Mitchell v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 1894

CITATION: Mitchell v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 1894

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 475/19

DATE: 20210315

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Mitchell v. College of psychologists of ontario

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Dr. Richard Steve Mitchell, self-represented Andrew Porter, for the College of Psychologists of Ontario

HEARD: In Chambers, In Writing

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT

[1] Dr Mitchell seeks judicial review of the decision of the Health Professions Appeal Review Board, upholding a decision of the College of Psychologists of Ontario (the “College”) to refuse to grant Dr Mitchell a certificate of registration for supervised practice as a psychologist [R.S.M. v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2019 92280 (ON HPARB)]. The Board made this decision on the basis that Dr. Mitchell’s Ph.D. in “Biblical Psychology” awarded by Dayspring Christian University in the United States does not meet the College’s requirement for a Ph.D. from a psychology program considered to be equivalent to a psychology program accredited by the Canadian Psychological Association or other accreditation body recognized by the College’s governing Council. Such a recognized doctoral degree is a non-exemptible requirement for registration under section 12(1) of Ontario Regulation 74/15 made under the Psychology Act, 1991.

[2] Dr Mitchell sought an order that the respondent prepare and serve transcripts of proceedings before the College, and an order that he be issued a fee waiver. Favreau J. dismissed this motion but directed that Dr Mitchell could pursue a fee waiver on proper materials.

[3] Dr Mitchell failed to perfect his appeal, and again sought to move that the College produce transcripts at the College’s expense. This court issued a direction pursuant to R.2.1.01 on this issue. The court directed that the R.2.1.01 issue be decided by Penny J. and gave directions for Dr Mitchell to provide materials to the court: 2020 ONSC 4135.

[4] In particular, this court ordered as follows:

(a) The Registrar shall give Dr Mitchell notice that the court is considering dismissing his motion pursuant to R.2.1.02 on the bases set out in these reasons.

(b) Counsel for the College shall provide the court forthwith with a copy of Justice Favreau’s endorsement by email, with a copy to Dr Mitchell and HPARB’s counsel. Responding counsel shall not otherwise respond to the R.2.1.02 process unless subsequently directed otherwise by the court.

(c) The R.2.1.02 issue shall be dealt with by Penny J. or as Penny J. directs.

(d) If Dr Mitchell’s motion is not dismissed pursuant to R.2.1.02, then that motion shall proceed before a single judge of the Divisional Court at such time and on such terms as directed by Penny J. The balance of the application shall proceed thereafter on a schedule to be fixed by the motions judge or as the motions judge directs.

(e) If Dr Mitchell’s motion is dismissed pursuant to R.2.1.02, then Dr Mitchell shall, within sixty days of dismissal of his motion, provide the court with proof that he has ordered and paid for all transcripts required for this application.

(f) Subparagraph (d) is without prejudice to Dr Mitchell amending his Certificate to reduce or eliminate the requirement for transcripts in accordance with the decision of Favreau J.

(g) Dr Mitchell shall perfect his application within thirty days of receipt of transcripts.

(h) Any party may schedule a further case management conference before an Administrative Judge of the Divisional Court for directions.

(i) There shall be no order as to costs of the case management conference.

[5] Penny J. dismissed Dr Mitchell’s motion pursuant to R.2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, on August 27, 2020: 2020 ONSC 5135.

[6] Dr Mitchell was required by my order of July 3, 2020 to provide the court with proof that he has ordered and paid for all transcripts required for his application, and to perfect his appeal within thirty days of receipt of transcripts. Dr Mitchell’s deadline to order the transcripts was thus October 26, 2020. Had the transcripts been ordered by that deadline, they would have been received long ago and Dr Mitchell’s deadline to perfect his appeal would have passed by now.

[7] Dr Mitchell wrote to the court in December 2020, asking that the court schedule the hearing for his appeal. Dr Mitchell has not served his appeal materials. He has not complied with the court’s directions respecting transcripts. The case is not ready to be scheduled for hearing because Dr Mitchell has not done the things the court directed him to do.

[8] The court will give Dr Mitchell an opportunity to address his apparent non-compliance with the ordered schedule. He shall do so by April 2, 2021. The respondent shall not respond to any material provided by Dr Mitchell in respect to this issue. If Dr Mitchell does not provide material in respect to this endorsement by April 2, 2021, this case will be dismissed. If Dr Mitchell does provide material in respect to this endorsement, then the court will issue its direction after considering Dr Mitchell’s materials. If Dr Mitchell does not have a reasonable explanation for his failure to follow the court’s scheduling order, and cannot demonstrate that he has taken material steps to move forward with this case, then the court may dismiss this proceeding.

___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.

Date: March 15, 2021