Many regulators have a provision permitting them to not proceed with complaints that are frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, an abuse of process or
Yesterday an important decision was rendered by the Ontario Superior Court on the cross-border internet practice of professions. In College of Optometrists of Ontario v.
Courts sometimes provide a summary of the law that is so concise and clear that they are of enormous assistance to regulators. In The Law
In Law Society of British Columbia v Sprague, 2017 BCSC 2025 the regulator sought an injunction against Mr. Sprague for practising law. Mr. Sprague argued
Can a regulator be liable for damages for imposing an interim suspension in good faith where the concerns/allegations are later withdrawn? In Gillis v Law
Can a party insist that individual panel members tell the party that they agree with the panel’s decision? That issue arose in Aylward v. Law
It is common for practitioners under investigation to seek full particulars and disclosure before providing their response. It is also common for investigators to not
Courts tend to be quite deferential to regulators when reviewing interim orders made to protect the public pending discipline. However, such an order was set
Dr. Al-Ghamdi, a physician, had difficulties with some of the nurses with whom he worked. He made complaints against four of them to their regulatory
Regulators have seen this scenario many times. A practitioner is referred to discipline. The practitioner brings an application for judicial review to challenge the referral