Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-566950 DATE: 20181003 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Hemchand Ramlall, Plaintiff / Responding Party AND: Medical Council of Canada, Defendant / Moving Party

BEFORE: Justice Edward P. Belobaba

COUNSEL: John McIntyre for the Defendant / Moving Party Hemchand Ramlall in person / Responding Party

HEARD: September 28, 2018

Motion for Summary Judgment

Motion for Summary Judgment

1The plaintiff, Hemchand Ramlall, obtained his medical degree in 1984 from the Technological University of Santiago in the Dominican Republic. He is a Canadian citizen. He says that he made many attempts since 1991 to secure a medical residency placement in Canada, all of them unsuccessful. Frustrated, he turned to litigation.

2Over the last 20 years, the plaintiff has commenced five actions in three different courts - this court, the Divisional Court and the Federal Court of Canada - seeking judicial review or claiming damages from a wide spectrum of alleged wrong-doers, including the Ontario International Medical Graduate Program, the Council of Ontario Faculties of Medicine, the Ontario Minister of Health, the Government of Ontario, the Canadian Residency Matching Service, the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, the Government of Canada and four Ontario universities. Each of these actions was dismissed. [1]

3The plaintiff now sues the Medical Council of Canada (“MCC”) claiming $12 million “for the last 20 years of negligence, breach of contract and other damages.” The plaintiff says his failure to obtain a medical residency over these 20 years can be attributed to the MCC’s continuing failure to forward his examination results to the Canadian Residency Matching Service (“CaRMS”). The MCC denies any and all liability and moves for summary judgment dismissing the action in its entirety.

4Both sides agree that the liability portion of this action is appropriate for summary adjudication. [2] As do I. The evidentiary record before the court in this motion is more than sufficient to allow the motions judge to make the necessary findings of fact. No further or better evidence will be adduced at trial. The disposition of this motion relies on straightforward and uncontested determinations regarding the medical residency application process, the MCC’s role within this process and the plaintiff’s actions in the 2015-16 application cycle and in the years before. These determinations can be fairly and justly made on the basis of the affidavit and transcript evidence. I am satisfied that summary judgment is a proportionate, and expeditious way to achieve a just result. I am confident that I can fairly and completely decide the issues in dispute on this motion.

The Medical Residency Application Process

The Medical Residency Application Process

5In Canada, medical graduate candidates seeking hospital residency positions, including internationally educated graduates such as the plaintiff, must satisfy the prerequisites set out by the post-graduate medical education programs (“PMEs”). Candidates must submit their applications to the Canadian Residency Matching Service (“CaRMS”). CaRMS administers an annual competitive application process whereby medical graduates can apply to be matched with a Canadian PME program (one of some 17 teaching hospitals) for a residency position.

6The MCC administers the prerequisite examinations. The MCC is not involved in the administration of the CaRMS application process or the PME selection process. Its only connection, having administered the required examinations, is to transfer candidates’ examination results to CaRMS for consideration in that application process. In 2016, the process to transfer results to CaRMS was electronic and automatic. Once candidates submitted their CaRMS application on the CaRMS online interface, their examination results were automatically transferred from their MCC account (on physiciansapply.ca) to CaRMS.

7The plaintiff says the MCC failed on numerous occasions to transfer his examination results to CaRMS, thus precluding his consideration for a medical residency.

8The plaintiff divides his claim into two parts: (i) the 2015-16 application process; and (ii) the historical allegations dating back to 1991. I will deal with each in turn.

The 2015-16 Application

The 2015-16 Application

9The plaintiff’s claim about the 2015-16 application fails for at least two reasons. First, the plaintiff failed to submit his CaRMS application before the March 10, 2016 deadline imposed by CaRMS and his examination results were therefore not transferred. In emails to the executive directors of the MCC and CaRMS, the plaintiff attributed his application difficulties to a discrepancy in his MCC candidate number. However, the evidence is clear that the MCC provided the plaintiff with his correct candidate number and the plaintiff himself correctly cited this number in two e-mails to the MCC. Whatever (password related) problems the plaintiff may have had with his CaRMS application were problems that occurred on the CaRMS application interface and cannot be attributed to the MCC.

10Second, even if the plaintiff had filed his application in time, he would not have been eligible in any event. In 2015, the PME imposed the National Assessment Collaboration (“NAC”) clinical examination as a prerequisite for internationally-trained medical graduates. The plaintiff knew about the NAC but made no attempt to satisfy this new requirement or seek a possible exemption from the PME. As such, he was not eligible for consideration for a medical residency in Canada. Here again, this was not the doing of the MCC.

