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), 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

One Appeal or Two?

Many discipline panels conduct their hearings in two parts. The first deals with the merits of the allegations (also known as the “finding” stage). If

Integrity Testing

A constable “was assigned to maintain the perimeter security at a crime scene. He entered the crime scene, leaving its perimeter insecure, and took $300

Void for Vagueness

Law has many pithy expressions that refer to complex legal concepts. For example, the phrase “intrusion upon seclusion” refers to the tort of invading someone’s