Court File and Parties
CITATION: Oromitan v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2012 ONSC 6501
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 131/12
DATE: 20121116
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
PARDU, KITELEY AND GRACE JJ.
BETWEEN:
OLUREMI OROMITAN
Appellant
– and –
HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD and COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
Respondents
Najma Jamaldin, for the Appellant
David P. Jacobs, for the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board
Linda Rothstein and Emily Lawrence, for the College of Nurses of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: November 16, 2012
Oral Reasons for Judgment
GRACE J. (orally)
[1] This is an appeal from the decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board dated February 16, 2012.
[2] This appeal arose in the context of three unsuccessful attempts by the appellant to complete the Canadian Practical Nurse Registration Examination (“CPNRE”) required by s. 6(2.1)(iii) of O. Reg. 275/94 under the Nursing Act, 1991.
[3] The appellant had requested that the Registration Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario annul her third attempt on January 12, 2011 because of health concerns which arose during the course of that attempt. While the Registration Committee had discretion to annul an attempt in extenuating or extraordinary circumstances, it concluded that the appellant’s circumstances were not of that category and the Board agreed with that decision.
[4] In this Court, the appellant argued that:
(a) The Board erred in confirming the Committee’s decision to refuse to annul one of the examination results and erred in refusing to allow the appellant to re-write the examination;
(b) The Board wrongly concluded that the result on re-examination would be a failure;
(c) The Board erred in considering that the appellant’s potential registration was a risk to the public; and
(d) The Board and Committee erred in not allowing the annulment and re-examination based on extenuating or extraordinary circumstances.
[5] The parties agree that the standard of review is reasonableness. In argument, the appellant maintained that the decision of the Registration Committee was unreasonable. In her view, the wording of the instructions read by the Proctor at the beginning of the examination was incomplete and did not adequately address the onset of illness after commencement of the examination. Further, the appellant argued the Registration Committee and hence the Board, ignored the appellant’s evidence concerning her medical condition.
[6] The appellant relied on a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board in Richard Ofori v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2010 59334, where an earlier examination attempt was annulled. With respect, that case is distinguishable.
[7] In our view, it is reasonable for the Registration Committee to require better evidence of the nature, extent and consequences of the illness said to have affected the candidate’s performance to such an extent that the examination did not fairly reflect the candidate’s knowledge. That evidence was lacking in this case.
[8] The decision of the Board is within the range of reasonable and acceptable outcomes. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
PARDU J.
[9] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, “This appeal is dismissed for reasons delivered orally. On consent, no costs.”
GRACE J.
PARDU J.
KITELEY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 16, 2012
Date of Release: November 19, 2012
CITATION: Oromitan v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2012 ONSC 6501
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 131/12
DATE: 20121116
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
PARDU, KITELEY AND GRACE JJ.
BETWEEN:
OLUREMI OROMITAN
Appellant
– and –
HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD and COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GRACE J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 16, 2012
Date of Release: November 19, 2012