Neil Abramson, of Torkin Manes LLP Barristers & Solicitors
and counsel for Abdul with Robert Barbiero, said the Court of
Appeal's decision is a surprising one because it seems to
suggest that the notion of prejudice is of "paramount
import" and in the absence of obvious prejudice a regulator
"seems to be at liberty to play fast and loose with the
governing legislation."
"It's something I would think is relevant to be considered
by professionals and regulators from British Columbia to
Newfoundland," he said, adding that the decision is about the
rights of a regulator versus its obligations to comply strictly
with the governing statute.
"This decision, it would seem, is rather novel and would
similarly seem to have far-reaching implications. Not just to
health professionals and health professional colleges, but to
professionals and professional regulators more generally across the
entire country. It really does speak to a balancing of the public
interest versus the rights of the individual accused
professional," explained Abramson, adding that they are
considering seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada.
This article originally appeared in The Lawyer's Daily. To view the complete article, click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.