Hearing tribunal's original sanctions did not breach procedural fairness: court
The Alberta Court of Appeal reinstated the original sanctions imposed on a naturopathic doctor for unprofessional conduct, overturning the appeal panel's decision to quash them due to a
The hearing tribunal of the College of Naturopathic Doctors of Alberta found Dr. Eric Muradov guilty of unprofessional conduct and imposed several sanctions, including a reprimand, fines totalling $4,000, remedial training courses, three annual reviews, and $15,000 in investigation and hearing costs.
The complaints director appealed the sanctions, arguing they were too lenient and included an annual review requirement neither party had proposed. The appeal panel agreed, citing a breach of procedural fairness because the parties were not allowed to consider the annual review sanction. The panel quashed the entire sanction decision and imposed new sanctions.
The key issue on appeal was whether the appeal panel committed a reviewable error by quashing the sanction decision for breach of procedural fairness and imposing its own sanctions. The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the appeal panel erred in its approach, determining that the hearing tribunal's original decision did not breach procedural fairness.
The court applied the standards of review for procedural fairness and reasonableness. It concluded that the appeal panel incorrectly found a breach of procedural fairness regarding the imposition of the annual review sanction, which was within the hearing tribunal's authority under the Health Professions Act.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that the hearing tribunal’s imposition of annual reviews aimed to ensure competence and did not significantly impact Dr. Muradov’s ability to practice. The court noted that the annual reviews fell within the statutory orders contemplated by the Health Professions Act and did not require additional submissions from the parties.
The Court of Appeal allowed Dr. Muradov’s appeal, setting aside the sanctions and costs imposed by the appeal panel. The original sanctions and costs orders by the hearing tribunal were reinstated, with a modification to the language of the annual review requirement to specify that an individual appointed by the College would conduct the reviews.
