Misunderstood Values

As a foreign student completing his surgical degree in Canada, the Saudi doctor proved to be skilled and knowledgeable, with all the makings of a successful surgeon.  Yet he was dismissed from the Faculty of Medicine's neurosurgery residency program at the University of Ottawa.  Dr. Waleed AlGaithy then decided that he would seek to sue the university in a bid to overturn his dismissal, and at the same time enrich himself to the tune of $55-million.

His suit held that the university's Senate appeals committee had violated procedural fairness in an obvious instance of bias, of racial and ethnic discrimination.  It was unreasonable of the appeals committee to uphold his dismissal from the residency program in January, 2011.  Dr. AlGaithy and two other Saudi doctors - Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail and Dr. Manal Alsaigh, both of whom were residents in the cardiac surgery program, filed complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

They all alleged discrimination, reprisal and intimidation on the part of the university and its medical faculty.  In November of 2011 all three chose to jointly file a civil lawsuit against the university.  Collectively they sought over $150-million in damages.  The damages to compensate for discrimination, defamation and "malfeasance in public office".  The university, for its part, denied any wrongdoing on their end, and planned to defend itself against the lawsuit.

The Human Rights Tribunal issued three decisions which dismissed the complaints brought by Drs. AlGaithy, AbaAlkhail and Alsaigh on the grounds that it was effectively barred from proceeding as a result of the three having chosen to embark on civil suits.  The very same facts and allegations were used in the civil suits as those they had filed as complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal.  And the compensation they sought from one reflected the other; in a word, redundant.

Since to launch matching suits violates provisions of Ontario's Human Rights Code the tribunal was prohibited from hearing the complaints that represent the very same subject of civil proceedings.  All the doctors had completed the major bulk of their six-year residency program; in Dr. AlGaithy's case he was dismissed by the faculty's post-graduate evaluation subcommittee.

He was expelled as a result of having "engaged in disruptive behaviour that demonstrated a lack of professionalism, unbecoming of a physician".  That judgement was upheld by the faculty council of the Faculty of Medicine and the Senate appeals committee.  Throughout his residency, Dr. AlGaithy filed a number of complaints, inclusive of charges of racial and ethnic discrimination - against a female professor, and another of unprofessionalism against the chairman of the division of neurosurgery.

Certainly not actions geared in their results to endear the Saudi doctor to those on whom he would later rely to support him in his academic completion of his surgical residency.  He continued to send a number of "inflammatory" emails all of which the Senate appeals committee characterized as "frequently unprofessional in their tone and content.  Virtually all were confrontational, unco-operative or disrespectful of their addressees or others."

Dr. AlGaithy's prersistent rate of absenteeism from academic events were cited as unprofessional and disruptive; his "seemingly willful defiance of program protocols, procedures and policies" represented additional evidence of unprofessional conduct.  All of these were deemed by Dr. AlGaithy to represent the unfairness of the procedures, representing an egregious decision to dismiss him.  In the process denying his Charter right to freedom of expression.

A panel of Ontario Division Court judges has rejected Dr. AlGaithy's arguments.    The finding was that the Appeal committee's decision to dismiss the Saudi surgeon for unprofessional conduct was reasonable and justified.  "On the record before it, the appeals committee reasonably concluded that the applicant's conduct should no longer be tolerated. That decision is deserving of deference."

Now, can the offended individuals be persuaded to return home to Saudi Arabia?  And there they can argue with complete confidence in the righteousness of their injured sensibilities, as they have done in Canada, that their constitutional rights to free speech was violated, that right enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.