Author: Bernie LeBlanc

One increasingly popular mechanism for regulators to allocate resources and avoid subjecting registrants to unnecessary stress is to decline to investigate complaints that are frivolous,

Regulators often negotiate, or even impose, restrictions on registrants in various contexts including registration with conditions, resolution of complaints and discipline orders. In Rak v.

Issuing an interim order during an investigation is an extraordinary power that can have significant consequences for the practitioner. Courts scrutinize them to ensure that

A core element of procedural fairness is permitting those affected by a decision to make submissions on the matter before the decision is made. However,

If a regulator makes a flawed order, can the practitioner simply ignore it? Alberta’s highest court says “no”. In Alberta Securities Commission v Felgate, 2022

Regulatory staff appear to be facing a pandemic of harassment by some of the practitioners that they regulate. Sometimes, but not always, this is accompanied

Regulators are being given increased authority to impose remediation to address concerns about a practitioner’s practice at the complaints screening stage. While there are concerns,

Interim suspensions (or other orders) during an investigation are always challenging for Courts to decide. Typically, they are challenged through an application for judicial review.

It is trite law that the burden of proof in discipline matters is on the regulator. However, this concept can be pushed too far. In

The highest court in British Columbia has upheld the broad scope of investigative powers for the legal regulator there. In A Lawyer v. The Law