The College of Physicians and Surgeons found the respondent physician guilty of infamous conduct for having a sexual relationship with a patient, based primarily on credibility findings.
The reviewing judge set aside the decision, finding the evidence was not 'clear and cogent'.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the College's appeal.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the reviewing judge conflated the standard of proof with the standard of review.
Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the appropriate standard of review for the Committee's credibility findings was reasonableness simpliciter.
The reviewing judge erred by substituting her own view of the evidence, and the Court of Appeal erred by applying the 'clearly wrong' test to the reviewing judge's decision rather than determining if she applied the correct standard of review.
