The Ontario Superior Court confirmed the established legal principle that a court has no power to award the costs of a disciplinary hearing where the hearing panel’s decision is set aside on a judicial review. The court distinguished the situation of a judicial review from an appeal, where the statute granting a right of appeal [Read More]

Professional regulatory bodies protect the public interest by ensuring practising members are capable and qualified, but such a statutory mandate does not result in regulatory bodies owing a private law duty of care to individual members of the public. This principle was affirmed in the recent case of Nette v. Stiles, 2010 ABQB 14. In [Read More]

1. On deference to a professional regulatory body on findings of unprofessional conduct: Salway v. Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, 2010 BCCA 94, 3 B.C.L.R. (5th) 213 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal denied [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 122. Facts and history: On January 31, 2008, the Discipline Committee of APEGBC found unprofessional misconduct [Read More]

In December, we examined the protection from lawsuits that regulatory personnel receive under s.24 of the Health Professions Act, through a parallel provision (section 38 of Ontario’s Registered Health Professions Act) considered in Deep v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 5248 (September 23, 2010). A degree of additional protection flows from [Read More]

To insulate college personnel from personal law suits which allege misconduct while carrying out duties, section 24 of the BC Health Professions Act provides that “no action for damages lies or may be brought” against a board member or a person acting for a board or college “because of anything done or omitted in good [Read More]