Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 360/13
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
NORDHEIMER, HORKINS AND D. BROWN JJ.
BETWEEN:
RAMA NUTAKKI
Applicant
– and –
THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD, THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO and ANDREW JOEL DAGNONE, MD
Respondents
COUNSEL:
Raj Anand, for the Applicant
David P. Jacobs, for the Respondent, Health Professions Appeal and Review Board
Vicki A. White, for the Respondent, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Darryl A. Cruz and Dorothy E. Charach, for the Respondent, Andrew Joel Dagnone, MD
HEARD AT Toronto: September 17, 2014
Oral Reasons for Judgment
NORDHEIMER J. (orally)
1Ms. Nutakki seeks judicial review of a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board that upheld the decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee to take no action with respect to a complaint that the applicant had made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding the respondent, Dr. Dagnone. The applicant seeks to have the Board’s decision set aside and the matter remitted back to the Committee for a fresh review.
2The applicant was not a patient of Dr. Dagnone. Dr. Dagnone had briefly treated the applicant’s mother when she was a patient at Trillium Health Centre. The applicant maintained contact with Dr. Dagnone thereafter ostensibly to follow up on her mother’s care. However, as the record makes clear, the manner in which the applicant chose to maintain that contact caused Dr. Dagnone considerable concern.
3As found by the Committee, Dr. Dagnone attempted to deflect the applicant’s interest but she was undeterred. Eventually, the applicant’s attempts to contact Dr. Dagnone rose to the level where he was forced to call the police and the applicant was arrested. This happened not once but twice.
4The Committee reviewed the allegations that the applicant made regarding what she described as inappropriate conduct by Dr. Dagnone. The Committee reviewed Dr. Dagnone’s responses to those allegations. The Committee also reviewed hospital records, information provided by others and records from the Toronto Police Service. In the end result, the Committee determined that there was no evidence that Dr. Dagnone had acted inappropriately and the Committee determined that no further action should be taken with respect to the applicant’s complaint.
5The applicant sought a review by the Board of the Committee’s decision. The Board conducted that review and confirmed the decision of the Committee. In doing so, the Board set out, in some detail, the various allegations that the applicant had made. It also set out the material that the Committee had reviewed. The Board also heard submissions from counsel.
6In reaching its conclusion, the Board noted that both parties agreed that the Committee’s investigation of the matter had been adequate. The Board went on to deal with the various allegations and the evidence relating to them. In the end, the Board concluded that the Committee’s decision was a reasonable one that was open to the Committee on the record that was before it.
7The applicant asks us to overturn the Board’s decision and send the matter back to the Committee for a fresh hearing. In making that request, the applicant contends that both the Board and the Committee failed to properly exercise their jurisdiction by not addressing important allegations in coming to their decisions.
8I do not accept that the Board or the Committee failed to address important issues. Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, I do not accept that the Board or the Committee was required to address each and every allegation made by the applicant. As long as a reviewing court can understand why the tribunal made its decision and determine whether the conclusion is within the range of acceptable outcomes, the tribunal has met its obligations: Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708. This is not a case of there being no reasons that would invoke the authority of Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers’ Association 2011 SCC 61.
9In my view, both the Committee and the Board met their obligations in that regard. They carefully reviewed the allegations of the applicant but clearly concluded that they did not accept her version of how the events involving Dr. Dagnone came to pass. Given that conclusion, that was open to the Board and the Committee to reach on the evidence, there was no obligation to then painstakingly review and reject each of the individual allegations.
10The parties agree that the standard of review in this matter is one of reasonableness. Both the conclusion of the Committee, and of the Board, were reasonable ones that were available on the evidence that was before them.
11Finally I would note that the issue over the right of the Board to make credibility findings was not pursued by the applicant.
12The application for judicial review is dismissed.
COSTS
13I have endorsed the Application Record as follows, “The application is dismissed for reasons given by Nordheimer J. We do not view this to be an appropriate case in which to make any award of costs.”
NORDHEIMER J.
HORKINS J.
D. BROWN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 17, 2014
Date of Release: September 18, 2014
CITATION: Nutakki v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2014 ONSC 5396
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 360/13
DATE: 20140917
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
NORDHEIMER, HORKINS AND D. BROWN JJ.
BETWEEN:
RAMA NUTAKKI
Applicant
– and –
THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD, THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO and ANDREW JOEL DAGNONE, MD
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORDHEIMER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 17, 2014
Date of Release: September 18, 2014