2019 QCCA 164, 2019 QCCA 164

C.E. c. Collège des médecins du Québec 2019 QCCA 164 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027998-186 (500-17-087150-150) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: February 1, 2019 THE HONOURABLE MANON SAVARD, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL C. E. Mtre Christine kark (CK Avocats Inc.) (Absent) RESPONDENT COUNSEL COLLÈGE DES MÉDECINS DU QUÉBEC Mtre ANTOINE AYLWIN Mtre PAUL CÔTÉ-LÉPINE (Fasken Martineau DuMoulin SENCRL, s.r.l.) (Absent) DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered on November 12, 2018, by the Honourable Benoît Moore of the Superior Court, District of Montréal Clerk: Lory Beauregard Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 14:14 Continuation of the January 31, 2019 hearing. The Parties’ attendance is not required,today. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – See page 3. Conclusion of the hearing.

Lory BeauregardClerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT CONFIDENTIALity OF THE IDENTITy OF PETITIONER ORDEREDIN FIRST INSTANCE [1] Petitioner seeks leave to appeal the judgment of the Superior Court which, on November 12, 2018, dismissed her application forjudicial review and for nullity of the decision of the professional inspection committee (PIC) of the Respondent, Collège des médecinsdu Québec, dated March 20, 2015 subjecting her to a professional inspection (direct observation period of seven days). [2] The Superior Court judge concluded that Petitioner failed to convince him that the PIC exceeded its jurisdiction or committed abreach of procedural fairness by sidestepping the inspection stage. [3] Petitioner's motion for leave to appeal is governed by art. 30, al.2, para.5 C.C.P.

In accordance with art. 30, al. 3 C.C.P., leave toappeal may only be granted if "the matter at issue is one that should be submitted to the Court, for example because it involves aquestion of principle, a new issue or an issue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions".

It is not sufficient that thejudgment of the lower Court may be incorrect; a question of interest for the Court is required. [4] In her motion for leave to appeal, Petitioner raises the same grounds that she did in first instance in support of her motion forjudicial review and nullity of the PIC's decision: 1- the applicable standard of review is that of correctness, and not reasonableness as thefirst instance judge concluded; 2- the PIC exceed its jurisdiction by subjecting her to a direct observation period outside her normal workenvironment; 3- the nature of the inspection is that of refresher training which can only be imposed by a decision of the board ofdirectors. [5] None of these grounds of appeal meet the criteria of art. 30, al. 3 C.C.P. [6] The Petitioner's argument that the PIC exceeded its jurisdiction calls into question the

interpretation of

section 19 of theRèglement sur le comité d'inspection professionnelle du Collège des médecins du Québec (CQLR, c. M-9, r. 19). The identification of theapplicable norm of judicial review of the administrative tribunal's

interpretation of its enabling statute, as in the case at bar, is not anissue of law that has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions (Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) c. Alberta Teachers’Association, 2011 SCC 61 , [2011] 3 R.C.S. 654; Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels et de bureau, sectionlocale 574, SEPB, CTC-FTQ c. Groupe Pages jaunes Cie, 2015 QCCA 918). Lapierre v. Comité d'inspection professionnelle du Barreaudu Québec, 2018 QCCS 904, to which the Petitioner referred to support this argument, can be distinguished from the present case.

ThePIC’s jurisdiction to subject Petitioner to a professional inspection is not contested, the issue being whether, by doing so in the factualcircumstances of this case, the PIC exceeded its jurisdiction. This is not an issue that should be submitted to the Court. [7] As to the other grounds of appeal invoked, the judge concluded on the evidence before him that the manner in which the PICdecided to subject Petitioner to a professional inspection was not unfair and that direct observation is one choice among many that could

be chosen by the PIC. I do not see in this a question of principle nor other grounds on which this Court would intervene. [ 8 ] Lastly, as noted by the first instance judge, "an inspection marks the start of the process at the end of which, the PIC has only the power to make recommendations. […] [I]t is appropriate at this stage to allow the process to follow its course, […]". I agree with him. [ 9 ] In these circumstances, it is not appropriate to grant leave to appeal in virtue of

Article 30 C.C.P. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 10 ] DISMISSES Petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal, with costs. manon savard , J.A.