The case stemmed from the death of a patient during a surgical procedure
The PEI Supreme Court has dismissed a motion for a stay of proceedings in a disciplinary process initiated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Prince Edward Island.
The dispute in Bengeri v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (PEI), 2024 PESC 3, stemmed from a complaint lodged with the College following the death of a patient during a surgical procedure where Dr. Bengeri served as an anesthetist. The College, the regulatory authority overseeing physicians in Prince Edward Island, initiated an Investigation Committee to consider the allegations.
Amidst the proceedings, Dr. Bengeri challenged the College's authority under the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA) and sought a judicial review. The central issue addressed by the court was whether Dr. Bengeri had satisfied the test for a stay of proceedings.
The NS Supreme Court noted that the test for granting a stay is the same for granting an injunction. The test requires consideration of a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.
Dr. Bengeri contended that the Investigation Committee exceeded its authority by attempting to impose an order on him. However, the court clarified that the decision to refer the complaint to a Hearing Committee was not a final determination on the merits.
Dr. Bengari argued that the College did not consult with him and negotiate a resolution. However, based on the records, the court found that Dr. Bengeri put forward a counter-proposal, although the negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful. Moreover, the court noted that the statute did not expressly or implicitly require negotiation or consultation.
The court underscored the need for exceptional circumstances to warrant judicial intervention at this stage of the administrative process and, in this case, found no such circumstances.
Dr. Bengeri argued that continuing with the proceedings would cause irreparable harm to his reputation, affecting his ability to work and causing stress. The court, guided by precedents, emphasized that irreparable harm must be proven with explicit and detailed evidence. In Dr. Bengeri's case, the court found insufficient evidence to support the claim of irreparable harm, highlighting that the statutory framework allows for a public hearing, and any concerns about reputation could be addressed during the process. The court found it difficult to see how a hearing on the merits to decide if the complaint is founded impacts the physician's reputation.
The court also noted that contrary to Dr. Bengeri's submissions, the College did not issue a "threat" of a public hearing. The court clarified that the matter was referred to a Hearing Committee, which will ultimately decide the complaint's merits. The court also pointed out that Dr. Bengeri may ask the Hearing Committee to hold the hearing out of the public domain so long as he meets the requirements as mandated by statute.
The court found that the balance of convenience favours denying Dr. Bengeri's motion for a stay. The court explained that Dr. Bengeri's interests must be balanced against the public interest in completing the disciplinary process. In completing the process as set out in the RPHA, Dr. Bengeri will have the opportunity to argue his case before the Hearing Committee fully. He and his counsel may raise the jurisdictional issue at the hearing. He may also seek judicial review on the merits after deciding the issue. Accordingly, the court dismissed Dr. Bengeri's motion for a stay of proceedings.
