Judge refuses to review firing of cardiac surgeon - Action News
Home WebMail Saturday, November 23, 2024, 12:19 AM | Calgary | -11.5°C | Regions Advertise Login | Our platform is in maintenance mode. Some URLs may not be available. |
Nova Scotia

Judge refuses to review firing of cardiac surgeon

In a decision released Tuesday, Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Josh Arnold ruled that Dr. Edgar Chedrawy's complaint against the health authority should be dealt with as a matter of contract law, and not subject to judicial review.

Dr. Edgar Chedrawy was head of cardiac surgery at health authority until last year

A man stands in front of a grey background. he wears a black jacket with a white shirt. He has grey salt and pepper hair and a moustache.
Dr. Edgar Chedrawy was fired from his position in February 2022. (Dalhousie University)

A Nova Scotia judge hasrefusedto intervene in the case of a surgeon who was dismissed from his position as head of cardiac surgery by the Nova Scotia Health Authority.

In a decision released Tuesday, Nova Scotia Supreme CourtJustice Josh Arnoldruled that Dr. Edgar Chedrawy's complaint against the health authority should be dealt with as a matter of contract law, and not subject to judicial review.

Chedrawy was fired from his position in February of last year and given $100,000 in lieu of notice. He remained a cardiac surgeon.

He protested the termination and argued it failed to meet the standards of procedural fairness he was entitled to.

In asking for a judicial review, Chedrawy said he was given no explanation for his dismissal and had been trying to deal with a toxic work environment.

In his decision, Justice Arnold ruled that the Nova Scotia Health Authority's decision to terminate Chedrawy was derived from a contractual arrangement and was a matter of internal management.

"Since this is a private contractual dispute, public law remedies are not suitable in the circumstances," Justice Arnold wrote.

"As has been noted earlier, there is no reinstatement remedy available through judicial review. I agree that this is in substance a contractual dispute."