Healthcare workers say doctor asked for sexual services in exchange for money
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench has dismissed a psychiatrist’s judicial review application upon determining that the complaints process under Alberta’s Health Professions Act, 2000 (HPA) permitted him to raise his concerns about an investigation and pursue an effective remedy.
In Akinnawonu v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, 2025 ABKB 644, the applicant was a psychiatrist and a regulated member of the respondent, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA).
On Aug. 10, 2020, and Feb. 12, 2021, the complainants commenced two complaints with the CPSA to allege sexual misconduct against the psychiatrist under part four of the HPA. They brought the same complaints with Alberta Health Services.
The complainants, healthcare workers who worked with the psychiatrist at the Red Deer Regional Hospital, claimed that he propositioned them to accept money in exchange for sexual services.
In July 2022, the CPSA’s complaints director decided to issue a notice of hearing relating to the complaints.
The psychiatrist applied for judicial review of this decision. He asked the court to quash the notice of hearing and order the CPSA to appoint a new investigator. He argued that the investigations were biased and incomplete.
The psychiatrist sought to stay the disciplinary proceedings against him, pending the determination of his judicial review application. He appealed the decision refusing the requested stay. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal upon seeing no reviewable error.
Application found premature
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta dismissed the application as premature, meritless, abusive of process, and likely to delay or interfere with the HPA’s investigation and hearing process.
The court ruled that the psychiatrist failed to meet the high threshold for rare and exceptional circumstances justifying judicial intervention at this stage of the HPA’s complaints process.
According to the court, at the hearing, the psychiatrist could:
- raise issues of bias and completeness
- explore what additional evidence might support his position
- call the investigator and others as witnesses
- ask them questions about bias to address whether racism tainted their perceptions of events
- challenge their credibility
- argue that people have unfairly targeted him
- assert that the hearing tribunal should dismiss the complaints based on the record’s totality
- appeal to the CPSA Council and the Alberta Court of Appeal if the tribunal declined to dismiss the complaints
However, the court held that the psychiatrist could not delay the hearing by repeatedly asking the investigator to take additional steps or perceive the evidence differently.
The court stated that the tribunal would resolve the matter based on the evidence provided, the arguments made, and its own opinion. The court added that the tribunal, which would not be subject to the investigator’s improper influence, would dismiss the complaints if the psychiatrist succeeded in defending his position.
Based on the record, the court held that the complaints director did not breach her statutory mandate by issuing the notice of hearing.
The court noted that the record contained multiple letters from the psychiatrist’s counsel to the CPSA, which asserted that the investigation was biased and incomplete because the CPSA disagreed with the psychiatrist’s claim that the evidence favoured him.
However, the court noted that the letters admitted that the evidence was disputed, raised credibility issues, and included arguments about who said what to whom and why. The court found that these matters deserved a viva voce hearing.
Regarding the investigator’s HPA obligations to ensure a complete investigation, the court concluded that he reasonably attempted to interview or request documents from the complainant or others involved, performed a thorough and proper job, and maintained an open mind.
