Screening committees often recommend or, where authorized to do so, direct practitioners to engage in remedial activities. The rationale for this authority is that such
An individual’s recollection of a particular event or set of events can be a powerful piece of evidence, however its impact can be significantly undermined
A recent Alberta Court of Appeal case addressed how regulators think about dishonesty allegations against practitioners, the use of mental health evidence in determining liability,
The open-hearing principle is robust. A police discipline hearing was held following a public outcry and independent review into the police service’s handling of investigations.
Practitioners facing serious allegations of misconduct have the right to a fair hearing, including adjournments, when necessary to prepare their case or because of health
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