Author: Erica Richler

Occasionally practitioners argue that they have been singled out for regulatory action in ways that other members who have engaged in similar conduct are not.

Hearing panel members are often tempted to find out more about the case before them. It may be because of general curiosity. It may be

Yesterday an important decision was rendered by the Ontario Superior Court on the cross-border internet practice of professions. In College of Optometrists of Ontario v.

Can a party insist that individual panel members tell the party that they agree with the panel’s decision? That issue arose in Aylward v. Law

Regulators have seen this scenario many times. A practitioner is referred to discipline. The practitioner brings an application for judicial review to challenge the referral

The Alberta Court of Appeal indicates that it is almost impossible to find independent legal counsel (ILC) in discipline matters liable for malicious prosecution. In

Courts have said for some time that in standards of practice cases the regulator generally needs to call expert evidence. In Hanif v College of

It is an oversimplification to say that intent is not required to prove professional misconduct. Sometimes it is. The recent case of Law Society of

Sobeys challenged the validity of the rules restricting the ability of pharmacies to offer inducements (i.e., loyalty points) to patients purchasing drugs. After Sobeys had

Tribunal members are frequently admonished not to conduct independent research related to cases they hear. They are to obtain all of their information from the