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.