When I complained to the College of Optometrists (COM) about an optometrist, the COM emailed me Optometrist's Defence, and gave me the opportunity to respond.
But when I complained to the College of Physicians & Surgeons (CPSO) about a physician, the CPSO refused to disclose the Physician's Defence to my complaint, or let me respond to Physician's Defence. Citing the COM, I requested disclosure and opportunity to respond, by reasons of procedural fairness and consistency. But CPSO still refused me.
Doubtless, this is inconsistent! Physicians include Ophthalmologists. It is illogical to process complaints against optometrists and ophthalmologists so contrastingly! Relevant case law is Kastner v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2023 ONSC 629 (CanLII), but it doesn't answer my questions.
 [. . .] HPARB rejected this submission, finding that the duty of procedural fairness owed to a complainant is more limited, as a complainant faces no professional consequences as a result of a complaint. The [Health Professions Procedural] Code [being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18, s. 26 (1)] does not require the College to provide a copy of the doctor’s response to the complainant
 With respect to the Applicant’s submission that the ICRC did not give him an opportunity to respond to the responses received from Dr. Duic, first there was no such obligation and second, if there was, that defect was cured before the HPARB. In the hearing before HPARB the Applicant had a full opportunity to set out what he would have said in front of the ICRC. As confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 541, 111 O.R. (3d) 561, the HPARB is capable of curing any procedural defects that may have occurred before a complaints and investigation committee.
didn't explain this inconsistency between COM and CPSO.
ought not hastily assume that any complainant can swimmingly appeal to HPARB. Unlike regulators or Colleges' confidential complaints processes — "all HPARB decisions, including complaint reviews, will be published with the full names of the parties unless otherwise ordered by HPARB." Undeniably, some complainants may prefer their privacy, rather than proceeding to appeal to the HPARB and risking publicization of their full name! Then these bashful complainants shall have lost the opportunity to respond to a Defence! Then the CPSO's failure to disclose a defence, and let complainants, respond, would discriminate against those who don't appeal to HPARB, on the basis of privacy.