Brian Munday, Executive Director

This is a continuation of my last article discussing some regulatory matters that have nothing to do with the Professional Governance Act – but are interesting and educational nonetheless.

1. The Register

The register – or telephone directory – or whatever you want to call it, has three different audiences who each have a different expectation of what they should find there.
 
Alberta Land Surveyors want to look up other Alberta Land Surveyors and be able to contact their friends and colleagues. The public wants to know who they can hire to do a survey for them – and often will look for someone on the retired list, figuring they can do the survey cheaper than a practicing land surveyor (true story). The government, however, believes the register should be a simple list of everyone who has ever practiced in that profession, whether they are currently in good standing in the profession and whether there are any disciplinary cases against the practitioner or other restrictions in their practice.
 
In the regulatory world, there is a big push these days to make it easy for the public to be able to find registered professionals and whether there are any discipline cases against them. The thought is that the public should be able to go to one site to get this information rather than go to multiple regulators across multiple provinces.
 
Ontario regulator launches consumer tool to verify financial adviser credentials
Introducing the National Registry of Physicians: a groundbreaking solution to improve access to health care in Canada
 

2. Jordan Peterson

This is a case that came to me courtesy of the Canadian Network of Agencies of Regulation conference I attended last October – although I have read about this case in multiple media outlets.
 
Jordan Peterson identifies as a clinical psychologist and he made comments on social media that the College of Psychologists of Ontario conduct screening committee believed were “transphobic, sexist, racist and not in keeping with any understanding of mental health.”
 
The screening committee ordered him to undergo coaching to “review, reflect on and ameliorate his professionalism in public statements.” He refused. Peterson appealed to the courts but his appeals were dismissed.
 
There are many people in the media and the legal profession and the regulatory sphere who have offered an opinion on this case. Here’s mine.
 
The case shows the challenges of a screening committee making orders rather than going through the formal disciplinary process. The case also shows that more people are willing to file complaints with a professional regulator; in this case, the complainants were not Jordan Peterson’s patients. Finally, the case shows the tricky balancing act between professional conduct and freedom of speech – especially where social media is involved.
 
This is likely the reason why Premier Danielle Smith has directed Alberta Advanced Education to review all post-secondary institutions and professional regulatory organizations to make recommendations to protect free speech rights.
 

3. Agnew v. Manitoba Dental Association

This discipline case also came to me courtesy of the Canadian Network of Agencies of Regulation conference I attended last October.
 
In Agnew v. Manitoba Dental Association, Agnew was a dentist who made discriminatory comments about Indigenous people. He was also happened to be on the governing board of the Manitoba Dental Association (MDA). The other board members asked Agnew to resign but he refused. The MDA didn’t have any provisions in their bylaws to remove a governing board member so they changed their bylaws and removed Agnew from his position on the Board.
 
He brought application for judicial review to quash bylaw amendments and resolution to remove him
from the board on the basis of bad faith. The court dismissed his application. In their ruling, the court noted that discriminatory comments can have a real impact on the reputation of the regulator and the profession.
 
While there was no indication that this dentist made mistakes working on patients’ teeth, his comments were enough for him to be sanctioned. This is another reminder that practitioners – including land surveyors – are more likely to face a discipline tribunal for what they say and how they say it rather than for how they have practiced their profession.
 

4. CPAA v. Mathison

Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta (Complaints Inquiry Committee) v Mathison is a recent case, courtesy of Reynolds Mirth Richards & Farmer LLP.
 
Mr. Mathison was employed as the chief financial officer for a private company and it was alleged that he made unauthorized payments to himself and to corporations that he was affiliated with while he was employed by this private company.
 
The Discipline Tribunal found that Mr. Mathison was guilty of unprofessional conduct and the decision was upheld on appeal.
 
However, one justice on the Court of Appeal was concerned with the Discipline Tribunal’s reliance on the evidence of the CEO of the private company, who also filed the complaint. The justice was concerned that the CEO was not acting in good faith and that the complaint was a means of enhancing the company’s position in any civil litigation relating to Mr. Mathison’s termination of employment.
 
Whenever the ALSA receives a complaint, we also try to assess the impartiality and the reasons for a person making a complaint. As noted in the Mathison complaint, even though there may be other issues going on behind the scenes, the practice was unprofessional and the decision was upheld.