Know your limits – review board cannot dictate process to College

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Health Professions Review Board – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Dentists – Investigations College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Health Professions Review Board), [2022] B.C.J. No. 1011, 2022 BCSC 941, British Columbia Supreme Court, June 7, 2022, S. Wilkinson J. ...

The BC Supreme Court found the Health Professions Review Board (“HPRB”) committed a reviewable error in the exercise of its statutory powers in relation to the adequacy of a regulatory body’s investigation and reasonableness of its decision

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Chiropractors – Health Professions Review Board – Statutory powers – Chiropractors – Competence – Inadequate investigations – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Evidence College of Chiropractors of British Columbia v. Health Professions Review Board, [2016] B.C.J. No. 884, 2016 BCSC ...

The Court allowed a petition brought by the College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia. The College took issue with a decision of the Respondent, Health Professions Review Board relating to Dr. Ronald Scammell’s treatment for Ms. Patsy McConville.

25. November 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Dental Surgeons – Investigations – Health Professions Review Board – Dentists – Disciplinary proceedings – Competence – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Jurisdiction College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia v. Health Professions Review Board, [2014] B.C.J. No. 2443, 2014 ...

The Court quashed part of the Health Professions Review Board’s decision to return a complaint matter to the Inquiry Committee, including all of the additional documents submitted by the complainant as new evidence. An adjudicator previously assigned to the case at the Review Board had already decided that only 5 of the 9 additional documents were admissible. Thus, the part of the Review Board’s decision which directed the Inquiry Committee to consider all 9 of the additional documents was quashed. The petitioner had also made an application for the use of pseudonyms in the case, and the sealing of the file. The Court dismissed the application because the petition did not involve any extraordinarily sensitive personal information and disclosure would not undermine the purpose of the petition.

22. April 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Health Professions Review Board – Physicians and Surgeons – Competence – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Publication ban JC v. Health Professions Review Board, [2014] B.C.J. No. 404, 2014 BCSC 372, British Columbia ...