Sandhu v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 624

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Sandhu v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 624 Date: 20210809 Docket: 2001 15663 Registry: Calgary Between: Manjeet Singh Sandhu Applicant - and - College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta Respondent _______________________________________________________ Ruling on Costs of the Honourable Mr. Justice C.M. Jones _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] I dismissed Dr. Sandhu’s application for judicial review of a decision of an Appeal Panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA).

That decision upheld the decision of Dr. Susan Ulan, the CPSA’s Assistant Registrar, which rejected Dr. Sandhu’s application for independent practice registration in Alberta. [ 2 ] I advised the parties that if they could not agree on costs, they were to provide me with written submissions. The parties could not agree on costs and I have reviewed their written submissions. [ 3 ] The CPSA, having succeeded in its opposition to Dr. Sandhu’s application for judicial review, seeks costs in the amount of $2,101.82. That amount reflects fees of $1,350.00 in respect of item 8(1) of Column 1 of

Schedule C to the Alberta Rules of Court. The difference between $2,101.82 and $1,350.00 represents disbursements, photocopy and print charges, and related GST. [ 4 ] The CPSA argues that it should receive costs despite the general rule that an administrative decision-maker should only have

to pay costs or be entitled to receive them in exceptional circumstances: Business Watch International Inc. v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) , 2009 ABQB 79 ; Sihota v Edmonton (City) , 2013 ABCA 125 ; Borgel v Paintearth (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board , 2020 ABCA 321 . [ 5 ] The CPSA argues that the Appeal Panel of the CPSA, whose decision gave rise to the judicial review before me, did not appear before me. This, it argues, means that “the decision in Business Watch International had no application to the current matter”. [ 6 ] Dr.

Sandhu’s costs submission points out that the Appeal Panel was constituted by the CPSA and the CPSA appeared before me to defend the decision of the Appeal Panel. It follows that the CPSA is an administrative decision maker involved in the judicial review of its decision. Therefore, Dr. Sandhu argues, the CPSA should not receive costs. [ 7 ] I agree with Dr. Sandhu. The CPSA is an administrative decision maker.

The fact that it makes administrative decisions through the Assistant Registrar and the Appeal Panel does not change that fact. [ 8 ] It is subject to the general rule set forth in Business Watch International . No exceptional circumstances exist in this case which justify departure from the application of that principle. [ 9 ] The parties shall bear their own costs. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 9 th day of August, 2021. C.M. Jones J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Ryan M.L. Phillips for the Applicant Craig Boyer for the Respondent