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.