Short Term Gain for Long Term Pain

When there is a public outcry about extremely inappropriate behaviour alleged against a practitioner, the regulator often feels compelled to reassure the public that such conduct is not acceptable. However, those public statements can then be used as ostensible proof of prejudgment when the regulator addresses the concerns through its investigation and discipline process. That is what occurred in Calandrini v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FC 52. The conduct in issue related to reported acts of nudity, sexual harassment and even assault by an RMCP police officer towards his male colleagues. When the media picked up the story, the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP said:

When this came to our attention, we were appalled at what the allegations were. I found it hard to believe that in this day and age that this kind of behaviour would take place in our organization or anywhere else. It is completely unacceptable behaviour. It is abhorrent. The kind of behaviour that was alleged is completely in opposition to our core values.

The Court applied the following test as to whether these comments created an appearance of bias:

To find that discretion has been fettered, the facts before the Court must give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the decision-maker treated another individual’s views as binding or conclusive, without the need to consider any other factors or to conduct an independent analysis.

The issue was complicated by the fact that the concerns had already been addressed informally. That informal resolution was then subject to review. During that review process the media raised concerns about the case. The officer conducting the review referred the matter to a discipline hearing. However, in reviewing the entire file (including the steps taken before the media outcry, the notes by the screening person indicating that they did not discuss the matter with the Commissioner and the documentation about the processing of the concerns), the Court was satisfied that there was no fettering of discretion despite the comments made by the Commissioner.

More Posts

Right-Touch Regulation Redux

Perhaps the most consequential document in professional regulation in the English-speaking world this century is Right-Touch Regulation published by the UK oversight body, the Professional

Reason Writing Omissions

Writing reasons for a regulatory decision is not easy, especially for non-lawyers. An administrative body’s reasons are the primary basis upon which a court will

Interim Orders – Take Two

The Alberta regulator for chiropractors got the interim order process right on its second try. In Basaraba v College of Chiropractors of Alberta, 2025 ABKB

Safeguarding

Most regulators screen complaints and reports as they arrive to assess the degree of risk presented and to prioritize matters appropriately. The UK regulator for