Refusing to Accept Further Submissions

A core element of procedural fairness is permitting those affected by a decision to make submissions on the matter before the decision is made. However, there are circumstances in which further submissions can be refused.

In E v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2022 ONSC 2179 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jnmlw a practitioner was concerned about a complaints screening decision requiring remediation. The practitioner appealed the first decision to a Board that found that, while the investigation was adequate, one part of the screening decision did not reasonably explain the basis for the required remediation. The matter was returned to the screening committee for reconsideration. The practitioner wished to make further submissions and introduce additional evidence. The screening committee refused to receive it because it wished to focus just on redoing the decision based on the original record. The practitioner appealed the second decision primarily on the basis that they had not been afforded procedural fairness in that the additional submissions and evidence was not considered. Both the Board and the Court rejected the argument. Because there was no new information (beyond what the practitioner wanted to add) and no new issues, there was no obligation to redo the submission process again.

The Court noted that the screening committee could have agreed to accept the new submissions and evidence. The Court simply said that it did not have to.

More Posts

Failed Delivery

In Real Estate Council of Alberta v More, 2026 ABKB 459 (CanLII), the regulator received several complaints about a former registrant’s conduct which raised serious

Challenging Disciplinary Findings

In Bacchus v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 3415 (CanLII), the registrant appealed a discipline panel’s decision on the basis that

Perhaps, Maybe, Sometimes

Some regulators have whistleblower policies. Most commonly, they are for internal use as a safeguard to ensure that the regulator and its leadership are conducting

Cameras and Confidentiality

A nefarious intent is not required in order to constitute a breach of client confidentiality. A plastic surgeon faced disciplinary, privacy enforcement and civil consequences