Banning Publication

Home » Banning Publication

Courts and tribunals operate from the default position that their proceedings are open to the public and the information revealed during the hearing is also public. Restrictions on access to that information require evidence that they are necessary to prevent a serious risk to an important public interest.

Rhyno v Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, 2019 NSCA 67, http://canlii.ca/t/j1r3b gave guidance as to when this test is likely to be met:

The identities of clients of the practitioner will often be protected because the professional confidentiality requirements create an expectation of privacy of that information and because disclosure may discourage clients from coming forward to the regulator.
The identities of third parties involved in the events will ordinarily not be protected because there is no expectation of privacy.
The medical information of the practitioner may be protected from disclosure because it is inherently personal and private.

This decision provides some guidance to regulators as well.

Notices of Meetings

The requirement to give notice of meetings in which policy issues will be discussed is not as rigorous as the requirement to give notice of

Careful How You Word Your Reconsideration Rules

Finality of disciplinary decisions is important for the regulator, hearing participants, and the public. The significance of that principle is illustrated in Tan v. Ontario

Read the Fine Print

Courts are increasingly interpreting regulatory legislation with its public interest purpose and intent in mind. However, the language of the provisions still matters, as was

The Residual Category

In discipline matters, abuse of process claims are generally premised on excessive delay and require prejudice to the registrant to result in a stay of