A Registrar of the Chiropractors Association was charged with breaching the Chiropractic Act, R.S.M. 1980, c. 100 (“the Act”). An Inquiry Committee dismissed the charges and the Association sought judicial review. A Queen’s Bench judge concluded that the Inquiry Committee was bound as a matter of law by the Regulation to find Dr. Alevizos guilty of professional misconduct and the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that absent express statutory provision, the final decision of a committee of a professional association properly empowered to make such a decision is not reviewable by the court on an application by the Association or its governing body. The appeal was therefore allowed.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Chiropractors – Governance of professional association – Jurisdiction – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Right of appeal of professional association Manitoba Chiropractors Assn. v. Alevizos, [2003] M.J. No. 206, Manitoba Court of Appeal, June 9, 2003, Twaddle, Monnin and Freedman JJ.A. The ...

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”) appealed the decision of the Divisional Court, quashing a newly Amended Notice of Hearing on the basis that the Registrar for the College had proffered the Amended Notice of Hearing in the middle of a disciplinary hearing in the absence of statutory authority to do so. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Divisional Court upheld. The issue raised on appeal was whether the Registrar of the College had the jurisdiction to refer new allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence of a member of the College to the Discipline Committee after a discipline hearing had already commenced against that member.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Fairness – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Procedural requirements – Amendment of notice of hearing – Jurisdiction Henderson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, [2003] O.J. No. 2213, Ontario Court of Appeal, June 5, 2003, Weiler, Rosenberg and Armstrong, JJ.A. Allegations of professional ...

A helicopter pilot (“Veideman”) was unsuccessful in his application for judicial review of the decision of the Appeal Panel of the Civil Aviation Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) where the court found that the Tribunal had not erred in concluding that Veideman had not exercised due diligence to prevent the contravention of a regulation by unlawfully operating an aircraft at a distance of less than 500 feet from a person

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Pilots – Disciplinary proceedings – Due diligence – Evidence – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Veideman v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [2003] F.C.J. No. 751, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, May 12, 2003, Snider J. Veideman was a helicopter pilot transporting skiers in ...

Ewachniuk appealed a decision of a hearing panel of the Respondent Law Society of British Columbia that had found him guilty of professional misconduct in “attempting to intimidate” and in “actually intimidating” two witnesses from giving evidence at trial and in requesting Crown counsel lay charges against the same witnesses “for the purpose of preventing them from coming to Canada to give evidence in court”. The hearing panel further found that Ewachniuk must be disbarred as a result of misconduct and ordered him to pay the costs of the hearing. All grounds of appeal were dismissed.

22. July 2003 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Standard of review – Unreasonableness – Delay – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct – Penalties – Disbarment – Costs Ewachniuk v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2003] B.C.J. No. 823, British Columbia Court of Appeal, April 15, 2003, Newbury, Huddart and Saunders JJ.A. A ...

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 ...

A physician holding a “Border Area License” allowing him to work in both the United States and Canada was suspended by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick for allegedly prescribing to patients that were not attended by him. Rather than replying directly to the College, the physician sought a judicial review of the College’s decision to suspend. In reviewing the College decision, the court concluded that in urgent circumstances the College has the jurisdiction to effect an immediate suspension of a physician’s license. The court held that the College should be given a great deal of deference in determining which circumstances constitute “an urgent matter requiring immediate action” and that their decision to suspend was reasonable. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Jurisdiction – Fairness – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness Loiselle v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, [2003] N.B.J. No. 111, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, March 12, 2003, Garnett J. Loiselle ...

A Constable with the Calgary Police Service was transferred from the traffic division to the street division for failing to issue enough traffic violation tickets. The applicant argued that the transfer was disciplinary in nature, thus invoking the disciplinary procedures set out in part five of the Police Act, R.S.A. 2000 CP-17 (the “Act”). The applicant applied for a judicial review of the Chief of Police’s decision to transfer him. The court concluded that the decision to transfer the applicant was purely an administrative decision which was not subject to judicial review.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Police – Disciplinary proceedings – Performance expectation – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions Munday v. Calgary (City) Police Commission, [2003] A.J. No. 280, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, February 25, 2003, Sullivan J. The applicant was a Traffic Constable with the Calgary Police Service and held the rank of Senior Constable II. ...

A dentist (“Violette”), applied for judicial review of the decision of the New Brunswick Dental Society, in which the Society ordered that Violette be prohibited from treating patients with TMJ disorder and from practising orthodontics. The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the application, holding that the Court should not review the decision of the Discipline Committee when the Applicant had available other avenues of review which he had not pursued.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Judicial review – Self-governing professions Violette v. New Brunswick Dental Society, [2003] N.B.J. No. 129, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, March 26, 2003, Garnett J. Violette argued that the Board did not have legal training, and so he should not have to pursue his option ...

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench heard two appeals under section 41 of the Chiropractic Act, S.S. 1994, c.C-10 from a decision of the Discipline Committee finding the appellant chiropractors guilty of professional misconduct for following a pattern of practice of ordering the preparation of plain film radiographs by the use of X-rays when it was not clinically necessary or appropriate to do so. One of the appellants was also found guilty of following a pattern of practice of ordering the preparation of plain film radiographs on an expectation of financial reward to accrue to him as a result of his ownership in an X-ray medical imaging business. The court ultimately quashed both findings of guilt based on this “pattern of practice”.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Chiropractors – Disciplinary proceedings – Billing matters – Pattern of practice – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Standard of review of appellate court Thompson v. Chiropractors’ Assn. of Saskatchewan, [2003] S.J. No. 186, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, March 21, 2003, Rothery J. The complaints arose ...

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia succeeded on its appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal had erred in failing to set aside the order of the appeal judge’s decision overturning an Inquiry Committee’s finding of fact leading to a conviction for infamous conduct. The court held that the proper standard of review for findings of fact was reasonableness.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry committee decisions – Suspensions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] S.C.J. No. 18, Supreme Court of Canada, April 3, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, ...