ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
carnwath, flinn, charbonneau jj.
B E T W E E N:
DR. MURRAY KATZ
Applicant
- and -
DR. BARRY MCLELLAN, CORONER, THE CANADIAN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION, THE CANADIAN MEMORIAL CHIROPRACTIC COLLEGE, THE COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTORS OF ONTARIO, DR. PHILIP EMANUELE, and the LEWIS FAMILY
Respondents
Julian N. Falconer and Richard Macklin, for the Applicant
Sara Blake and Tom Schneider, for Dr. Barry McLellan, Coroner
Timothy S. B. Danson, for the Canadian Chiropractic Association and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Chris Paliare and Karen Jones, for the College of Chiropractors
Brian A. Foster, for Dr. Emanuele
Amani Oakley, for the Lewis Family
HEARD: October 25, 2002
E N D O R S E M E N T
carnwath J.: (Orally)
1The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2The standard of review of a coroner's decision on standing is one of curial deference. Only where the coroner commits a serious error in principle that results in unfairness or a denial of justice should we interfere. We are directed to exercise "real restraint" in any review. This deference is easily explained by the experience and expertise coroners bring to their duties and is explained by their special understanding of the Act and the public interest enshrined therein.
3In considering the public law test for standing, Dr. McLellan found Dr. Katz did not meet the statutory requirements. Counsel for Dr. Katz conceded the correctness of the coroner's decision.
4Dr. McLellan found that Dr. Katz did not meet the statutory requirements of the "private law" test for standing. He found no direct and substantial involvement with the deceased prior to her death. He found no direct in substantial involvement in the coroner's investigation that could potentially render Dr. Katz subject to inquest jury recommendations. We do not find these conclusions on the part of the coroner to be unreasonable; they do not disclose a serious error in principle. These findings attract real restraint on our part because the coroner has been present throughout a long and complex hearing of over 60 days, involving complex medical evidence, much of which is not before us. Counsel for Dr. Katz candidly concedes that Dr. Katz wishes standing for two reasons - to counter evidence elicited attacking his reputation and to lead evidence related to the five questions the jury is required to answer.
5It is unfortunate that the reputation of Dr. Katz occupied as much time of the inquest as it did. The coroner ruled the cross-examinations of some witnesses allowed counsel to raise Dr. Katz' reputation, restricted to the credibility of the witness examined. The cross-examinations appear to us to have gone further than were absolutely necessary. We are confident the coroner will remind the jury of the use to which the evidence can be put. We find his ruling on this matter not to be an error in principle.
6We must balance any perceived unfairness to Dr. Katz with the potential chaos to the inquest process, which is far from complete. In resolving this balancing in favour of the inquest process, we are conscious of Dr. Katz' intention to attempt to deal with matters other than his reputation. Indeed, we conclude on the evidence that Dr. Katz' motivation to obtain standing has as much to do with his views on chiropractic as it does with his reputation. Dr. Katz is no stranger to controversy.
7Our balancing must have reference to the principle embodied in the jurisprudence which warns against interrupting the process of a statutory hearing in mid-stream. We find the completion of the inquest without interruption to be paramount when carrying out that balancing.
8The endorsement reads: "The application is dismissed for oral reasons given in Court. No order as to costs."
CARNWATH J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 25, 2002
Date of Release: October 29, 2002
COURT FILE NO.: 572/02
DATE: 20021025
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
carnwath, flinn, charbonneau jj.
B E T W E E N:
DR. MURRAY KATZ
Applicant
- and -
DR. BARRY MCLELLAN, CORONER, THE CANADIAN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION, THE CANADIAN MEMORIAL CHIROPRACTIC COLLEGE, THE COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTORS OF ONTARIO, DR. PHILIP EMANUELE, and the LEWIS FAMILY
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CARNWWATH J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 25, 2002
Date of Release: October 29, 2002