Legislating Professional Conduct

In recent weeks there have been three separate initiatives by Ontario’s politicians to address conflicts of interest. Bill 160 would require drug manufacturers and makers of drug devices to disclose for publication all benefits conferred to health providers, such as physicians. Bill 165 would prohibit lawyers from referring a client to another lawyer for a fee (something that many other professions do not permit). Bill 166 would severely limit the ability for a real estate professional to act on both sides of a real estate transaction.

Two of those initiatives are government Bills (Bill 160 and Bill 166) which begs the question as to why the government is addressing these issues through legislation rather than working with the regulator of the respective professions? In all likelihood the regulators of the medical and real estate professions would have cooperated with the change of their professional misconduct / code of ethics provisions if requested by the government. Regardless of whether the reasons relates to a desire for publicity or a lack of confidence in the regulators, this recent trend is not good news for regulators.

More Posts

Immunity from Regulatory Scrutiny?

Mandatory reporting provisions typically protect the reporter from liability or retaliation for making a report in good faith. Do those immunity provisions prevent registrants from

Jurisdiction Over Cosmetic Procedures

Health regulators are receiving frequent expressions of concern about “medical spas” that provide cosmetic procedures. Complex questions arise as to the legal authority to provide

Interpreting Legislation vs Making Legislation

Regulators cannot enact legislation through policy. However, regulators frequently publish policies interpreting or applying their legislation. The line between those two activities is sometimes fine.