Alberta Court of Appeal to reconsider decision on disciplinary costs for regulatory bodies

The court emphasized that overturning its precedents is not taken lightly

Alberta Court of Appeal to reconsider decision on disciplinary costs for regulatory bodies

The Alberta Court of Appeal granted the College of Dental Surgeons of Alberta permission to argue for reconsideration of a decision that mandates regulatory bodies bear full disciplinary proceeding costs.

The decision in question is Jinnah v Alberta Dental Association and College, 2022 ABCA 336, which established a presumption that regulatory bodies should bear the full costs of disciplinary proceedings unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.

Dr. Shouresh Charkhandeh, challenged a decision by the appeal panel of the College of Dental Surgeons of Alberta regarding his unprofessional conduct, and the appeal panel itself took no position on this application. The College of Dental Surgeons contends that the Jinnah decision contradicts the established approach to costs in disciplinary proceedings, as outlined in KC v College of Physical Therapists of Alberta, 1999 ABCA 253. This previous approach emphasized judicial discretion, considering factors such as the charges' seriousness, the parties' conduct, and the reasonableness of the costs rather than defaulting to full indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal highlighted that overturning its precedents is not taken lightly. Factors from R v Arcand, 2010 ABCA 363, guide this process, including the precedent's recency, any disapproval by other courts, obvious flaws, and whether it overlooked binding statutes or authorities.

The Jinnah decision, dated October 13, 2022, is relatively recent and has not created settled expectations in the jurisdiction. However, it has not been consistently followed, as noted in cases like Dr. Ignacio Tan III v Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2024 ABCA 94, and Rashid v Alberta (Securities Commission), 2023 ABCA 53. The Court's reconsideration procedure was not properly followed in creating the Jinnah precedent warranting reconsideration.

Given these factors, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the applicant demonstrated a proper basis for permission to argue that Jinnah should be reconsidered. The application was granted, allowing for the possibility of a change in how costs in disciplinary proceedings are handled by regulatory bodies in Alberta.

Recent articles & video

Vote for Canadian Lawyer's Top Regional Ontario firms

Privacy and access authorities gather in Toronto to address emerging issues

Federal Court limits trademark to dining services, excludes sit-down and take-out offerings

Ontario Court of Appeal denies mother's bid to prevent child's return to Bangladesh

PEI Court of Appeal affirms property transfer to heir did not require subdivision approval

NS Court of Appeal affirms doctors' right to judicial review in dispute with health authority

Most Read Articles

Federal Court overturns study permit denial, citing unreasonable focus on applicant’s career plans

Ontario court rejects child protection agency’s ‘speculation and gossip’, orders child’s return

Pre-hearing request to review law firm's fees in personal injury case is premature: BC Supreme Court

SK Court of King’s Bench dismisses personal injury claim due to inordinate delay