Court File and Parties
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
DR. A.S.M. AKTER AHMED Applicant
- and -
HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL REVIEW BOARD and THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO Respondents
Counsel: Babek Ebrahimzadeh, for the Applicant Carrie L. Clynick, for the Health Professions Appeal Review Board Colin Johnston, for the College of Physicians and Surgeons
HEARD at Toronto: November 25, 2009
Oral Reasons for Judgment
LEDERMAN J.: (Orally)
1In determining whether to extend time for filing a Notice of Appeal, the Court will generally consider whether the appellant formed an intention to appeal within the time limit, the length of the delay, any prejudice to the respondent and the merits of the appeal.
2As to the merits of the appeal, the applicant submits and will allege that the Registration Committee and HPARB based their decisions on the PREP assessments. He will submit that the process of the PREP assessment was flawed and that the supervisor who conducted it was tainted.
3Counsel for the applicant submits that these were matters raised in the applicant’s written submissions to HPARB but not addressed in its Reasons.
4On this basis, he has an arguable case for appeal.
5As pointed out in Kefeli v. Centennial College of Applied Arts & Technology, [2002] O.J. No. 3023 (C.A.), the general rule that the applicant must have formed an intention to appeal within the relevant time period and must provide a reasonable explanation for any subsequent delay is subject to the broader principle that an extension should be granted, if the justice of the case requires it. Here, the following factors should be taken into account:
(i) HPARB consents to the extension of time. It is only CPSO that opposes;
(ii) CPSO will not be prejudiced by the extension;
(iii) Until recently the applicant was self represented and he was not informed by HPARB of any right of appeal or the time limit for so doing;
(iv) The applicant was not aware of the appeal process and was under the impression that a challenge to the decision would be only by way of judicial review for which there is no specific time limit;
(v) The effect of the HPARB decision is to prevent the applicant from practising medicine and earning a livelihood;
(vi) Once counsel was retained by the applicant, prompt steps were taken to seek an extension of time to appeal.
6Given these factors, the “justice of the case” warrants an extension of time until November 30, 2009. So ordered.
7The applicant will have costs in the amount of $500.00, payable by the CPSO.
LEDERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 25, 2009
Date of Release: December 7, 2009
COURT FILE NO.: 549/09
DATE: 20091125
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
Dr. A.S.M. AKTER AHMED Applicant
- and -
HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL REVIEW BOARD and THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEDERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 25, 2009
Date of Release: December 7, 2009