The Applicant Donald Chong unsuccessfully sought judicial review of the Respondent College’s decision to impose restrictions on his practice

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Physicians and Surgeons – Physicians and Surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness

Chong v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, [2015] O.J. No. 1200, 2015 ONSC 922, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 12, 2015, G.B. Morawetz R.S.J., S.N. Lederman and T.R. Lederer JJ.

The Applicant Donald Chong is a 76-year-old family physician practising in Toronto. His practice was reviewed by the Respondent the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the “College”) in January 2013. The initial review raised concerns about his competence and Dr. Chong responded to those concerns.

After the initial review, the Quality Assurance Committee of the College asked Dr. Chong to participate in a further review. The second review took place in February 2014 by Dr. Tommy Hong. The second review raised concerns and Dr. Chong responded to those concerns. The reviewer prepared a supplemental report indicating that he found Dr. Chong’s responses to confirm a lack of insight.

The Committee decided to consider imposing conditions or restrictions on Dr. Chong’s practice pursuant to section 80.2(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code. Dr. Chong was provided with disclosure of the material relied upon by the Committee and he (through counsel) provided submissions. The Committee made an order imposing several conditions were on Dr. Chong’s practice. Dr. Chong sought judicial review of that order seeking to quash the order.

Dr. Chong alleged that he was denied procedural fairness because Dr. Hong’s supplemental report (regarding Dr. Chong’s responses) was not disclosed until the Committee was considering the imposition of conditions. The Court held that there was no denial of procedural fairness.

Dr. Chong argued that the Committee’s decision did not address some of the submissions made on behalf of Dr. Chong. The Court held that the reasons of the Committee were sufficient.

The Court dismissed Dr. Chong’s application for judicial review. Costs were agreed upon by the parties.

This case was digested by Scott J. Marcinkow of Harper Grey LLP. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at or review his biography at

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.