Court File and Parties

CITATION: Chaudhry v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 2174

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 153/25

DATE: 2025-06-19

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: AJIT CHAUDHRY, Applicant

AND: ROYAL COLLEGE OF DENTAL SURGEONS OF ONTARIO, Respondent

BEFORE: Sachs, Matheson and Faieta JJ.

COUNSEL: Paul J. Martin, for the Applicant Alexandra Matushenko and Enniael Stair, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: June 17, 2025

Endorsement

[1] In this application for judicial review, the applicant seeks an order of mandamus requiring the respondent Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario to obtain an unredacted copy of the police file that has been produced to him in redacted form. At the oral hearing, this application was dismissed as premature with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

[2] The applicant is a dentist and member of the College. There are ongoing proceedings regarding the applicant before the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College (the ICRC) that arise from an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse.

[3] The applicant was given disclosure of the documents from the investigation, which included redacted documents from the South Simcoe Regional Police. The applicant made very brief submissions to the ICRC, denying the allegations.

[4] A panel of the ICRC considered the evidence from the investigation including the information from the applicant. The applicant was then informed that the ICRC had very serious concerns about the applicant’s conduct with respect to sexual abuse and boundary violations. The applicant was informed that the ICRC had formed an intention to refer specified allegations to the Discipline Committee, but before finalizing the decision, invited the applicant to make further written submissions for the ICRC’s review.

[5] Rather than proceeding with that process, the applicant brought this application for judicial review. Further, at the applicant’s request, the ICRC has not yet made a decision. The applicant seeks an order compelling the College to obtain an unredacted copy of the police file before the matter goes back before the ICRC. The College has made a preliminary objection to this application based on prematurity.

[6] The prematurity principles are well-established. “[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, a court should not interfere in administrative processes until they are complete. The authorities supporting this proposition are based on the sound policy of allowing administrative proceedings to run their full course before a tribunal, and for the courts to consider the legal issues arising from an administrative proceeding, including procedural matters, based on a full record and a reasoned decision of the tribunal. This approach prevents fragmented and piecemeal review of administrative proceedings. [citations omitted]”: Berge v. College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 1220 (Div. Ct.), at para. 7.

[7] There is no question that the administrative proceeding here is not complete. The ICRC has not yet made its decision. It invited further submissions from the applicant before doing so and then delayed the decision at his request. This application is premature.

[8] The next question is whether there are exceptional circumstances such that this Court will exercise its discretion to hear this premature application for judicial review. The applicant submits that they have tried and failed to get the College to request the unredacted documents. The applicant submits that there are exceptional circumstances because the ICRC decision is inevitable and the applicant will not have another opportunity to challenge the issue of whether the College is obliged to obtain the unredacted documents as part of what must be an adequate investigation.

[9] We disagree. The ICRC has not yet made its decision. That is clear in the correspondence. Further, the applicant may make his submissions to the ICRC that the unredacted documents are needed and why, for the ICRC’s consideration. He still has the opportunity to do so. The ICRC will then make a decision, with reasons for decision, including on the issues that may be raised by the applicant. What happens after that decision will obviously depend on the decision. We need not address the other issues raised by the applicant about what might happen next. This application is dismissed as premature.

[10] On costs, the College reduced its claim at the oral hearing, to $15,980 on a partial indemnity basis. Among other submissions, the College noted that the applicant’s partial indemnity bill of costs exceeded $60,000, which is relevant to what the applicant would reasonably expect to pay. Having regard for all the factors in r. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, we order the applicant to pay the respondent costs of $15,000, all inclusive.

Sachs J.

Matheson J.

Faieta J.

Date: June 19, 2025