Ruling finds no reviewable errors in regulatory investigation or dismissal of allegations
The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court has affirmed a decision of a committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissing a complaint alleging that a doctor had condemned a patient to “a life of never-ending pain.”
In Hart v. Boodhun, 2026 NLSC 83, the appellant patient fell from his roof in November 2013. In relation to this incident, he saw the respondent doctor once in March 2014 and again in April 2014.
In July 2014, the patient fell at work due to a tripping incident. Later that month, he visited the doctor for the third and last time.
In September 2014, magnetic resonance imaging revealed that the patient had sustained spinal cord injury. In October 2014, he underwent procedures for decompression surgery and spinal fusion with discectomy.
In January 2015, the surgeon reported that the patient showed residual symptoms involving his gait, spasms, tightness, cramping, and foot drop.
The patient filed a complaint against the doctor. The patient blamed the doctor for his chronic pain and other symptoms. The patient alleged that the doctor failed to perform an appropriate investigation and follow-up and covered up his mistakes.
Separately, in February 2016, the patient brought a civil claim against the doctor.
In June 2024, the Complaints Authorization Committee (CAC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador screened out and dismissed the patient’s complaint without costs.
In July 2024, the patient appealed under s. 44(10) of NL’s Medical Act, 2011. In his appeal grounds, he alleged:
- a substandard investigation of the complaint, given that the CAC never contacted or questioned him
- problems with the gathering of evidence and the doctor’s response to the allegations
- issues with the CAC-commissioned consultant report, the consultant’s conclusions, and the doctor’s response
- a general disagreement with the CAC’s dismissal of his complaint
Regulatory decision upheld
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed the appeal and declined to remit the matter to the CAC for reconsideration.
First, the court found no reviewable error in the CAC’s investigation of the complaint. The court ruled that the CAC observed procedural fairness and allowed the patient to participate during its investigation.
Even without the high level of deference afforded to the CAC, the court saw no deficiencies in the CAC’s thorough investigation of the patient’s complaint. The court pointed out that the CAC had worked to:
- Define the complaint’s parameters
- Ask the patient to confirm such parameters in writing
- Let the patient reply to submissions and offer outside information, which he did by providing a medical report produced for his civil matter
- Allow the doctor to respond
- Retain an investigator to review the complete medical file
- Engage an external specialist for further review
Second, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the CAC’s dismissal of the complaint against the doctor.
The court noted that the CAC considered all the issues, pursuant to the parameters confirmed by the patient, and explained sufficiently why it saw no reasonable grounds to believe that the doctor’s conduct constituted gross negligence or reckless disregard for the patient’s health and well-being.
Lastly, the court did not award costs.
“I must consider the potential chilling effect of awarding costs to professionals against complainants (especially those who are self-represented) who wish to engage the College’s discipline process,” wrote Justice Melanie Del Rizzo.
The court acknowledged that cost awards were appropriate in some cases involving appeals from the regulator’s decisions. However, the court did not consider this such a case.
