|
Reasons - Expert Evidence Inadequately Assessed. Adewale v. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
In Adewale v. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a plaintiff's appeal, here brought against "the dismissal of their action for breach of contract" where "they sought a declaration that they each obtained a passing grade of at least 70% on a qualifying exam administered by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (the “Royal College”) in 2020 and were therefore entitled to be certified for independent psychiatric practice".
Here the court considered whether the trial judge's reasons for decision were inadequate, specifically that they "did not ... conduct the necessary analysis of the expert evidence":Analysis
[31] We agree with the appellants that the trial judge’s judgment must be set aside as the reasons are insufficient. The trial judge did not address key issues identified by the parties’ submissions, including whether each appellant had a contract with the Royal College, the terms of any contract and whether it was breached. It appears from the issues that she did address that she considered those issues sufficient to dispose of the appellants’ claims in the action. That is, the trial judge stated that she was deciding the case on the basis that she was not prepared to step into the place of Canada’s national organization responsible for writing and administering national specialist certification examinations and that “[i]n addition, [she did] not find any technical errors in how the examinations were scored”.
[32] In Champoux v. Jefremova, 2021 ONCA 92, Hourigan J.A. stated, at paras. 18-19:The law regarding insufficient reasons is well established. Reasons serve many functions, they: (i) justify and explain the result; (ii) tell the losing party why they lost; (iii) provide public accountability and satisfy the public that justice has been done and is seen to have been done; and (iv), permit effective appellate review.
Functionally speaking, a trial judge’s reasons must provide “some insight into how the legal conclusion was reached and what facts were relied on in reaching that conclusion”: Champoux, at para. 18, citing Longo v. MacLaren Art Centre, 2014 ONCA 526, 323 O.A.C. 246, at para. 63. In cases where expert evidence is critical to determining an issue, the trial judge is also obliged to explain “in some level of detail” why the evidence of one expert is preferred over another: Champoux, at para. 23. ...
[41] The trial judge did not explain how she had resolved the contradictions in the expert evidence. Nor did her summary of the Royal College’s evidence directly address the expert evidence in relation to assertions that the Royal College had “bell curved” the grades, failed to conduct a criterion-referenced review, and resorted to “equating”. Instead, she simply stated that she accepted and preferred the Royal College’s factual assertions, which she agreed were supported by Dr. Boulet. These included that: (i) the Royal College’s standard-setting process was criterion-referenced; (ii) there is a psychometric justification for adjusting the scores obtained by the candidates (including the appellants) on the exam; (iii) the -6.5% adjustment of the candidates’ scores was derived in a psychometrically sound manner and was derived without technical errors in the Royal College’s standard-setting process; and (iv) the adjustment of -6.5% was appropriate, was carried out in relation to the panelists’ judgment of the difficulty of the exam, does not constitute bell curving and is psychometrically justifiable.
[42] The trial judge committed the same error that occurred in Champoux. While she set out a summary of some of the expert evidence, she did not meaningfully engage with the evidence and explain why she preferred the evidence of Dr. Boulet over the evidence of Dr. Ali. As in Champoux, there were several issues to be resolved on the basis of the expert evidence.
[43] The trial judge failed to explain why she preferred the evidence of the Royal College’s expert, Dr. Boulet, over the evidence of the appellants’ expert, Dr. Ali, nor more generally why she “accept[ed] and prefer[red]” the Royal College’s factual assertions. This leaves the parties and this court unable to discern why the trial judge endorsed the Royal College’s submission that the re-grading of the 2020 exam was psychometrically justified.
|
