Fashoranti v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, 2015 NSCA 25, dismissing an appeal from the disciplinary committee's finding that a physician committed unprofessional conduct.
A physician was charged with unprofessional conduct in performing an inappropriate breast examination. The disciplinary committee found the complainant's testimony was credible and the physician's testimony "evasive" and "self-serving" and determined the physician was guilty of unprofessional conduct. The physician exercised his statutory right to appeal a point of law and appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the committee had erred in law by not giving sufficient reasons. He argued the reasons were insufficient because the committee failed to cite specific examples of evasive and self-serving testimony.
The Court of Appeal applied the Supreme Court's decision in Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador, [2011] 3 SCR 708, in which the SCC held that insufficient reasons are not a standalone ground of appeal but may be assessed as part of the test of whether the outcome was reasonable because it was justifiable, transparent and intelligible and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.
The Court of Appeal explained that the main role of written reasons is to assist with determining whether the outcome was justifiable, transparent and intelligible. As it stated, "the issue is whether the Committee's reasons allow the reviewing court to understand why the tribunal made its decision so the court may determine whether the conclusion is within the range of acceptable outcomes." Here, the Court had "no difficulty understanding" from the reasons and the record how the Committee reached its decision. As acceptability of the outcome was not at issue, the decision was reasonable.
Comment: The issue of sufficiency of reasons is frequently raised but not always completely understood. For review tribunals, this case clarifies that the review body is to consider the reasons together with the record to see if they fulfill the requirement of transparency, justifiability and intelligibility. For decision-makers, it stresses that the focus in drafting reasons should be to explain how the decision-maker came to the conclusion it did.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
