Publications
2008-05-30
Legal Obligations of School Psychology Practitioners
Lisa Fong presented a workshop and her paper, Legal and
Professional Obligations of School Psychology Practitioners - A
Checklist, during a workshop jointly sponsored by the British
Columbia Association of School Psychologists and the College of
Psychologists of British Columbia.
2008-05-22
Release of Records by Psychologists
Lisa Fong presented her paper, Release of Records: Legal Issues
for Psychologists, at the 2008 Annual General Meeting of the
College of Psychologists of British Columbia.
2008-04-13
Recent Developments in Professional Regulatory Law
Lisa Fong provided a paper on recent cases for regulatory bodies
at the 23rd midyear meeting (2008) of the Association of State
and Provincial Psychology Board (the ASPPB).
2007-11-20
On November 20, 2007, Lisa Fong, together with Jeffrey Hayes of Campbell
Froh May and Rice, will be speaking to the Executive Directors and
Registrars of Professional Organizations of British Columbia on the issue
of "Balancing Public Interests: Publication under the Health
Professions Act".
Here are links to the paper presented, and to various cases:
The
Publication Paper (2007-07-20)
A
Chart of Publication by HPA Colleges (2007-07-20)
Newman v. Halstead, 2006 BCSC 65
Treleaven v BC College of Teachers, 2000 BCSC 1160
G v BC College of Teachers, 2004 BCSC 626
Dr. Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC
Mitchell v BC College of Teachers, 2005 BCCA 76
APEG Registration Bylaw struck by court
A registration bylaw of the Association of Professional
Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (APEG) which required
"experience in engineering or geosciences satisfactory to the
Council" was struck out by the BC Supreme Court for failing to
specify an experience requirement. The court found that the bylaw could
not leave the matter of requisite experience wholly to the discretion of
the APEG council. See Tchou-San-Da v. Association of Professional
Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1403.
This case has potential implications for all professional regulatory
bodies who have bylaws which do not substantially codify the requirements
which they impose on registrants. This case brings into question the
extent to which such practices may be open to challenge. On the facts, the
court was dealing with a body imposing shifting and unwritten requirements
on an applicant. Therefore, the situation dealt with by the court may be
distinguishable from the situation of other regulatory bodies which
supplement bylaws by publishing policies and practices of general
application.
College of Teachers errs in finding teacher guilty of professional misconduct where acts caused by bi-polar disorder
Legal Counsel: Lisa C. Fong, with Murray Smith of Arvay Findlay.
Mr. Justice Powers of the Supreme Court has found that the College of Teachers erred in finding a teacher guilty of professional misconduct when his actions, which in other circumstances would have been misconduct, were caused by his bi-polar disorder and a change in his medication.
The College asserted that the member's mental state was irrelevant, and that he could be disciplined on the basis of his actions alone. The court found, however, that treating professional misconduct as an 'absolute liability' offence did nothing to promote the objects of the Teaching Profession Act, and that non-culpable acts or events occurring without fault of the teacher should not attract punishment. Accordingly, it was open to a member to avoid a finding of misconduct by proving that he took all reasonable care (e.g., in cases of accident or in cases involving involuntary conduct).
Court affirms decision overturning penalty and name publication by the College
Legal Counsel: Lisa C. Fong, with Charles Anderson of Granville Law Offices.
On February 16, 2005, the Court of Appeal affirmed a decision of Madam Justice Humphries that the College of Teachers had erred in cancelling a member's certificate for events occurring more than twenty years previous. The court affirmed the B.C. Supreme Court's decision, in the circumstances of the case, to substitute a two-year suspension and to reverse the College's decision to publish the member's name with a summary of the facts.
On the issue of penalty, the panel had failed to consider a number of mitigating factors, and both levels of court found the panel's reasoning justifying cancellation to be "basically inadequate". The panel had also made findings which contradicted previous findings of two juries and a Supreme Court Judge, without its addressing or explaining the resulting inconsistency.
On the issue of name publication, the Court clarified that the need for public confidence, and the requirements of educating and deterring other members, would be served by publication of the facts with or without the member being identified. Name publication specifically served the public interest in transparent proceedings, but the considerations applying to the College's discipline proceedings differed from those applying to the court process.
2004.05.07
Court rejects College's assertion that members must disclose their names on appeal in order to argue a right to remain anonymous
Legal Counsel: Lisa C. Fong, with Howard Mickelson of Gudmundseth Mickelson
The B.C. Supreme Court has decided that although litigants are generally required to identify themselves, the principal of an open court process has a number of exceptions, including where the very subject matter of the proceeding is the litigant's right to anonymity. The court reasoned that, "If the full name of Mr. G. is set out in the style of cause, it would effectively destroy the right of confidentiality which he seeks to protect through the intended appeal from the decision of the College. In those circumstances, it should inevitably be the case that an appellant's right to confidentiality should be maintained until the appeal can be heard so that, if the appeal is allowed, anonymity can be honoured."
2003.06.27
Two women say stud is expression of Indian identity
Doug Ward Vancouver Sun
Friday, June 27, 2003
Starbucks could be facing a double shot of human rights complaints from two Indo-Canadian employees fired for refusing to remove a nose stud.
Aisha Syed, who was fired last November after working at Starbucks for three years, has filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal.
"I'm very upset and I see my firing as racism," said Syed, 25, a graduate of the University of B.C.
"The nose stud is an expression of my Indian identity."
In her complaint filed last month, Syed alleges her dismissal amounts to discrimination on the grounds of race, ancestry and sex.
A second employee of South Asian descent, Benita Singh, was fired last week for refusing to remove a stud. She is considering filing a complaint with the tribunal.
The two firings clash with Starbucks' claim that it practises diversity in its human resources policy, said Syed's lawyer, Lisa Fong.
The lawyer said Starbucks has a "Diversity Statement" that says, "At Starbucks, diversity is a way of life." The coffee company also has a mission statement that declares more than 60 per cent of its total work force should be people from minorities and/or women and that Starbucks actively recruits from job fairs focused on minorities, women and people with disabilities.
"These statements clearly indicate that Starbucks values diversity as a corporate goal and in its staffing," Fong said.
"Yet, their dismissing South Asian women for wearing nose rings or nose studs which are symbolic of their culture, is contradictory to this goal and detrimental to these women. Starbucks appears to be implementing a sanitized version of diversity."
Fong said nose studs are an important aspect of the cultural, racial and ethnic identity of the two women. She said Syed and Singh have "a right to express this aspect of their identity without reprisal in the workplace."
Starbucks has refused to comment on either of the firings, other than to release its dress code policy, which forbids its employees, referred to as "partners," to wear pierced jewelry or ornaments on their face. The stated goal of Starbucks' dress code is to provide the company with a consistent look.
Syed worked at the Starbucks outlet in the Chapters Bookstore at Richport Town Centre in Richmond between August 1999 and November 2002.
Syed said that, throughout her employment at Starbucks, she wore a stud in her nose as an expression of her identity as an Indian woman.
She said wearing a nose ring has been common practice for many generations of women in her family, both in Canada and India.
Syed alleged that a Starbucks manager advised her Nov. 19 to remove her stud. The next day the same manager advised Fong, Syed's lawyer, that the company was concerned that some customers might be offended by the stud and not purchase coffee.
The manager added, according to Syed's complaint form, that "we can't control the colour of skin we're born with but we can control what we put in our noses."
Syed was fired Dec. 2 after refusing to remove the stud.
Lawyer Fong said she will probably ask the tribunal to hear both complaints together because they deal with the same legal issue.
Copyright 2003 Vancouver Sun