Judge upholds decision to toss human rights complaint

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission’s decision to throw out a complaint filed against the University of Saskatchewan by a former medical resident, who was dismissed after racking up multiple complaints about his “unprofessional and inappropriate” behaviour, was the correct one, according to the Queen’s Bench judge who upheld the commission’s ruling last month.

Aaron Anderson made his complaint to the commission in June 2015, a month after his dismissal, alleging the university’s College of Medicine did not accommodate his claimed disability of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The Human Rights Commission’s chief commissioner in February dismissed the complaint because it had been dealt with by the university, which also had jurisdiction.

In a decision filed last month, Queen’s Bench Justice Richard Danyliuk threw out Anderson’s request for a judicial review of the chief commissioner’s ruling, arguing again that Anderson’s issues were appropriately dealt with by the university, and that he appeared to be “miffed that he didn’t get to choose the forum which would adjudicate this issue.”

“Had Anderson genuinely held concerns as to the sufficiency of the accommodation provided by the university he could have raised those with the University at the time and/or complained to the Human Rights Commission about the university’s failings. The fact that the university invoked its own procedure … cannot result in an ouster of jurisdiction in favour of a forum that Anderson simply likes better,” Danyliuk wrote.

Anderson began his residency in family medicine at the university in 2010, and eventually a “troublingly long” list of complaints about his behaviour accumulated, according to the decision. He was dismissed in May 2015 after being in the program for four years, “an unacceptable length of time to not have mastered basic communication and professional skills,” the decision states.

In one instance, according to the decision, a patient told Anderson she had never before taken oral contraception and he replied, “What? Are you a Catholic or something?”

In another instance, the decision states, an emergency room nurse overheard Anderson tell a woman he would “use a cold speculum” on her the next time he saw her.

A third case involved a 10-yearold boy whose parents complained that Anderson was “condescending and ‘mocking,’ ” failed to listen to their concerns, said his time was being wasted and that the boy should only be taken to a physician if his fever lasted more than 10 days, and told them playing soccer would help him recover, according to the decision.

Danyliuk’s ruling outlined the university’s efforts to accommodate Anderson’s claimed disability and said the former resident repeatedly expressed satisfaction with the plan, and in one case voiced “some specific and relatively minor complaints.”

“I have determined Anderson’s application for judicial review is not well-founded. I decline to grant any remedy to Anderson, and his application is dismissed in its totality.”

I have determined (Aaron) Anderson’s application for judicial review is not well-founded...