Under the College's regulatory bylaws, non-practising membership entitled a person to use the designation "psychologist (non-practising)" - Sydiaha identified himself in advertising as a "psychologist" - A discipline committee found Sydiaha guilty of professional misconduct for the manner in which he advertised - The College's council upheld the decision - A chambers judge dismissed Sydiaha's appeal on a standard of reasonableness - Sydiaha appealed - The College asserted that the standard of review was reasonableness because the chambers judge's decision was not based on matters of jurisdiction or law - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated, "This argument is without merit." - The standard of review was as stated in Saskatchewan College of Paramedics (Professional Conduct Committee) v. Bodnarchuk (2015 Sask. C.A.): "Whether the Chambers judge identified and applied the appropriate standard of review is a question of law reviewable on the standard of correctness. If the Chambers judge did err in either the identification of the appropriate standard or of the application of the appropriate standard, it is then up to this Court to identify and apply the appropriate standard of review to the Committee's decision." - See paragraph 4.

Professional Occupations - Topic 2346

Psychologists, therapists and counsellors - Discipline - Unethical or unprofessional conduct - Sydiaha was registered with the College of Psychologists (Sask.) as a non-practising psychologist - Under s. 11(2) of the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists Regulatory Bylaws, non-practising membership entitled a person to use the designation "psychologist (non-practising)" - Sydiaha identified himself in advertising as a "psychologist" - A discipline committee found Sydiaha guilty of professional misconduct for the manner in which he advertised - The College's council upheld the decision - A chambers judge dismissed Sydiaha's appeal on a standard of reasonableness - Sydiaha appealed, asserting that s. 24(1) of the Psychologists Act entitled him to identify himself as a psychologist without a qualifier and that s. 11(2) was merely permissive, not mandatory - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - It mattered not that s. 11 was not written in mandatory language - Under the Act's scheme, the privilege and right to use the term "psychologist" was not without parameters - The Act and Bylaws, properly interpreted, conditioned the use of the title "psychologist" by non-practising members with use of the term "non-practising" - The exception to that in s. 24(3) of the Act did not apply to Sydiaha - The chambers judge used the correct standard of review - His analysis was correct.

Professional Occupations - Topic 2367

Psychologists and therapists - Disciplinary proceedings - Appeals - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9122 and Professional Occupations - Topic 2346 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 3].

Saskatchewan College of Paramedics (Professional Conduct Committee) v. Bodnarchuk, (2015), 465 Sask.R. 36; 649 W.A.C. 36; 2015 SKCA 81, refd to. [para. 4].

Counsel:

Jay D. Watson, for the appellant;

Karen M.T. Prisciak, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 25, 2015, by Ottenbreit, Herauf and Whitmore, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. On November 4, 2015, Ottenbreit, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.