11I find on the uncontroverted evidence before me that there is no genuine issue for trial with regard to the plaintiff’s 2015-16 application.

The Historical Applications 1991 to 2015

The Historical Applications 1991 to 2015

12The plaintiff alleges that the MCC failed to transfer his examination results in every year since 1991. However, CaRMS’s records show that the plaintiff only applied in the years 1991, 1992, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2011 and 2012.

13Before 2003, the CaRMS’s application process required that candidates themselves submit confirmation of their examination results to CaRMS. The MCC played no role in this regard before 2003. Accordingly, when he applied in 1991, 1992, 2000 and 2001, it was the plaintiff’s responsibility to transfer his examination results to CaRMS.

14In 2003, the MCC assumed a new facilitative role and began transferring candidates’ examination results to CaRMS. However, the records produced by CaRMS show that the plaintiff’s examination results are included in the document folders for his 2003, 2011 and 2012 applications. CaRMS has also confirmed in writing that the document folders show that the plaintiff was successful in the transfer of his MCC exam results prior to 2016.

15The plaintiff has adduced no evidence supporting his allegation that his results were not transferred from 1991 to his last recorded application in 2012. He says he assumed that his results were not transferred because he was not matched. He believes that the MCC lost his results. The MCC records show otherwise.

16The plaintiff has testified that he also applied in 2014 and 2015. Neither the MCC nor CaRMS have any record of application in these years. The CaRMS records show that the plaintiff had unresolved difficulties with his CaRMS password in each of these years.

17In sum, on the uncontroverted documentary evidence before me, the plaintiff’s submission that the MCC failed to transfer his examination results to CaRMS over the time-period from 1991 to 2015 does not succeed. There is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

18The MCC raises two further defences relating to these so-called “historic” claims. The first is a limitations defence. The second is abuse of process based on the submission that many if not all of the issues before the court on this motion have been litigated and decided in the five previous lawsuits.

19I am inclined to agree with the MCC’s analysis of the limitations issue but I make no finding in this regard. It is sufficient for the purposes of this motion for summary judgment to find on the uncontroverted documentary evidence before me that there are no genuine issues for trial.

20I am not persuaded by the abuse of process submission. It is true that the plaintiff has commenced no less than five, now six, unsuccessful lawsuits. But he did this in good faith, albeit from what appears to be a profound misunderstanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of the MCC, CaRMS and the PMEs. His frustration, however, is understandable. He is an obviously intelligent and articulate foreign-trained medical doctor who has devoted a large part of his adult life to qualifying in Canada and who passionately believes he has passed all the necessary exams and would be an exceptional general practitioner. Instead he finds himself driving cabs and delivering pizza. He believes, not irrationally, that “the system” has failed him. He is entitled to his point of view.

21In any event, the action herein is against a different defendant (the MCC) and has a very different focus (the alleged failure to transfer examination results). The lawsuit is not an abuse of the process of this court.

Disposition

Disposition

22The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The plaintiff’s action is dismissed.

23The MCC asks for $7500 in partial indemnity costs. The plaintiff suggests $3500. I note that in several of the other actions that have been dismissed by this court, the successful defendant was awarded $5000. I will do the same here. Having considered the factors set out in Rule 57.01(1) and in particular the proposition that the costs award be fair and reasonable to the losing party, I fix costs in the amount of $5000 payable forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendant.

24Order to go as per the draft order signed by me today.

Justice Edward P. Belobaba Date: October 3, 2018

1Ramlall v Ontario International Medical Graduate Program, (1998) 116 O.A.C. 79 (Div. Ct.) , leave to appeal to the C.A. denied, [1999] O.J. No 5977 (C.A.) , leave to appeal to S.C.C. denied, [1999] S.C.C.A. No. 435; Ramlall v Ontario (2004), 04-CV-271819SR (Sup. Ct.), aff’d [2005] O.J. No. 2836 (C.A.) ; Ramlall v Canadian Resident Matching Service, 2005 CarswellNat 5929 , aff’d 2006 FCA 300 ; Ramlall v Canadians Resident Matching Service , [2006] O.J. No. 3329 (Sup. Ct.) ; Ramlall v Ontario Family Medicine Programs , 2012 ONSC 7260 , aff’d 2014 ONCA 100 .

2The plaintiff, self-represented, mistakenly assumed that this court can also award unliquidated damages on this motion. He was nonetheless content with a summary adjudication of liability.