Most regulators must have reasonable and probable grounds in order to appoint an investigator to conduct a formal investigation. However, articulating the reasonable and probable
The Divisional Court of Ontario has again emphasized the stringent nature of the public interest test that applies to discipline panels that consider rejecting a
Most procedural rulings do not have a significant impact for regulators. However, Torgerson v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2021 ONSC 1185 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jd9hv
Professional regulation rarely results in jail. However, in Law Society of Alberta v Beaver, 2021 ABQB 134 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jd93p a former practitioner ended up being
Many regulators require practitioners to participate in professional development and quality improvement activities. This requirement often comes with a duty to cooperate with the program.
Another decision from western Canada carefully scrutinizes a disciplinary decision. In Phillips v Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2021 SKCA 16 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jcvzm the issue was
Can a witness summoned by a regulator decline to answer questions because they owe a duty of confidentiality to their employer? In the Matter of
Can a practitioner who has been disciplined and who has exhausted their appeal rights request the discipline tribunal to reconsider its decision? Or do the
Two recent decisions in different provinces and different contexts reiterate the same principle: regulators and investigators cannot be sued for failing to act on complaints.
Where a third party complains about the conduct of a practitioner, complex issues arise. The complainant is not entitled to confidential client information. The regulator