Articles
<< back to all ArticlesEye On Regulation
the case
Skjodt v College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta, 2024 ABCA 206 highlights the importance of timely processing and investigation of complaints.
In that case, the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) received three complaints regarding Dr. Skjodt between December 2015 and July 2018. The investigation of the matter and referral to a hearing took considerable time. Before the hearing commenced in April 2022, Dr. Skjodt applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis that unacceptable delay in the process had caused him significant prejudice and amounted to an abuse of process.
The Hearing Tribunal dismissed the application. It declined to find that the delay was inordinate or that Dr. Skjodt had established that the delay caused him prejudice, justifying the remedy of a stay of proceedings. Dr. Skjodt appealed that decision to the council of the CPSA, who upheld the decision. That decision was, in turn, appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error, which is the high standard of review required in such cases. While the Court upheld the decision, finding no inordinate delay or prejudicial effects warranting a stay of proceedings, it was careful to make comments with respect to the delay. It noted that the delay was not condoned and suggested that alternative remedies may be available to Dr. Skjodt. In particular, it noted that he could present evidence on and raise issues of delay in seeking an appropriate remedy in the course of the hearing of the matter.
There were complications in the investigation of the matter, including that two of the complaints came in 2018 in a short period of time, which raised concerns about a pattern of conduct. Nonetheless, the Court seemed open to accepting that there was “delay”.
our two cents for free
Professional regulatory bodies should be mindful of the time it takes for matters to proceed and establish systems to monitor the duration of complaint-related processes. This could be as simple as creating internal deadlines for processing complaints and proceeding through an investigation. To the extent delay is external, parties who are required to contribute documents or information to an investigation could be informed of the need for timely responses and expediency. This could include setting expectations in terms of timelines and deadlines for responses.
question
What processes does your organization have in place for monitoring the length of time complaints are addressed in? If there are no processes, what simple steps could be taken to implement some? If there are processes, are they effective or is there room for refinement?
Eye on Regulation is RMRF’s monthly newsletter for the professional regulatory community. Each month we offer:
- A Case: a brief summary of a recent and relevant case;
- Our Two Cents for Free: practical insight inspired by the files on our desks right now; and
- A Question: something to get you thinking about ways to enhance your work.
This newsletter is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.
