How Strong Must the Evidence be Before Making an Interim Order?

“Not very”, says the British Columbia Court of Appeal. When a screening committee decides whether there should be restrictions on the practitioner until the discipline hearing can be held, the primary issue is whether in all of the circumstances the public needs immediate protection. In Scott v. College of Massage Therapists of British Columbia, 2016 BCCA 180, the screening committee imposed an interim order requiring the massage therapist to post signs about and use a chaperone for treatments. The complaint was about sexual abuse. There were no witnesses or other evidence. The massage therapist argued that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

The court said that the role of the screening committee, in reviewing the strength of the case, is to make “a provisional assessment of the facts” to consider “the reliability of the evidence, its internal and external consistency, the plausibility of the complaint, and motivation. This is in aid of determining whether the complaint is manifestly unfounded or manifestly exaggerated (Perry). The inquiry committee’s mandate is not…to test the sufficiency of the evidence to establish his sexual misconduct”.

More Posts

More on the Mandate of Regulators

The mandate of regulators is an increasingly contentious topic. At its core, the issue is whether regulators should define their public interest mandate as going

Screening Appointments

The appointments made by regulators are important. These include the selection of the regulator’s Registrar and/or CEO, appointments to committees (e.g., a discipline tribunal) and,

Circumventing the Implied Undertaking Rule

Regulators must often disclose all relevant information, that is not privileged, in its legal proceedings such as discipline hearings. However, the party receiving the disclosure