Disciplinary decisions of the British Columbia Law Society are reviewed on a standard of reasonableness. Where a lawyer cannot assemble admissible evidence to make a plausible case of incompetency of another lawyer, then he should not pursue the issue. To press an allegation of substance abuse solely on the basis of opinion, rumour, insinuation, and speculation is to take the matter to the level of professional misconduct. Defence of absolute privilege and fair comment, which would apply in a defamation suit, does not apply in professional disciplinary proceedings.

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Professional misconduct – Absolute privilege – Defamation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Evidence Goldberg v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2009] B.C.J. No. 657, British Columbia Court of Appeal, ...

A member of the Law Society of British Columbia and the Certified Accountants Association of British Columbia (the “Appellant”), brought an action for damages for defamation, malicious prosecution, negligence, misfeasance in public office etc. against the members of the Professional Conduct Inquiry Committee and the Director of Ethics of the Institute of Chartered Accountants (the “Respondents”) after they forwarded an investigator’s report to the Law Society and Certified General Accountants Association. The B.C. Court of Appeal held that a person who provides information to a professional disciplinary body about the conduct of one of its members, is not liable in an action brought by that member. The communication is subject to absolute privilege, which provides a defence to all claims. In addition, while the filing of a jury notice is an important factor to consider in assessing whether a matter is appropriate for summary trial, and may “hold an extra value in cases of defamation”, it is not a bar to bringing an application for summary trial pursuant to Rule 18A. The trial judge exercised his discretion in determining that the matter was appropriate for disposition by summary trial and made no error in principle in deciding the case under Rule 18A.

22. July 2003 0
Administrative law – Accountants – Disciplinary proceedings – Investigative bodies – Powers – Jurisdiction – Absolute privilege – Practice and procedure – Jury notice – Summary proceedings Hung v. Gardiner, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1048, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 6, 2003, Ryan, Hall and Levine JJ.A. The Appellant is a member of the Law Society of ...

The defendant doctors were successful on an application for summary dismissal of the plaintiff doctor’s action for defamation with respect to letters written to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia about the plaintiff’s medical practices

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Governance – Statutory provisions – Disciplinary proceedings – Defamation – Boards and tribunals – Absolute privilege – Qualified privilege Schut v. Magee, [2003] B.C.J. No. 102, British Columbia Supreme Court, January 20, 2003, Kirkpatrick J. The plaintiff doctor brought an action against the defendant doctors and members of the ...