SML’s Grey Areas newsletter has been in publication since July 1992 and discusses the latest developments in professional regulation. New issues are published monthly – subscribe below to learn more about recent studies, case law and legislative updates in the regulatory world. Explore our catalogue below.
Issues published before 2020 can be found on CanLII.
As a general rule, regulators cannot discipline practitioners for conduct that occurred before they became registered: Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario v. Leung, 2018 ONSC 4527 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/htl3k. One exception is where the applicant provided false information on their application for registration about their pre-registration conduct. However, the questions posed on the application form must then be clear and
While the pandemic is not yet over, reflections on how regulators have responded to, and can learn from, their pandemic experience is already happening. Last month the UK oversight body, the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) released its preliminary report entitled: LEARNING FROM COVID-19: A case-study review of the initial crisis response of 10 UK health and social care professional regulators
A challenge for regulators occurs when practitioners do not blatantly refuse to cooperate with an investigation, but still do not provide the requested information or assistance. For example, the practitioner can ask questions to clarify the regulator’s request. Or the practitioner can demand disclosure of the basis for the investigation. Or the practitioner can challenge the scope of the request
Even as many Canadian jurisdictions consider fundamental reforms to the regulation of health professions that are heavily influenced by the model in the United Kingdom, the UK is considering further changes.
A practitioner’s past history can have a significant impact on subsequent disciplinary sanctions. Previously, a practitioner with a significant past history was labelled “ungovernable”. It appears that term is being replaced with the less loaded term of “irremediable”.
The impartiality of tribunals is essential to public confidence in professional regulation. This principle is encapsulated in the legal concept that an appearance of bias on the part of a member of a tribunal is unfair and can, in some circumstances, nullify the tribunal’s decision