In the case of Randhawa v. Minerva Pain Management Group Inc., dated September 6, 2023, Navraj Randhawa, the plaintiff, an internationally trained physician, lacked the qualifications to practice as a physician in Canada.
The plaintiff had been employed by Minerva Pain Management Group Inc., the defendant, a pain management clinic known as the "Clinic."
Subsequently, the Clinic terminated the plaintiff's employment after learning of a complaint that had been made against the plaintiff to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).
Following this, the plaintiff had filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit against the defendant (Clinic).
The Clinic had defended itself by asserting that the plaintiff's termination had been justified due to evidence provided by the CPSO regarding the plaintiff's alleged misconduct, which had violated workplace policies and the CPSO's Rules of Professional Conduct.
In response, the plaintiff had sought to strike out specific paragraphs (11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) of the defendant's statement of defence, citing violations of certain Rules of Civil Procedure and the Regulated Health Professions Act.
The plaintiff had argued that these paragraphs had contravened legal standards.
The court had considered the arguments, with a focus on the admissibility of evidence related to the CPSO complaint.
It had determined that some portions of the defendant's statement of defence should be struck, including references to the evidence provided by the CPSO.
However, other portions had been allowed to stand.
