Articles
<< back to all ArticlesEye On Regulation
the case
Regulatory bodies and their members often express concern about delays in professional disciplinary proceedings. In Law Society of Saskatchewan v Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29 (“Abrametz”), the Supreme Court of Canada considered an application by a regulated member to stay disciplinary proceedings due to significant delays between the issuance of charges and the hearing committee’s decision.
The Court clarified that the test for delay is whether it is inordinate and prejudicial. A lengthy process alone does not necessarily meet this threshold. To determine whether a delay is inordinate, a court or tribunal must consider the following factors:
- Nature of the Proceedings
Disciplinary proceedings are distinct and must be handled promptly. Regulatory bodies have a responsibility to address complaints in a timely manner, particularly because such proceedings can impact a member’s livelihood and reputation. - Length and Causes of the Delay
Not all delays are unjustified. For example, delays may be reasonable where a parallel criminal investigation is ongoing, making it inappropriate to proceed with a disciplinary hearing. Additionally, if the party raising the delay has caused or implicitly or expressly waived it, the delay will not amount to an abuse of process. - Complexity of the Case
The Court emphasized that the mere presence of voluminous documentation does not necessarily make a case complex. The true complexity lies in the nature of the issues and facts involved.
Since Abrametz was released, several regulated members across Canada have attempted argue that the time from the charge to the decision of the hearing committee was inordinately long, and requested a stay of proceedings. Most of these applications were unsuccessful. For example: in Law Society of Ontario v Amiri, 2025 ONLSTH 67, the Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division explained that a delay in proceedings of 12 years, was not inordinate, primarily it was reasonable for the Law Society to await the outcome of the respondent’s criminal appeal, which could have rendered a key allegation moot. Furthermore, the respondent himself caused much of the delay by failing to diligently pursue his appeal for years, while the Law Society consistently fulfilled its obligations and was not responsible for the postponements.
our two cents for free
Regulatory bodies should proactively monitor and document the progress of both internal and parallel external proceedings (such as criminal cases) to ensure transparency and accountability in managing timelines. They should also implement clear internal policies requiring periodic reviews of inactive or prolonged files, with built-in decision points to assess whether continued delay remains justified under the Abrametz framework — particularly considering whether delay is due to external factors, party conduct, or case complexity.
question
Are there any internal policies that you can develop to ensure that all complaints and files are being dealt with in a timely manner?
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.
