CITATION: Church v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board), 2014 ONSC 2579
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 518/13
DATE: 20140424
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, POLOWIN AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
HEATHER CHURCH
Appellant
– and –
ONTARIO (HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD) AND COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO
Respondents
In Person
Steven G. Bosnick, for the Respondent, Health Professions Appeal and Review Board
Peter J. Osborne, for the Respondent, College of Psychologists of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: April 24, 2014
aston j. (ORALLY)
[1] The Committee and the Board both conducted a detailed and nuanced examination of the material submitted in a qualitative analysis of whether the applicant’s Masters degree program was “primarily psychological in nature.” We do not accept the appellant’s submissions that the Board relied on form over substance, that it expanded the parameters of the governing Regulation through its application of the Guidelines or that it failed to properly apply evidentiary rules in its fact finding. The decision is not at odds with the prior decisions of the Board. The cases cited to us are distinguishable.
[2] The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board is a Tribunal with particular expertise and its own public mandate. The Court is bound to afford deference to its decision in this case which is not demonstrably unreasonable.
[3] The appeal is dismissed.
[4] Ms. Church, on behalf of the panel, we are sympathetic to the position that you advanced here. It seems that the Committee and the Board did not necessarily have all of the information or evidence that you might have put forward. We don’t know if the result might have been different if you had an oral hearing, but unfortunately we are constrained by our role and must make a decision based on the record as it is, not as it might have been. Perhaps the College or the Board has more flexibility than we do in that regard.
COSTS
[5] I have endorsed the Appeal Record on behalf of the panel, “For oral reasons given, the appeal is dismissed. No costs are requested; none ordered.”
ASTON J.
POLOWIN J.
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 24, 2014
Date of Release: May 1, 2014
CITATION: Church v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board), 2014 ONSC 2579
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 518/13
DATE: 20140424
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, POLOWIN AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
HEATHER CHURCH
Appellant
– and –
ONTARIO (HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD) AND COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 24, 2014
Date of Release: May 1, 2014