Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

(Ontario/Canada)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)
SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL LITIGATION / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW / Practice Directives / Civil Portals

home / about / Democracy, Law and Duty / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers


TOPICS


Medical Professionals (RHPA) - ICRC (Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee)

. Folkes v. College of Nurses of Ontario

In Folkes v. College of Nurses of Ontario (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR against decisions of the ICRC of the College of Nurses, partially on the basis that it's role was one of 'screening':
[1] The applicant nurse applies for judicial review of the decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College of Nurses of Ontario dated December 13, 2022. The ICRC decided to require that the applicant complete a specific continuing education or remediation program (“SCERP”) and to appear before the ICRC to be cautioned. The ICRC did not refer the matter to the College’s Discipline Committee.

....

[25] On the subject of delay, the applicant correctly submits that Peel ought to have reported within thirty days and the actual report was made after about six months. Then, the investigation took about six months. Although the issue of delay was not raised at the ICRC, we have taken it into account – it does not render the ICRC decision unreasonable.

[26] The reasonableness of the ICRC decision must be considered in the context of its screening role. It is not required to examine all records and documents, conduct interviews, hear testimony, or make findings of credibility: M.J.S. v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2022 ONSC 548 (Div. Ct.) at para. 41. It is required to make reasonable efforts to consider relevant materials and decide on the appropriate regulatory response.

[27] In this case, the ICRC did not refer the Peel concerns to be addressed in a discipline hearing. It took the remedial steps of a caution and SCERP. The applicant has not shown that the ICRC decision is untenable in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on it, including its finding as to the dishonest nature of the applicant’s conduct. Nor is there a failure of rationality – the ICRC decision is transparent, justifiable and intelligible.
. Schuur v Sas

In Schuur v Sas (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court succinctly states the role of the ICRC in the RHPA/HPPC system:
[35] The complaint, in this case, went to the ICRC [SS: 'Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee'], which investigates complaints and disposes of them either by referring them to the Discipline Committee, taking remedial action, or taking no action. The ICRC does not make findings of fact nor impose any penalty. It weighs the evidence to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to refer the matter on for discipline. It is the Discipline Committee that will make findings of fact.
The ICRC was later [at paras 39] referred to as 'the screening committee'.

CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.




Last modified: 21-03-24
By: admin