Neil Abramson, of Torkin Manes LLP Barristers & Solicitors
and counsel for Abdul with Robert Barbiero, said the Court of
Appeal's decision is a surprising one because it seems to
suggest that the notion of prejudice is of "paramount
import" and in the absence of obvious prejudice a regulator
"seems to be at liberty to play fast and loose with the
"It's something I would think is relevant to be considered by professionals and regulators from British Columbia to Newfoundland," he said, adding that the decision is about the rights of a regulator versus its obligations to comply strictly with the governing statute.
"This decision, it would seem, is rather novel and would similarly seem to have far-reaching implications. Not just to health professionals and health professional colleges, but to professionals and professional regulators more generally across the entire country. It really does speak to a balancing of the public interest versus the rights of the individual accused professional," explained Abramson, adding that they are considering seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
This article originally appeared in The Lawyer's Daily. To view the complete article, click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.