Regulators are being given increased authority to impose remediation to address concerns about a practitioner’s practice at the complaints screening stage. While there are concerns,
If a practitioner is registered in two jurisdictions, which should proceed first with the investigation and hearing? This issue arose in Mema v Chartered Professional
The complaints decisions of many regulators are subject to external scrutiny. The scrutiny is often focused on whether the public interest was served. The test
What should a regulator do where a practitioner refuses to cooperate with an investigation and attacks the investigation aggressively on social media including posting documents
There is no general duty of procedural fairness or duty to consult when proposing legislative amendments or making policies: Covant v. College of Veterinarians of
Interim suspensions (or other orders) during an investigation are always challenging for Courts to decide. Typically, they are challenged through an application for judicial review.
There is continuing ambiguity as to the impact of a practitioner’s bankruptcy proceedings on disciplinary sanctions. The goal of the bankruptcy process is to enable
Courts are frequently tasked with deciding whether a discipline sanction should commence even though an appeal or judicial review is pending. Even where a court
Occasionally regulators have to address breaches of their Code of Conduct by a Board or Council member. Where the concerns amount to allegations of wrongdoing
In Matheson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 7597 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jktjh the regulator received a complaint that the practitioner saw a