CITATION: Ravikovich v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2010 ONSC 5194
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 356/09
DATE: 20100920
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
THEN R.S.J., MATLOW AND SWINTON JJ.
BETWEEN:
DR. FELIX RAVIKOVICH
Applicant
– and –
THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO
Respondent
Michael Alexander, for the Applicant
V. White and M. Kellythorne, for the Respondent
M. T. Doi, for the Intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: September 20, 2010
swinton j.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to appoint investigators pursuant to s.75(b) and (c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.18.
[2] These investigations arise out of two different sets of circumstances:
(i) Resolutions from the Quality Assurance Committee (“QAC”) leading the Executive Committee to request an investigation pursuant to s.75(b) because the QAC was of the opinion that the applicant may be incompetent in his allergy practice or may have committed an act of professional misconduct by breaching terms and conditions of his Certificate of Registration;
(ii) A complaint on behalf of a patient leading the Complaints Committee to request the Registrar to appoint an investigator pursuant to s.75(c).
[3] The applicant has refused to comply with the investigations in a manner satisfactory to the College. He raises issues respecting the constitutionality of the investigations and the fairness of the procedures before the College. The College and the Intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario, argue that the application should be dismissed on the grounds of prematurity.
[4] This Court has consistently refused to engage in a review of the decisions of administrative tribunals until a final decision has been reached, absent extraordinary circumstances. As this Court said in Lala v. College of Physiotherapists of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 5062 (Div. Ct.) at para. 2:
In the absence of exceptional circumstances, it is preferable to allow administrative proceedings to run their full course before the tribunal and to consider the legal issues arising from the proceeding including procedural matters against the backdrop of a full record and a reasoned decision of the tribunal.
[5] In our view, the application for judicial review is premature, and there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify hearing it at this time.
[6] The investigations are at a very preliminary stage, and the applicant will have an ability to participate in the investigations and to respond at the stage of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee. If this matter should proceed to discipline, the Discipline Committee has the authority to consider whether there has been a breach of the Charter and to give appropriate relief, even if it cannot give a declaration of constitutional invalidity (see Okwuobi v. Lester B. Pearson School, 2005 SCC 16, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 257 at paras. 44-45).
[7] Similarly, the issues of procedural fairness can be raised within the administrative and disciplinary regime of the College.
[8] Therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed for prematurity.
[9] Costs reserved.
SWINTON J.
THEN R.S.J.
MATLOW J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 20, 2010
Date of Release: September 24, 2010
CITATION: Ravikovich v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2010 ONSC 5194
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 356/09
DATE: 20100920
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
THEN R.S.J., MATLOW AND SWINTON JJ.
BETWEEN:
DR. FELIX RAVIKOVICH
Applicant
– and –
THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 20, 2010
Date of Release: September 24, 2010