The importance of addressing the significant issues raised when screening complaints was reinforced in Sarpong v Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, 2026 ONSC 3525 (CanLII). There,
Most regulators are not liable for damages unless they act in bad faith. The rationale for this qualified immunity is to enable regulators to avoid
In Real Estate Council of Alberta v More, 2026 ABKB 459 (CanLII), the regulator received several complaints about a former registrant’s conduct which raised serious
In Bacchus v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 3415 (CanLII), the registrant appealed a discipline panel’s decision on the basis that
Some regulators have whistleblower policies. Most commonly, they are for internal use as a safeguard to ensure that the regulator and its leadership are conducting
A nefarious intent is not required in order to constitute a breach of client confidentiality. A plastic surgeon faced disciplinary, privacy enforcement and civil consequences
Ontario’s highest court has discussed the mandate of regulators of professions in The Law Society of Upper Canada v Watson, 2026 ONCA 372. The Court
Much has been said in recent years about the value and benefit of provincial harmony in regulation. We recently posted about the possibility of national
Ontario’s highest court has reaffirmed the importance of the deliberative privilege protecting the internal workings and discussions of administrative tribunals. The decision relates to a
Confidentiality provisions can be tricky. The criteria for when a regulator can disclose confidential information are often complex. Improper disclosure of otherwise confidential information can