Articles
<< back to all ArticlesEye On Regulation
In Shinksi v Alberta (College of Social Workers), 2025 ABKB 554 (CanLII), the Alberta Court of King’s Bench considered an application by a regulated member of the Alberta College of Social Workers (“ACSW”) for full disclosure of all documents collected during the investigatory stage of the professional regulatory process.
The Applicant, a social worker and a member of the ACSW, was accused of engaging in a sexual relationship with a former patient. The ACSW’s Complaints Director appointed a private investigative agency to investigate the complaint, providing notice of the investigation and a copy of the complaint to the Applicant. The Applicant was also informed of the name of the investigator and told that the investigator would arrange a meeting with him.
Shortly thereafter, the Applicant demanded full disclosure of all documents collected and reviewed during the investigation before agreeing to an investigatory meeting. The ACSW refused to provide further disclosure at the investigatory stage. The Applicant did not attend at the investigatory meeting and subsequently brought an application to the Court for full disclosure.
The Court denied the Applicant’s request, emphasizing the clear distinction between investigatory and adjudicative processes in professional regulatory contexts. At the investigatory stage, there is a reduced duty of procedural fairness, as the common law has time and again established. Further, the Health Professions Act, RSA 2000, c H-7 [“HPA”], expressly establishes a reporting role only. Therefore, there is no common law or statutory obligation to disclosure prior to the Applicant participating in an interview during the investigation.
In sum the Court concluded the ACSW had met its obligations under the HPA by providing notice of the investigation and a copy of the complaint and accordingly dismissed the Applicant’s request for disclosure.
our two cents for free
This decision confirms that unless statutorily required, professional regulatory bodies are not required to provide full disclosure to members during the investigatory stage. Rather, the duty of procedural fairness only requires notifying the member of the substance of the complaint and providing an opportunity to respond.
question
How does a regulatory body balance the need for procedural fairness and transparency with the obligation to protect the privacy of complainants and third parties during the investigatory phase?
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.
