Court File and Parties

Citation: Chopra v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board), 2024 ONSC 5290 Divisional Court File No.: 670/23 Date: 2024-09-27 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Rajeev Chopra DDS, Applicant And: Health Professions Appeal and Review Board and Barbara Grunenberg, Respondents

Before: Backhouse, D.L. Corbett, Stothart, JJ.

Counsel: Neil M. Abramson and Anne Lewis, for Dr Chopra Steven G. Bosnick, for the Respondent HPARB Jonathan Burton, for the Respondent Grunenberg

Heard at Toronto: September 17, 2024

Endorsement

D.L. Corbett J.

[1] Dr Chopra seeks judicial review of the decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”) dated June 30, 2023, confirming the decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the Royal College of Dentists to impose an administrative disposition of a complaint made against Dr Chopra by Ms Grunenberg.

[2] There is no appeal from the impugned HPARB decision. This court has jurisdiction to judicially review the decision pursuant to s. 2(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. J.1; the standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653.

[3] This application turns on a single issue. Dr Chopra argues that “the failure [of the ICRC] to consider the report of Dr Fava” in its consideration and disposition of the complaint rendered the decision of the ICRC unreasonable, and the decision of the HPARB to the contrary was unreasonable.

[4] The argument made to this court was substantially the same argument that was made to the HPARB.

[5] In its decision, the HPARB set out the proper test for its review of the ICRC decision (Decision, para. 59). It reviewed the history of the case and concluded that the ICRC investigation was adequate (Decision, paras. 56-58). It then reviewed the ICRC’s findings respecting Dr Chopra’s treatment of the complainant and concluded that the ICRC’s findings are reasonable and are tied to the record that was before the ICRC (Decision, paras. 63-66).

[6] The HPARB then addressed the issue of the ICRC’s failure to address the report of Dr Fava in its reasons. The HPARB considered that the failure to reference the Fava report may have been a “shortcoming” in the ICRC decision but “not a sufficiently serious shortcoming as to undermine the justification, intelligibility and transparency of the Committee’s decision” (Decision, para. 73). It rejected the argument that the ICRC did not “consider” the Fava Report (Decision, para. 74), which it concluded could be inferred from “the information in the Record.”

[7] The HPARB found that the conclusions in the Fava Report are “broad and high level” and are “based on just a small portion of the information that was before the Committee” (Decision, para. 73). Dr Chopra argues that these findings are palpable and overriding errors on the part of the HPARB. I cannot accept that submission. Before us, Dr Chopra argued that the Fava Report was a central document in the case, crucial evidence that had to be addressed for the underlying ICRC decision to be intelligible. That was not how the Fava Report was treated before the ICRC. While I agree with counsel for Dr Chopra that not much should be made about the cover letter enclosing the Fava Report for the ICRC’s consideration, no submissions were made about what the ICRC should make of that Report, either in respect to the finding that remediation was indicated, or in respect to the administrative disposition that was ordered. The ICRC was entitled to decide the case on the basis on which it was presented, and nothing about that presentation suggested that the Fava Report was a crucial and central aspect of the case.

[8] I agree with Dr Chopra that the ICRC disposition does not provide a basis for inferring that the ICRC reviewed and took account of the Fava Report. I do not agree, however, that there is a basis for inferring that the ICRC did not do so. Dr Fava did not expressly address or disagree with opinions of other experts who found Dr Chopra’s treatment of the Complainant wanting. The ICRC “considered all correspondence and records obtained during the course of its investigation” (ICRC Decision, p. 4), and it is this aspect of the ICRC decision that renders the HPARB inference – that the Fava Report was considered – reasonable and justified.

[9] I accept Dr Chopra’s submission that there is some overlap in the SCERP ordered by the ICRC and in the course provided by Dr Fava. I do not accept the submission, however, that the overlap is so extensive that it must be inferred that the ICRC did not consider the Fava Report. The HPARB, as a specialist tribunal, was well placed to assess this argument, and this court owes the HPARB deference in its conclusion that the failure to address the Fava Report expressly was “not a sufficiently serious shortcoming as to undermine the justification, intelligibility and transparency of the Committee’s decision.”

[10] Therefore, despite Mr Abramson’s able arguments, I would dismiss the application. HPARB does not seek costs. Counsel for Ms Grunenberg was present with a “watching brief” and made no written or oral submissions. Therefore, I would order that there be no costs of the application.

“D.L. Corbett J.”

“Backhouse J.”

“Stothart J.”

Released: September 27, 2024