TRAN v COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ALBERTA, 2017 ABQB 337
3.22: Evidence on judicial review
The Applicant, Tran, sought to introduce fresh Affidavit evidence in a Judicial Review of a Decision of the Respondent, the Complaint Review Committee of the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons. The Respondent had dismissed the Applicant’s complaints against two physicians regarding the care they had provided to the Applicant’s mother. In her Affidavit, the Applicant reiterated concerns which had been expressed before the Respondent; made arguments with respect to the sufficiency of the reasons contained in the Respondent’s Decision; and criticised the procedural fairness of the Respondent’s complaint process.
Ross J. noted that Rule 3.22 provides the Court with the discretion to allow relevant affidavit evidence on an Application for Judicial Review, but that it is exercised only in exceptional circumstances. In particular, where the Affidavit evidence is “intended to alter or supplement the factual record used by the tribunal to decide the issue” such evidence cannot be introduced. Justice Ross found that much of the Affidavit did intend to alter or supplement the record before the Respondent at first instance. Portions of the Affidavit were ruled inadmissible. However, the portion of the Affidavit concerning the complaint process itself, including the delayed provision of the Investigation Report were found to be admissible for the limited purpose of determining the fairness of the proceeding before the Committee.
In the result, however, the Application for Judicial Review was dismissed.View CanLII Details