Supreme Court says perhaps College should be sued more often .....
October 2004 Regulators could be more open to public lawsuits
Supreme Court decision in Quebec case, and subsequent case in B.C., offers indication of what constitutes “bad faith”By James Langton
The Supreme Court of Canada has handed down a decision that threatens to expand the scope for the public to sue regulators for falling down on the job. The case dealt with Quebec, but a subsequent decision in British Columbia makes it clear the effects may reverberate across the country.
The critical decision, Finney v Barreau du Quebec, is being hailed as important because it essentially expands the definition of what constitutes bad faith on the part of a regulator, in this case the law society of Quebec. The ruling also appears to extend to other regulators, including securities regulators, and into other provinces.
That’s important because the decision also seems to broaden the grounds on which regulators can be sued over performance of their regulatory duties.
high court appears to expand the definition of what constitutes “bad faith.” Generally, regulators are immune from prosecution for carrying out their duties in “good faith,” but if they act in “bad faith,” carrying out a malicious prosecution for example, they could be held liable in court.
The concept of bad faith must be given a broader meaning that encompasses serious carelessness or recklessness.”
“The primary objective of [statutory regulators] is not to provide services to their members or represent their collective interests. They are created to protect the public,” the court’s decision notes.
The Finney decision may not make it open season on regulators, but it should serve to remind them that indolence may be as likely to get them into trouble as disciplinary zealotry.}"
The Supreme Court says that Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons perhaps ought to get sued more often.
When ever they suck at their job.
Which seems to be quite a lot of the time.
If you don't believe me, keep your eyes on this web site !
Supreme Court decision in Quebec case, and subsequent case in B.C., offers indication of what constitutes “bad faith”By James Langton
The Supreme Court of Canada has handed down a decision that threatens to expand the scope for the public to sue regulators for falling down on the job. The case dealt with Quebec, but a subsequent decision in British Columbia makes it clear the effects may reverberate across the country.
The critical decision, Finney v Barreau du Quebec, is being hailed as important because it essentially expands the definition of what constitutes bad faith on the part of a regulator, in this case the law society of Quebec. The ruling also appears to extend to other regulators, including securities regulators, and into other provinces.
That’s important because the decision also seems to broaden the grounds on which regulators can be sued over performance of their regulatory duties.
high court appears to expand the definition of what constitutes “bad faith.” Generally, regulators are immune from prosecution for carrying out their duties in “good faith,” but if they act in “bad faith,” carrying out a malicious prosecution for example, they could be held liable in court.
The concept of bad faith must be given a broader meaning that encompasses serious carelessness or recklessness.”
“The primary objective of [statutory regulators] is not to provide services to their members or represent their collective interests. They are created to protect the public,” the court’s decision notes.
The Finney decision may not make it open season on regulators, but it should serve to remind them that indolence may be as likely to get them into trouble as disciplinary zealotry.}"
The Supreme Court says that Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons perhaps ought to get sued more often.
When ever they suck at their job.
Which seems to be quite a lot of the time.
If you don't believe me, keep your eyes on this web site !
