2015 QCCQ 4976, 2015 QCCQ 4976

A.F. c. Brahm 2015 QCCQ 4976 COURT OF QUEBEC «Administrative and Appeal Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL TOWN OF MONTRÉAL Civil Division No: 500-80-029395-143 DATE: May 13, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ A. F. [1] Plaintiff v. DR. EVAN BRAHM Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A MOTION TO DISMISS AN APPEAL (art. 501 para. (4.1) and

(5) C.C.P ) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court must decide whether an appeal of a final decision of the Access to Information Commission (Commission) instituted by A. F. should be dismissed immediately because it is either improper or without any reasonable chance of success. THE CONTEXT [ 2 ] On June 27, 2012, Mr F. requested access to his medical file held by Dr. Brahm. [ 3 ] Dissatisfied with the response he received, Mr F. filed an application for the examination of a disagreement with the Access to information Commission under

article 42 of the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector ( the Act ) [2] . [ 4 ] On August 6, 2014, the Commission rendered its final decision dismissing Mr F.’s application. The Commission concluded: [51] Par conséquent, la soussignée estime qu’en l’espèce, le demandeur a obtenu la communication de tous les renseignements contenus à son dossier médical. [ 5 ] Mr F. has filed an appeal of right of the Commission’s decision under

article 61 of the Act . This

article sets out that an appeal before the Court of Québec lies only on questions of law or jurisdiction: 61. A person directly interested may bring an appeal from a final decision of the Commission before a judge of the Court of Québec on a question of law or jurisdiction or, with leave of a judge of that Court, from an interlocutory decision which cannot be remedied by the final decision. THE MOTION TO DISMISS [ 6 ] Dr.

Brahm argues that both the notice and amended notice of appeal do not set out any question of law or jurisdiction and that the appeal is improper. [ 7 ] He also argues that the appeal, on its face, has no reasonable chance of success since all of Mr F.’s grounds of appeal attack the Commission’s appreciation of the facts. THE APPEAL PROCESS [ 8 ] The Court of Québec when acting in appeal in access to information matters, applies the provisions of the Code of civil procedure [3] concerning appeals (arts. 491 to 524 C.C.P ) [4] .

[ 9 ]

Article 501 C.C.P . is relevant to

summary dismissals of appeals: 501.

Within 10 days following the expiration of the time fixed for appearance, the respondent may by motion ask for the dismissal of the appeal by reason of: (1) an irregularity in the bringing of the appeal, when it causes him a prejudice; (2) the non-existence or forfeiture of the right of appeal; (3) acquiescence in the judgment appealed from; (4) renunciation of the judgment; (4.1) the fact that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success ; (5) its improper or dilatory nature . (Emphasis added) [ 10 ] At this stage, the Court must not delve into the merits of apparently serious questions of law or jurisdiction that Mr F.’s proceedings put forward.

Such questions should be put only to the judge hearing the merits of this case. In order to succeed in dismissing the appeal at this stage, this Court must be convinced after a

summary examination of the arguments set forward that the appeal is futile or abusive. This type of motion does not constitute an accelerated hearing on the merits [5] . THE ANALYSIS [ 11 ] The notice and amended notice of appeal do not specifically identify, as such, questions of law or jurisdiction. At first glance, this contravenes the provisions of

article 61 of the Act . However, since Mr F. prepared his proceedings without the help of an attorney, it is relevant to delve further into the situation. [ 12 ] Dr. Brahm, in his motion to dismiss, summarises the issues according to the documents initially requested by Mr F. These documents and Mr. F.’s grievances are: Requested document Grievance a. All notes. a. Dr. Brahm’s handwritten notes are not legible and his transcript is not a «true copy» b. All records received from other institutions or documents sent to other institutions. b. Dr.

Brahm has not made sufficient efforts to retrieve a consent form sent to another hospital. c. All emails between Dr. Brahm and Mr F.’s parents. c. Dr. Brahm has not proven that there are, in fact, no other documents than those filed in evidence. d. Records, referrals and administrative documents. d. Dr. Brahm has not proven that there are, in fact, no other documents than those filed in evidence. a.

All notes [ 13 ] On this question, the Commission decided: [35] La preuve démontre que les seules notes rédigées par le médecin à la suite des consultations avec le demandeur sont les deux pages manuscrites rédigées le 9 mars 20112 ( sic ) et conservées au dossier médical de son client. En les communiquant intégralement au demandeur, le médecin s’est acquitté de l’obligation qui lui incombe selon la

Loi sur le privé. Bien que le demandeur a été étonné d’apprendre lors de l’audience que le médecin n’a pas rédigé d’autres notes, il n’a fourni aucun élément concret permettant de croire qu’il existait d’autres notes prises par le médecin . (Emphasis added) [ 14 ] When the Commission decides in this fashion that other notes do not exist, it is exercising its appreciation of the facts, nothing more. Mr F. has put forward no grounds of appeal relating to a question of law or jurisdiction as to this conclusion. [ 15 ] Mr F. also complained, before the Commission that he could not read the handwritten notes that Dr.

