CITATION: Papazian v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, Eade, Siskind, 2015 ONSC 3929
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 334/14 DATE: 20150622
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
RADY, D. L. CORBETT AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
ARA PAPAZIAN
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS, JANE COOPER EADE, GAIL E. SISKIND, GAIL E. SISKIND CONSULTING SERVICES and HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD
Respondents
Frederick J. Shuh and Mark S. Grossman, for the Applicant
Richard Steinecke, for the Respondents, Ontario College of Pharmacists, Gail E. Siskind and Gail E. Siskind Consulting Services
David P. Jacobs, for the Respondent, Health Professions Appeal and Review Board
HEARD at Toronto: June 17, 2015
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RADY J.
[1] The applicant, a pharmacist, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. The Board was sitting in review of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints & Reports Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.
[2] The Board confirmed the ICRC’s decision to require the applicant to complete a program offered by Gail E. Siskind Consulting Services to improve his communication skills with patients. It required the ICRC to reconsider its decision to issue an oral caution to the applicant.
[3] The applicant submits that the ICRC’s decision was improperly based on the tone of his response to a complaint made by a patient, a consideration for which he did not have notice. He also submits that the Siskind program was not “a specified continuing education or remediation program” as required by s. 26(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1992, S.O. 1991, C. 18.
[4] The standard of review of the Board’s decision is reasonableness: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] S.C.J. No. 9.
[5] By way of background on March 17, 2012, the College received a complaint from Ms. Eade about the applicant’s conduct when she attended at his pharmacy on March 12, 2012 to return two ice packs. Ms. Eade alleged that the applicant behaved rudely and aggressively toward her.
[6] On July 24, 2012, the College wrote the applicant to advise him of the complaint. It requested a written response to the complaint and advised him that his response would be forwarded to the complainant. The applicant’s response was, in a word, intemperate. These proceedings followed.
[7] As we advised the applicant at the conclusion of his oral argument, the application must be dismissed. The Board’s decision was within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes, given the underlying facts and statutory framework. It upheld that part of the ICRC’s decision requiring the applicant to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program, a decision that was supported on the record before it. That Board also determined that the decision to issue an oral caution was not reasonable because it appeared to be based on assumptions not supported on the record. That portion of the ICRC’s decision was remitted for reconsideration. The Board’s decision was reasonable.
[8] We see no merit to the applicant’s submission that the ICRC was obliged to provide him with notice that the tone of his response would be considered by it. A similar argument was rejected in Fielden v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, [2013] O.J. No. 2947 (Div. Ct.). The Court observed as follows:
The Committee was entitled to take account all of the information it obtained in its investigation in determining the appropriate course of action. What the applicant refers to as “add on issues”, in fact came from Dr. Fielden’s responses to the complaint which raised additional concerns. These did not give rise to any further notice entitlements.
[9] We do not agree that the communication and professionalism workshop offered by Siskind is not a “specified continuing education or remediation program.” It is specified in the sense that the provider is identified, as is its subject matter, the manner in which the program would be conducted and the timeline for completion. This, too, was reasonable.
[10] For these reasons, the application is dismissed. The Board did not seek costs. As agreed, the applicant will pay costs to the College of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
___________________________ RADY J.
D. L. CORBETT J.
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 17, 2015
Date of Release: June 22, 2015
CITATION: Papazian v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, Eade, Siskind, 2015 ONSC 3929
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 334/14 DATE: 20150622
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
RADY, D. L. CORBETT AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
ARA PAPAZIAN
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS, JANE COOPER EADE, GAIL E. SISKIND, GAIL E. SISKIND CONSULTING SERVICES and HEALTH PROFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
RADY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 17, 2015
Date of Release: June 22, 2015