2021 QCCA 1367, 2021 QCCA 1367

Sandor c. Collège des médecins du Québec 2021 QCCA 1367 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-029517-216 (500-17-113806-205) DATE: September 16, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A. PETER GEORGE SANDOR MARGIT SZABO APPELLANTS – Plaintiffs v. COLLÈGE DES MÉDECINS DU QUÉBEC RESPONDENT – Defendant JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellants appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal (the Honourable Gregory Moore, J.S.C.), rendered on April 21, 2021.

The judge granted respondent’s motion to dismiss and consequently dismissed appellants’ judicial application seeking $11.1 million in damages. [ 2 ] The Court is seized with the respondent’s application to have the appellants’ appeal dismissed on the grounds that it has no reasonable chance of success. [ 3 ] In June 2016, the Syndic of the Collège des médecins du Québec decided not to file a complaint against a psychiatrist after the appellant Ms. Szabo asked him to do so. In August 2016, Ms. Szabo requested a review of that decision but abandoned the process in the following month.

Instead, she filed a private complaint against the psychiatrist in January 2017. On February 26, 2018, the Disciplinary Council dismissed the private complaint filed by Ms. Szabo against the psychiatrist, determining that it was “excessive, frivolous and clearly unfounded”. [ 4 ] Appellants then filed their lawsuit in September 2020. Appellants faulted the Syndic for his inquiry and decision of June 2016 and the Disciplinary Council for dismissing the private complaint. The respondent presented a motion to dismiss. [ 5 ] The judge granted the application.

He concluded that the lawsuit against the Syndic was prescribed and that neither the Syndic nor the Disciplinary Council may be sued by reason of acts undertaken in good faith in the performance of their duties, as per

section 193 of the Professional Code , which thus provide for immunity under these circumstances. [ 6 ] The Court agrees with the respondent. None of the appellants’ arguments articulated in the notice of appeal points to an error in the judge’s findings of fact or to an error of law. The appeal is unfounded in fact and in law, and has therefore no reasonable chance of success. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 7 ] GRANTS the application to dismiss the appeal, with legal costs; [ 8 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.A.

Peter George Sandor Margit Szabo Unrepresented Mtre Geneviève Boisvert CLYDE & CIE CANADA For the Respondent Date of hearing: September 13, 2021