DATE:
June 23, 2022
PARTIES:
O.R. ("the Student"). v. the Faculty of Medicine
HEARING DATE(S):
March 17, 2022 via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Professor Hamish Stewart, Senior Chair
Professor Mark Lautens, Faculty Governor
Amin Kamaleddin, Student Governor
SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE FACULTY of Medicine
Robert Centa, Paliare Roland Rothstein Rosenberg LLP
Glynnis Hawe, Paliare Roland Rothstein Rosenberg LLP
The Student appeals the decision of the Faculty of Medicine’s Board of Examiners’ – Postgraduate (BOE-PG) decision to affirm its earlier decision of requiring the Student to engage in formal remediation.
In the fall of 2016, the Student entered the Pediactric Neurology Residency and Fellowship Program at SickKids. The program director was Dr. Cecil Hahn of SickKids. Each of the five years of the program consisted of several training blocks. A student’s performance in each block was evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 3 (“meeting the expectations”) being the passing grade. Up until the tenth block of the Student’s third year, the Student received an evaluation of 3 or higher, though there were concerns expressed about the Student’s performance, including with respect to his professionalism.
In March 2019, Dr. Hahn had discussions with faculty members who had supervised the Student about the Student’s performance. Dr. Hahn concluded that the Student was in academic distress, and, in accordance with the relevant policy, presented the Promotions and Competence Committee (“PCC”) with options for remediation. In April 2019, the PCC recommended six months of formal remediation, which the Student objected to on various grounds. The PCC responded to the objections by recommending three months of informal remediation instead. The remediation was conducted in accordance with an academic support plan with certain criteria for success. The Student agreed to the support plan. From May to July 2019, the Student engaged in three blocks of informal remediation and failed to meet the criteria of the academic support plan. Because the informal remediation was not successful, the PCC recommended the Student be presented to the BOE-PG again for formal remediation. The Student appealed this recommendation, but the appeal was dismissed. The BOE-PG accepted the PCC’s recommendation and directed the Student to enter into a six-block period of formal remediation, lasting roughly six months. In January 2020 the Student appealed the BOE-PG’s decision to the Faculty of Medicine’s appeal Committee (FMAC), which directed the BOE-PG to reconsider its decision. The FMAC was concerned the Student had not received the feedback used internally to justify the remediation. In March 2020, the BOE-PG affirmed its earlier decision. The Student successfully completed formal remediation in May 2020 and effective from June 2020, resigned from the residency program. The Student appealed the BOE-PG’s March 2020 decision to the FMAC and the FMAC dismissed the Student’s appeal in July 2020.
In November 2019, the Student filed two complaints with the Faculty’s Department of Pediatrics. The first complaint alleged that Dr. Hahn had harassed the Student at a meeting in March 2019 and that the decision to refer the Student to the PCC was retaliation or reprisal for a negative performance review the Student made of Dr. Hahn in March 2019. The second complaint alleged that the late filing of Dr. Dlamini’s evaluation of the Student was a form of intimidation and harassment.
The Committee found that with respect to the Dr. Hahn allegation, Dr. Hahn was not aware of the evaluation until December 2019, and it thus could not have affected his decision-making in March 2019. The Committee also found that the removing the late evaluation from the Student’s file at an earlier point would have made no difference to the BOE-PG’s decision given that the evaluation was only one of many pieces of information assessed.
The Student raised the following grounds of appeal: A. Lack of transparency (that concerns about the Student’s performance were not brought to his attention); B. Lack of consistency; C. Lack of confidentiality; D. Lack of fairness and equity; E. Lack of credibility in evaluations; F. Lack of adhering to official University policy and procedure.
The Committee found as follows: A. While the Student alleged that concerns about his performance were not brought to his attention, the Committee found that this complaint was contradicted by material filed by both parties with the Committee. B. The Student complained about inconsistent responses to his requests to do outside rotations, but the Committee found no inconsistency in the Faculty’s dealing with the Student’s requests. C. The Committee found that the Student never provided evidence as to which three people Dr. Hahn and Dr. Yeh disclosed their concerns to nor made any submissions explaining how this incident might have affected the reasonableness of the BOE-PG’s decision. D. The Student alleged that he passed the first block of his informal remediation but that the rotation was not accounted for. The Committee found no basis for this submission as the materials filed indicated that the Student successfully completed his rotation. E. The Student challenged some of the evaluations received during his third program year and during the informal remediation but there was no indication in the materials that the Student appealed any of the grades, which would have been the proper venue for the allegation. The Student also alleged that given his previous academic success, he should have continued to succeed, suggesting that he was not fairly assessed during the third year of his program. The Committee declined to infer that the Student’s previous academic success meant his performance during the third year and informal remediation was not properly assessed. F. The Student raised objections to the supervisors who were assigned to his formal remediation, but the Committee found that the objections were irrelevant as the Student successfully completed the formal remediation. The Student also argued that the three months he spent at McGill University should have counted toward his formal remediation but the BOE-PG accepted the Student’s proposed remediation program which did not suggest that the McGill period would count towards his formal remediation. The Student also submitted that when reconsidering his case the BOE-PG did not comply with the FMAC’s direction but there was nothing before the Committee to cast doubt on this statement.
The Committee found that none of the grounds of appeal the Student raised cast any doubt on the reasonableness of the BOE-PG’s decision to affirm requiring the Student to engage in formal remediation or on the reasonableness of the FMAC’s dismissal of the Student’s appeal of that decision.
The appeal was dismissed.