Case information

Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Jurisdiction — Health Professions Review Board — Judicial review — Standard of review — Reasonableness — Whether administrative tribunal assessing reasonableness is permitted to determine contours of “reasonableness” within context of its home statute — Whether administrative tribunal entitled to assess legality of first instance body’s action and whether disposition fell reasonably within its statutory authority to decide when determining reasonableness of first instance disposition — Whether court can disregard tribunal’s decision and undertake review as if it was reviewing the first instance decision when determining whether first instance body acted reasonably — Whether court on judicial review is required to review tribunal’s decision using deferential standard of review.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Mr. Dawson filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons alleging numerous poor clinical care by Dr. Bell, his general practitioner, over many years. Broadly, he made three complaints: Dr. Bell failed to refer him to a specialist early enough in dealing with a complaint, failed to recognize a carcinoma when dealing with lesions in an adjacent area, and mismanaged certain mental health concerns. The College streamed the complaint into its summary process, which meant that it would be dealt with by the Registrar. The Registrar found some aspects of the complaint to have merit (the use of complementary and alternative therapies were of concern, the risks and benefits of certain medications should have been reviewed, and referral to the specialist should have happened earlier), but did not reprimand or discipline Dr. Bell. The Inquiry Committee formalized the Registrar’s decision. The Board held that the College’s investigations were inadequate, and the inadequacy of the investigation made it impossible to assess the reasonableness of the disposition or to determine whether the result would have been the same even if the investigation had been adequate. In addition, the Board ruled that the matter should have been dealt with by an Inquiry Committee because the disposition of the complaint was not properly within the authority of the Registrar. The Inquiry Committee was directed to obtain additional evidence, to document the steps it took throughout the investigation, and to documents its reasons for the approach it selected for obtaining the additional evidence.

On judicial review, the Board’s decision was set aside. The adequacy of the investigation and the reasonableness of the disposition were remitted to a different panel of the Board for reconsideration. The Court of Appeal held that a Board considering the adequacy of an investigation was entitled to characterize the goals of the investigation and to make judgments as to whether the efforts expended were commensurate with those goals, provided that it did not act in a patently unreasonable manner. It reinstated the Board’s order that complaint be remitted to College for further consideration on amended conditions.