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:

  1. 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.
  2. The identities of third parties involved in the events will ordinarily not be protected because there is no expectation of privacy.
  3. 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.

More Posts

In All the Circumstances

Clear and rigid rules are easiest to apply. For example, discipline panels would have an easier time if there was never a requirement to prove

Postpone for Parallel Proceedings?

Should a regulator postpone its investigations where the registrant is involved in a parallel proceeding addressing many of the same issues? In Bauhuis v Association

Social Media Use by Decision-Makers

Much guidance has been given by regulators on the use of social media by registrants. For example, the Royal College of Dental Surgeons recently updated