Brahm left in his medical file (see paragraphs 18 and 36 of the decision). However, it appears Mr F. did not mention specific legal arguments. At any rate, the decision does not mention any. [ 16 ] At the hearing before the access to information Commission, Dr. Brahm undertook to provide a transcript of his handwritten evaluation made on March 9, 2012. After the hearing, Dr. Brahm’s lawyer provided this transcript to the Commission. In her letter of April 14, 2014, the attorney writes: During the hearing, Dr. Brahm undertook to provide you with a transcription of the March 9, 2012 consultation note.

Further to that undertaking, please find enclosed, at

Schedule A, a transcription which Dr. Brahm prepared of said note, to the best of this ability . (Emphasis added) [ 17 ] As a footnote to the transcript, appears the following:

This transcription has been prepared for informative purposes only. It does not constitute part of the medical record . It is a « best efforts » transcription and is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, an exact duplication of the original consultation note. (Emphasis added) [ 18 ] This transcript was forwarded to Mr F. for his comments.

He responded on March 9, 2014 as follows: Regarding the transcription, I would like to note: As the transcription was written «to the best of his ability …is a « best efforts» transcription …does not constitute part of the medical record,» and «is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, an exact duplication of the original consultation note ,» I understand Dr. Brahm’s efforts to have been an exercise in attempting to decipher his own handwriting, and not one to make the records intelligible. If the transcription cannot stand in place of the original document, and Dr.

Brahm cannot ensure its accuracy, I remain unable to understand the records . (Emphasis added) [ 19 ] This transcript was discussed in the decision thus: [18] En effet, le 9 mai 2014, le demandeur conteste par écrit le fait que la transcription contient la réserve suivante : « This transcription has been prepared for informative purposes only. It does not constitute part of the medical record. It is a «best efforts» transcription and is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, an exact duplication of the original consultation note ».

Puisque le médecin émet une telle réserve sur la fiabilité de la transcription, le demandeur argue qu’il demeure incapable de comprendre intégralement son dossier. […] [36] Quant aux doléances du demandeur à l’égard de l’illisibilité des notes manuscrites, la

Loi sur le privé ne confère aucun droit d’exiger du médecin qu’une transcription en soit faite . Le D r Brahm a volontairement accepté, séance tenante, de transcrire ses notes manuscrites alors qu’aucune obligation statutaire ne lui incombait selon la

Loi sur le privé. Cette transcription a été communiquée au demandeur après l’audience. Elle a été confectionnée dans le cadre des débats devant la Commission et ne peut être considérée comme faisant

partie intégrante du dossier médical du demandeur. Ainsi, les commentaires formulés par le demandeur à l’égard de la transcription ne sont pas pertinents à l’examen de la présente affaire . (Emphasis added) [ 20 ] Before the Court, Mr F. has based his argument on the Civil Code of Québec as well as an Act to establish a legal framework for information technology [6] . More precisely, he invokes

article 38 C.C.Q .: 38. Except as otherwise provided by law, any person may, free of charge, examine and cause the rectification of a file kept on him by another person with a view to making a decision in his regard or to informing a third person; he may also cause a copy of it to be made at reasonable cost. The information contained in the file shall be made accessible in an intelligible transcript . (Emphasis added) As well as

article 23 of the Act to establish a legal framework for information technology which reads: 23. Every document to which a person has a right of access must be intelligible, either directly or through the use of information technology . A right of access may be satisfied by access to a copy of the document or to a document resulting from a transfer or a copy thereof.

The wishes of the person having the right of access as to the medium or technology to be used must be taken into account, unless substantial practical difficulties would be involved, owing in particular to high cost or the information transfer required. (Emphasis added) Mr F. argues that since he cannot read Dr. Brahm’s handwriting, these provisions give him the right to an “exact” transcript of the handwritten notes in his file. [ 21 ] The Commission recently rendered a decision in a similar situation [7] .

In this matter, a public health institution was ordered to provide a patient with the assistance of the qualified professional to help him understand the illegible notes contained in his medical file. [27] En l’espèce, il ressort de la preuve que l’assistance offerte au demandeur par l’archiviste était insuffisante. En effet, elle ne pouvait se limiter à lui dire qu’elle ne pouvait déchiffrer certaines notes manuscrites. L’organisme devait procurer au demandeur l’assistance nécessaire pour comprendre ces renseignements. [28] La Commission peut rendre toute ordonnance permettant l’exercice du droit d’accès.

