Bad Faith Investigations

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 to prove that the investigation was conducted in bad faith or with malice for there to be liability. Negligent investigation is not sufficient. For that reason many such proceedings are dismissed without the necessity of a hearing because the bad faith is not particularized. However, in Robson v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2021 ONSC 5271 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jhh33 the motion to dismiss the claim before trial was unsuccessful.

The practitioner was ultimately successful in defending a discipline allegation that he had fraudulently concealed assets in his bankruptcy proceedings. The practitioner claimed that the investigation was conducted in bad faith by only interviewing witnesses who would help prove the allegation and by not interviewing obvious witnesses who might disprove the allegation. There was conflicting evidence about who interviewed whom and when. The Court said that it was possible that bad faith could be established depending on the credibility findings made. The Court directed that the matter proceed to trial.

Not all bad faith claims can be dismissed before trial.

More Posts

Immunity from Regulatory Scrutiny?

Mandatory reporting provisions typically protect the reporter from liability or retaliation for making a report in good faith. Do those immunity provisions prevent registrants from

Jurisdiction Over Cosmetic Procedures

Health regulators are receiving frequent expressions of concern about “medical spas” that provide cosmetic procedures. Complex questions arise as to the legal authority to provide

Interpreting Legislation vs Making Legislation

Regulators cannot enact legislation through policy. However, regulators frequently publish policies interpreting or applying their legislation. The line between those two activities is sometimes fine.