Case Details
DATE:
October 24, 2025
PARTIES:
N.N. ("the Student"). v. the Faculty of Medicine
HEARING DATES:
January 20, February 3, February 4, April 17 and April 29, 2025, via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Hamish Stewart, Chair
Professor Douglas E. McDougall, Teaching Staff Governor
Maya Povhe, Student Governor
HEARING SECRETARIES:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
Lisa Constantine, Constantine Legal
Vladimira Ivanov, Ivanov Katz LLP
FOR THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE
Sari L. Springer, PembertonLane PC
IN ATTENDANCE:
N.N. (the “Student”)
The Student appealed their dismissal from the Anesthesia Residency Program (the Program) in Post Graduate Medical Education (PGME) at the Faculty of Medicine (the Faculty) on the basis of unprofessionalism.
The decision to dismiss the Student was initially made by the PGME’s Board of Examiners (the BoE). The Student appealed that decision to the Faculty’s Academic Appeals Committee (FMAAC). Due to the circumstances of the appeal, the Senior Chair decided to adjust the Committee’s normal practices and allowed oral evidence to be adduced at the hearing. The Committee heard from three witnesses: the Student, the Program Director, and the Director of Policy, Analysis, and Systems at PGME.
As a result of the change in procedures, the Committee stated it owed no deference to the findings of fact of the previous decision makers. The Committee made its own factual determinations based on the evidence before it. However, the Committee affirmed that it would accord its usual deference to the previous decision-makers’ application of the Faculty’s academic standards to the Student.
The Student faced several allegations of unprofessional behaviour during their rotations between July 1 and November 1, 2021. The main allegation of unprofessional behaviour related to the submission of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) that were not approved by clinical fellows. The Student did not deny that they had submitted the EPAs without approval but stated that they had made an honest mistake in doing so.
Based on the evidence of the witnesses and the materials before it, the Committee did not find the Student’s explanation to be credible. They found that, in order for their conduct to be accidental, the Student would have had to make two errors and failed to notice the features of the submission system that would have alerted them to these errors. The Committee found that the Student submitted the impugned EPAs knowing that they had not been approved. Having made that finding, the Committee deferred to the BoE and the FMAAC’s judgment that this behaviour was an egregious instance of unprofessionalism justifying the Student’s dismissal from the Program.
There were six further incidents of alleged unprofessional behaviour by the Student that the Program relied on in its recommendation for dismissal. The Committee noted that the facts surrounding these allegations were largely undisputed and that the Student’s submissions essentially amounted to a request that the Committee make its own judgment concerning the professionalism of the Student’s behaviour rather than deferring to the Faculty’s assessment. The Committee did not do so. The Committee reviewed each instance of alleged unprofessional behaviour to ensure that there was a factual basis for the allegation. With respect to third allegation, the Committee was not satisfied that the factual basis had been made out. With respect to the other five incidents, the Committee, on finding the factual basis to be established, deferred to the Faculty’s conclusion that the incident was an instance of unprofessionalism.
The Student further alleged that the process followed by the Faculty was procedurally unfair. The Committee noted that, given their conclusion on the substantive issue, it was not strictly necessary to determine whether the proceedings in the Faculty were fair. However, the Committee did review the process followed by the Faculty. The Committee rejected the allegations of procedural unfairness in drafting the report and the Residency Program Committee’s decision. The Committee had some concerns about the fairness of the procedure followed by the BoE, but noted that, if the appeal had been granted on that basis, the remedy would have been to remit the matter to the BoE for redetermination. The Student did not seek that remedy. Finally, the Committee found that the procedure followed by the FMAAC was fair and reasonable in light of its own rules and practices.
The Student alleged that the proceedings in the Faculty were tainted by unconscious bias against Black persons and immigrants from Africa. The Committee found that a remark that the Student “was up to [their] old tricks” made by a member of the first committee that considered the dismissal fell very short of establishing that all proceedings in the Faculty were tainted by unconscious bias. The Committee also agreed that the reference to the Student as an international medical graduate in the dismissal report was a reference to the location of a student’s training, not to their nationality race or ethnicity. The Committee rejected the suggestion that this statement would evoke any form of bias.
The Committee concluded that the factual basis for the Program’s conclusion of unprofessionalism was, for the most part, clearly established. The Committee declined to second-guess the Faculty’s conclusion that these incidents constituted unprofessional behaviour and considered cumulatively, justified the Student’s dismissal from the program.
The Committee dismissed the appeal.