Refusing to Accept Further Submissions
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,
Bernie LeBlanc
May 24, 2022
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
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
A freeze order is a type of interim order made by a regulator preventing a person from dealing with their financial assets until a concern
Should a discipline hearing proceed even though a criminal trial on related allegations is pending? In Berko v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2021 ONSC 6120
It is difficult to sue a regulator for their investigations even if the resulting discipline hearing is resolved in the practitioner’s favour. The practitioner needs
The complaints screening process is not a discipline hearing, so complaints screening bodies should be careful not to make credibility findings as if it were