2000, McGill College Avenue, Suite 600, Montreal, QC, H3A 3H3
Tél:514 286-9800
Fax:514 286-7827
Contact form submitted!
We will be in touch soon.
Clear Submit

Our team is waiting for your call.
Contact us immediatly at
514 286-9800
  • Litige commercial, responsabilité civile et assurances
  • Inspection professionnelle et droit professionnel
  • Pratique illégale d'une profession
  • Droit administratif et droit règlementaire
  • Droit disciplinaire, déontologie et responsabilité professionnelle
Français

Disciplinary law: the peremptory delay to present a motion for revision

 As was decided by the Professions Tribunal in January 2013, a party may ask that a final decision be revised, if he discovers a new fact which, if it had been known in due time, might have justified a different decision. The motion for revision must be filed within fifteen (15) days following the day on which the party become aware of the new fact likely to invalidate the decision. (Fanous v. Médecins (Ordre professionnel des), 2013 QCTP 7).

THE FACTS           

Following his conviction, in 2009, for having prescribed the medication, Accutane, in violation of the standards of practice applicable in similar circumstances, Nabil Edward Fanous discovers, in November 2012, that Dr. David Gratton, who testified for the complainant in 2009 as to what constitutes a standard of practice, often failed to respect these same standards.  

The physician argues that this new fact negatively affects the credibility of Dr Gratton’s witness testimony and seeing as this testimony was at the very heart of his conviction, he should be allowed to cross-examine Dr. Gratton and have the 2009 decision revised by the Professions Tribunal. 

THE PROFESSIONS TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

After having considered the arguments invoked by both parties, the Professions Tribunal draws the following conclusions :

1.    According to section 177.1 of the Professional Code, the tribunal may revise any decision it has rendered where a new fact is discovered which, if it had been known in due time, might have justified a different decision.

2.    The motion for revision must be filed within 15 days from the day on which the party became aware of the new fact.  

3.    The time limit of fifteen (15) days is peremptory.

4.    The tribunal may, if asked by the party who shows its impossibility to act sooner, relieve said party of the consequences of his failure to comply with the time limit of fifteen (15) days.

5.    If the motion for revision is denied, the tribunal cannot permit the counter-examination of a witness, as the judgement already rendered remains a final judgement.    

THE LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

1.    A party, within a time limit of fifteen (15) days following the discovery of a new fact that may have had an influence on the decision rendered, had it been known to the parties, ask the tribunal to revise its decision. Dubé Légal inc., Montréal disciplinary law lawyers.