The requirement to give notice of meetings in which policy issues will be discussed is not as rigorous as the requirement to give notice of a hearing in which an individual is specifically at risk of legal repercussions, such as for a discipline hearing. In Haas v The Saskatchewan Veterinary Medical Association, 2024 SKCA 110 (CanLII), a veterinarian challenged the notice of a meeting, the purpose of which was to approve a by-law banning declawing of cats for non-therapeutic reasons. The relevant legislation stated that the regulator “shall” give notice of such meetings by traditional mail. The regulator sent out several electronic notices to the profession. Although the veterinarian received and opened at least some of them, the veterinarian did not read the details of the agenda until after the meeting.
The Court held that in the circumstances the use of the word “shall” did not mandate traditional mail where alternative notices were effectively given. No consequences were provided for in the legislation in the case of non-compliance with the statutory provision. The notice was about policy matters which had no targeted consequences for the veterinarian. The legislature could not have intended that all business conducted at such meetings was invalid simply because another, equally effective, method of notification was used. The purpose of the statutory provision was to ensure that effective notice of the meeting was given. There was no reason to assume that the veterinarian would read notices sent by traditional mail any more readily than notices sent electronically. The Court said:
To be clear, the entire package of material relating to the AGM was not emailed by the SVMA to its members. However, the members were advised of the existence of the package and how to readily access it. More specifically, the AGM materials were available to members through the simple act of following a link that formed part of the notice itself. The AGM package of material included an agenda that listed bylaw amendments and a complete copy of the then-proposed Bylaw Amendment. From a functional perspective, at least on the record before the Court in this case, I can conceive of no difference in the effectiveness of a delivery that is made by an email attachment, which must be saved or clicked on to open, or one that is accomplished by clicking on a link to a document. For completeness, I add that members were also told that they could request a paper copy of the package should they want one…. the facts are that the contents of the AGM package could be as easily read by every SVMA member who had the capacity to read the E-news and connect to the SVMA’s website as it could be through the delivery of the materials to a physical address. This constituency clearly included Dr. Haas.
The Court also found that the content of the notice was adequate even though the veterinarian had to click onto links to see the details of the proposed by-law changes.