Dr. Tan, a veterinarian, was disciplined for a sixth time. He sought a stay of the sanction, which included a 60-day suspension, pending an internal appeal: Tan v Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2024 ABKB 494 (CanLII).
The stay of the suspension was granted. The Court found that the lost business profits and general business disruption constituted irreparable harm. Since it had not imposed any interim orders and had not otherwise indicated that Dr. Tan posed an immediate risk of harm, the regulator was deemed to be content that the veterinarian “can offer a satisfactory level of care to his clients until (at minimum) his internal appeal is heard.”
However, the Court did not stay the regulator’s intent to publish the outcome of the first-level hearing in advance of the internal appeal on its website and in its magazine. The Court found that there was no irreparable harm in this respect, in part because of the previous five findings that had already been published. However, the Court was also influenced by the public’s right to make informed choices:
In any case, factoring in the balance of convenience on this aspect, the public interest requires non-stayed publication on a “with names” basis. While (as found earlier) I do not see material adequacy-of-care concerns (i.e. requiring immediate service of the suspension), in the circumstances here clients and potential clients should be able to see that Dr. Tan has been sanctioned for the current-proceeding practice shortfalls (even with the merits and sanctions under dispute, which will be noted) i.e. they should be able to factor that into their veterinary-services decision-making.
The Court directed that the regulator state in its publication that the veterinarian was disputing both the findings and the sanction through the internal appeal process.
The Court did not discuss the additional possible rationale for publication related to open hearings.
This decision again reinforces that publication of concerns by regulators should not await final findings.