En effet, l’article 141 de la

Loi sur l’accès prévoit : 141. La Commission a tous les pouvoirs nécessaires à l'exercice de sa compétence; elle peut rendre toute ordonnance qu'elle estime propre à sauvegarder les droits des parties et décider de toute question de fait ou de droit.

Elle peut notamment ordonner à un organisme public de donner communication d'un document ou d'une

partie de document, de s'abstenir de le faire, de rectifier, compléter, clarifier, mettre à jour ou effacer tout renseignement personnel ou de cesser un usage ou une communication de renseignements personnels. [29] Par conséquent, la Commission demande à l’organisme de procurer au demandeur l’assistance d’un professionnel qualifié pour l’aider à comprendre les renseignements contenus à son dossier. [ 22 ] Without stating any opinion whatsoever as to the jurisdiction of the Commission to make such an order, the Court must point out that in the case of Mr F., he has obtained equivalent information regarding Dr Brahm’s illegible consultation notes.

Mr F. has in practice, received “ l’assistance d’un professionnel qualifié pour l’aider à comprendre les renseignements contenus à son dossier ”. [ 23 ] Although Dr Brahm does not “guarantee” the exact wording of his handwritten notes, he has provided Mr F. with as much information as he could if he were to meet him in person and explain his notes. [ 24 ] This being said, the Court is convinced that Mr F. could hope for no more and no better information than that he has already received. There is nothing tangible to be obtained by continuing this appeal.

Although the Commission’s reasons might not be perfect, there is no appeal from reasons [8] . An appeal must have a practical result. Here, there is none. Therefore, this ground of appeal has no object and is doomed to fail. b. All records received from other institutions or documents sent to other institutions [ 25 ] This ground refers in fact to one document, namely a consent to release a medical file from another institution. The evidence before the Commission was that the original of the form was sent to another institution and that this other institutions’ file was never sent to Dr.

Brahm. [ 26 ] The Commission decided, on the evidence, that none of these documents were in fact held by Dr. Brahm in the file. [ 27 ] This is clearly an attack on the Commission’s appreciation of facts. No appeal lies from such a question. c. All emails between Dr. Brahm and Mr F.’s parents [ 28 ] Before the Commission, both Dr. Brahm and Mr. F. filed an assortment of emails. In fact, Mr F. filed more of them since he obtained some emails from his parents. Since Dr.

Brahm did not have a number of these emails, Mr F. suspects that there should be more. [ 29 ] The Commission concluded on this point as follows: [48] La soussignée estime que des simples doutes ou soupçons soulevés par le demandeur quant à l’existence d’autres courriels ne sont pas suffisants pour requérir du médecin qu’il entreprenne des recherches additionnelles . En Effet, la lecture des douze courriels échangés entre les parents du demandeur et le médecin ne révèle aucun indice voulant que certains soient demeurés sans réponse.

Les séquences des échanges semblent complètes et les sujets traités de façon exhaustive. Ajoutons également que le médecin a été en vacances du 10 mai au 4 juin et 2012 et la preuve faite démontre qu’aucun courriel n’a été échangé pendant cette période. Enfin, la preuve démontre également que les parents du demandeur estiment lui avoir tout remis et que le courriel du 26 juin 2012 était le dernier qu.ils ont reçu du médecin. La mère du demandeur informe celui-ci : « There was no further communication between us and Dr Brham after this [26 juin 2012] mail. ».

La prépondérance de la preuve démontre qu’il n’y a pas d’autres courriels au dossier médical du demandeur. (Emphasis added) [ 30 ] The Commission concluded that Mr F.’s evidence was not sufficient to doubt Dr. Brahm’s testimony. [ 31 ] These are clearly questions of fact. Mr F. has shown no issue of law or jurisdiction to debate on this ground of appeal. d.

Records, referrals and administrative documents [ 32 ] Again, the Commission came to its conclusion wholly based on facts. [50] Quant aux autres documents requis par le demandeur dans le cadre de sa demande d’accès (« additional documents, referrals, records obtained from other institutions »), la preuve du médecin démontre que de tels documents n’existent pas dans le dossier médical du demandeur.

Dans de cas, il appartient à ce dernier de soumettre des éléments de preuve concrets pouvant constituer un début de preuve quant à l’existence d’autres documents, ce qu’il n’a pas fait . (Emphasis added) [ 33 ] No appeal lies on this issue. CONCLUSION [ 34 ] All of Mr F.’s grounds are insufficient to justify continuing this appeal. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the motion to dismiss, without costs;

DISMISSES the appeal, without costs. __________________________________ SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. A. F. Acting without counsel Me Emira Tufo McCarthy Tétrault For the defendant Date of hearing: Last written arguments : February 4, 2015 May 12, 2015