BC College of Teachers Ordered to Provide List of all Registered Teachers

In Order F11-22, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the College of Teachers to provide the applicant with a list of the names, current certificate status and current practicing status of all registered teachers.

The College had refused to comply with the request from a journalist on the basis that the information was already available to the public in a searchable database and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of teachers' privacy.

The applicant had received such lists from other colleges including the Law Society of BC and the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

It is not readily apparent from the decision what was bother ing the College of Teachers about the request. Its position that the information was available on its database was not accurate because an applicant could only obtain information about a teacher if the name of the teacher was known. It was not possible to search the database for all or any teachers without a specific name. Additionally, it is difficult to see in light of the jurisprudence to date, and the language of FOIPOP how disclosure could be seen to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

The information was ordered to be produced in its entirety.

Parallel Proceedings may Raise Abuse of Process

The BCCA recently held that a veterinarian who commenced a human rights proceeding alleging institutional bias against the BC Veterinary Medical Association, could not raise the same allegations to challenge a discipline finding against him, in Bajwa v. BCVMA 2011 BCCA 265.
Dr. Bajwa commenced a human rights complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal in 2005, which is ongoing. In 2007 he was found to have committeed 2 professional offences by the BCVMA Inquiry committee. He was fined, formally reprimanded and directed to take a medical records course.
While Dr. Bajwa raised the issue of institutional bias before the BCVMA tribunals, they held that they did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue in view of their limited authority under the applicable legislation. He sought judicial review and Justice Allan held that the tribunals in fact had such authority and ought to have considered those allegations. This decision was appealed. In addition to arguments about authority to consider bias, it was argued before the BCCA, that it was inappropriate to raise the issue of bias, since the Human Rights Tribunal was considering it in a comprehensive manner.
The BCCA decided in the circumstances that "it is difficult to discern any practical utility in the process here sought to be invoked by Dr. Bajwa. Such process would cause a duplication, indeed I would say a waste of adjudicative resources because it seems quite unrealistic to think that any decision on bias issues that might be reached by an Inquiry Committee or the Council could have any measure of finality having regard to the scope of the proceedings before the...Tribunal. The central concerns that underpin the doctrine of abuse of process exist here, namely a duplication and waste of resources and the possibility of inconsistent findings by different adjudicative bodies passing upon similar facts and issues..."
The BCVMA's appeal was allowed and so the penalty was reinstated.

The College of Physicians & Surgeons Required to Provide Complainant with a Registrant's Prior Complaint History

In RM v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC, 2011 BCSC 832, the Health Professions Review Board (HPRB) ordered that documents revealing past complaints concerning a physician, should be disclosed to the complainant seeking the review.
The complaint alleged the physician had used rude, obscene and racially inappropriate language during an appointment. The matter was investigated and it was decided that the medical care was appropriate and the College could not adjudicate the "divergent reports concerning the [physician's] behaviour." The complainant was advised of this.
However, the College advised the registrant that it considered the complaint to be partially substantiated, and that in view of his history of at least 16 complaints some of which were valid, the College would closely monitor him. The registrant's complaint history was not considered by the Inquiry Committee handling the case under review.
When the review was underway, the complainant learned that there was a previous history because some documents were redacted from the disclosure to the HPRB. The College and physician argued that these documents should not be disclosed because they were irrelevant, the rule against character evidence would be infringed and the physician's right to privacy would be infringed. The HPRB ordered their disclosure to the complainant.
The Court decided that the decision to release the information to the complainant was not patently unreasonable or based on irrelevant factors. The Board exercised its discretion properly especially since the documents were not released to the public at large, but only to the complainant, and subject to conditions that they could only be used for the purpose of the review.
The BCSC refused to interfere with the HPRB's decision.

BCSC Addresses the Authority to Discipline Former Registrants

In Anthony v. BC College of Social Workers, 2011 BCSC 729, the petitioner sought an order quashing a citation and prohibiting the college from proceeding with disciplinary action against him. His rationale was that the events under consideration occurred under previous legislation in which the College was not authorised to discipline former registrants. While the new Act provided for this, the petitioner resigned and made the argument that the statute could not apply to events that occurred when the old Act was in force, because penal legislation could not have retroactive effect.


The case contains an excellent analysis of the arguments that were made and the law on this issue.


The conclusion was that professional disciplinary proceedings are not penal in nature, but are for the purpose of protecting the public. Therefore, the new Act had retroactive application and the Petition was dismissed.

BC Privacy Commissioner and Publication of Decisions

Recently, the BC Privacy Commissioner published a useful article on the OIPC website entitled: Balancing Privacy and Openness: Guidelines on the Electronic Publication of Decisions of Administrative Tribunals July 2011.
This article contains a useful bibliography on this topic and is helpful to independent counsel advising administrative tribunals.
The article is available on the OIPC site.