There is no doubt that regulatory decision makers should consider whether public confidence will be advanced by what they do. However, two recent Canadian appeal court decisions differ on whether public confidence is simply a general background consideration or whether it can affect the very substance the decision.
In Dr Ignacio Tan III v Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2026 ABCA 32 (CanLII), a veterinarian was disciplined for employing an unlicensed veterinarian who then practised the profession, supervising a licensed veterinarian when restricted from doing so, and communication and record keeping issues. A significant sanction including a six-month suspension and fines totalling $20,000 were imposed.
In reviewing the sanction, the Court took a purpose-driven approach:
Sanctions may serve multiple and overlapping purposes, including protection of the public, maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the profession, deterrence both of the sanctioned individual and of other members of the profession, and rehabilitation. Some sanctions, such as fines, are almost entirely punitive.
However, the Court suggested the public confidence consideration should not override the usual sanctioning considerations.
Proportionality is fundamental: “Maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the profession does not require overly punitive sanctions, nor, as a sentencing objective, should it override the other factors that must be considered and balanced.” Overall, “the selection of a fit sentence is within the mandate of the Hearing Tribunal, which must consider and weigh all the competing objectives of the sentencing process. [citation omitted]
In contrast, Ontario’s Court of Appeal recently treated the public confidence consideration as potentially affecting the outcome. In Law Society of Ontario v. AA, 2026 ONCA 47 (CanLII), an applicant for a licence sought to establish that they were currently of good character despite having sexually abused children in years past. The Court found that the adjudicative panels focussed too much on whether the applicant’s subsequent steps suggested that he had reformed and did not independently consider whether the public confidence and trust in the profession could be satisfied by licensing someone in his circumstances. The Court returned the matter for a new decision that would expressly address the public confidence consideration.
While the two decisions are from different contexts, and while the language used in them to describe the role of public confidence is nuanced, there does seem to be a difference in how the two Courts view the significance of the public confidence consideration.
