Author: Julie Maciura

In College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v Ezzati, 2020 BCSC 339, http://canlii.ca/t/j5s7k the Court had to decide what sentence to impose on

Should there ever be limits to a regulator’s access to a practitioner’s client files when the files are relevant to an investigation? Almost never is

Few regulatory decisions have as significant an impact on individuals as clinical examinations, especially for an examinee’s final attempt. In Mattar v The National Dental

Regulators are, with increasing frequency, authorized to impose administrative penalties. Administrative penalties are similar to fines but often imposed through a less formal process than

Provincial offences for unauthorized practice or holding out usually result in fines, not jail. Especially for first offenders. However, that is not always the case.

Regulators are likely to see increasing numbers of concerns about practitioners with mild cognitive impairment. When do these concerns call for an aggressive incapacity intervention?

Some professions require that a registrant be responsible for the overall policies and procedures of a practice. For example, the Ontario College of Pharmacists imposes

Courts give regulators deference. In some cases that deference is quite broad. An example of broad deference is found in Pomarenski v Saskatchewan Veterinary Medical

Prior to the enactment of private sector privacy legislation over the past couple of decades it was generally accepted that the filing of a complaint

Most professional discipline statutes allow the imposition of a sanction upon a finding of misconduct. Sometimes called a “penalty”, the order imposes a consequence for