Ahmadi v. Queen’s University, 2015 ONSC 3859

CITATION: Ahmadi v. Queen’s University, 2015 ONSC 3859

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 56/15 DATE: 20150615

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

RADY, D. L. CORBETT AND LEDERER JJ.

BETWEEN:

DR. SARA AHMADI

Applicant

– and –

QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY

Respondent

Jordan B. Goldblatt and Louis T. Century, for the Applicant

Andrea C. Risk, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: June 15, 2015

D. L. CORBETT J. (ORALLY)

[1]

Overview

Dr. Ahmadi seeks judicial review of the decision of the Queen’s University Post-Graduate Tribunal of the School of Medicine to uphold the decision of Dr. Ross Walker who required Dr. Ahmadi to withdraw from the Family Medicine Residency Program at Queen’s University.

[2]

Analysis

Dr. Ahmadi’s primary line of argument is procedural. She takes the position that she was to be provided an eight-week rotation in family medicine and a four-week rotation in geriatric medicine. She argues that the University’s unilateral decision to amend her schedule to delete the four weeks in geriatric medicine and continue her for twelve weeks in family medicine was procedurally unfair to her.

3We accept for the purposes of this appeal that the standard of review of procedural justice is fairness. On this basis, no deference is owed where the standards are not met. We also agree with Dr. Ahmadi that she was entitled to a high standard of procedural fairness given the consequences of failure in the program. Dr. Ahmadi agrees that to the extent that her application impugns evaluations of her work by the University, a standard of deference is owed in this Court.

4We have carefully considered Dr. Ahmadi’s submissions that she was treated unfairly when her program was changed to delete her scheduled four weeks in geriatric medicine. Despite the very able submissions of Mr. Goldblatt, we conclude that the schedule change was an academic decision well within the discretion of the University and that the decision to implement the change was reasonable.

5First, we do not accept that program scheduling is a procedural component of the program in which Dr. Ahmadi was enrolled. It is a substantive academic decision: where a student will be placed for the purpose of evaluating her professional competence.

6Second, we do not accept that the University created a legitimate expectation in Dr. Ahmadi that she would spend four weeks in geriatrics. For a practice to give rise to “legitimate expectations” it must be clear, unambiguous and unqualified. (See: Brown & Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada, s.7:1710, cited with approval in Agraira v. Canada, 2013 SCR 559 at para. 95).

7The University did not state that Dr. Ahmadi would necessarily spend four weeks in her program in the Geriatric Department. That was the plan at the outset, but Dr. Ahmadi was advised, in writing, that this schedule was subject to change. There was no guarantee. (See: Application Record, p. 10, emphasis in the original).

8Further, the substance of the statement concerned rotations and not the identity of preceptors. There was no representation that there would be assessments by more than one set of assessors. To the contrary, Dr. Ahmadi was advised, in writing, that she would receive, “one or more” assessments. She had no legitimate expectation of a second assessment.

9Third, we accept the University’s argument that one reason for changing a student’s schedule to require her to continue in family medicine is because of evaluations that raise concerns about her abilities. Such was the case here. As is fully explained in the University’s materials, it is easier to support a struggling student and to get to the bottom of her perceived inadequacies if she continues in the Family Medicine Program. It is easier to monitor the student and to ensure patient safety in family medicine than in the less closely supervised Geriatrics Department.

10In short, we accept that the University changed Dr. Ahmadi’s program because it felt better able to support her and better able to ensure the safety of the patients with whom she interacted if she remained in the Family Medicine Program. This is a set of academic and professional considerations which attract deference. It is not a question of procedural fairness but a substantive assessment.

11Fourth, although Dr. Ahmadi claims to have relied upon a representation that she would spend four weeks in the Geriatric Department, there is no evidence that she so relied to her detriment. She took steps to familiarize herself with the program and supervisors in the Geriatric Department, a prudent set of things to do. But this is not the sort of detrimental reliance that could found a claim in this proceeding. She does not point to something material that she would have changed about how she conducted herself in the program that would have had a material impact on her course of study.

12We see no procedural unfairness. We see no unreasonableness in the University’s assessment or in the Tribunal’s decision to uphold the assessment.

13We appreciate that this is a serious matter for Dr. Ahmadi and we understand her disappointment. The twelve week accreditation process is a short and focused assessment. Dr. Ahmadi had the benefit of undergoing that process in lieu of obtaining Canadian qualifications. She did not meet the standard in the judgment of the University. That is an academic and professional decision made in good faith on the basis of the usual process followed for such assessments.

14The application must be dismissed.

15We are obliged to both counsel for their excellent written and, in one case, oral advocacy in this matter.

RADY J.

COSTS

[16]

Costs

On behalf of the panel, I have endorsed the back of the Application Record, “For reasons

given orally the application is dismissed with costs of $5,000 to the respondent inclusive of disbursements and GST.”

___________________________ D. L. CORBETT J.