To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Dr Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: October 2, 2002
Judgment: April 3, 2003
Citations[2003] 1 S.C.R. 226, 2003 SCC 19
Docket No.28553 [1]
RulingAppeal allowed
Court membership
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byMcLachlin C.J.

Dr Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 19, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian administrative law.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    Views:
    605
    556
  • President's Lecture Series: Wanda Morris
  • The Inside Story: The Big Picture: Weill Cornell's Research Power

Transcription

Background

Dr. Q was brought before the Discipline Committee of the British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons for having sexual relations with a patient. The patient had originally sought help in 1994 for depression. By 1995 the two began sexual relations. Dr. Q denied any misconduct. The Committee found that Dr. Q was guilty of infamous misconduct. The Committee based its decision on the weight of the patient's testimony, ignoring Dr. Q's testimony.

The Committee applied a standard of "clear and cogent evidence". Dr. Q applied for judicial review of the decision arguing that the wrong standard was applied.

Decision

Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for the Court, allowed the appeal and reinstated the order. She found that the standard of "clear and cogent evidence" was the appropriate standard.

On the issue of standard of review, McLachlin reiterated the three degrees of deference available, correctness, reasonableness simpliciter, and patent unreasonableness. She considered what degree of deference was required in these circumstances based on the four factors of the "pragmatic and functional approach".[2] On the whole, the Committee decisions were to be reviewed on a standard of "reasonableness". Under the reasonableness standard, the reviewing judge's view of the evidence is beside the point.[3] Instead, the court should only ask whether there is some basis in evidence to support the conclusion.

See also

References

  1. ^ SCC Case Information - Docket 28553 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ^ para. 26
  3. ^ 41

External links

This page was last edited on 25 September 2023, at 02:15
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.