Appeal Board Upholds Defence of Jurisdiction for Professionals in Non-Therapeutic Roles.

Appeal Board Upholds Defence of Jurisdiction for Professionals in Non-Therapeutic Roles.

2021 CanLII 7968 (ON HPARB)

The Ontario Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”) has upheld a rare defence and approach to defending professionals in matters before their professional colleges.  In a case successfully defended by Stieber Berlach at both the College of Nurses (“CNO”) and HPARB, this 2021 decision sustained the ability of the defence to challenge complaints on the basis of jurisdiction when the professionals are serving in non-traditional roles.

The underlying facts concern a member of the CNO employed by a health unit in the role of a public health nurse.  In that role, the nurse was part of an investigation generated by the health unit into the Applicant’s practice.  After receiving a complaint from a member of the public, the nurse conducted an inspection of the Applicant’s practice in 2017.  Following that inspection and its conclusions, a section 13 Order requiring certain actions around cleaning, disinfection and sterilization was delivered by the nurse.  The Applicant took issue with the nurse’s investigation, the lack of due process and sought to challenge the nurse’s professionalism at the CNO.

The Applicant raised eleven areas of the investigation he wished to challenge.  As against the nurse as principal investigator in the investigation, the Applicant sought recompense from the nurse’s College for these issues.  The Applicant wished her to lose her license or her ability to continue in her public health role.  In arguing this, the Applicant tied his concerns back to the nurse’s professional knowledge and awareness of infection prevention protocols, specifically.

The Applicant actively participated in the College investigation, supplying information in interviews and submissions on how this investigation had impacted his practice and the publicity surrounding it.

In the underlying CNO defence, the approach taken was to focus on the unique role of the nurse outside of the traditional “nurse-patient relationship”.  The defence raised the issue that the Applicant’s concerns exclusively occurred within the nurse’s “administrative and investigative duties” as a public health nurse. This distinguished her role, which had an adversarial component inherent in it, from more traditional roles in patient care.  As there was a separate statutory regime responsible for this administrative and investigative function (in this case, the Health Protection and Promotion Act (the “HPPA”)), any concerns the Applicant raised lay outside of the jurisdiction of the College even to investigate.  This warranted a rare summary dismissal at the CNO.

The College saw merit in this argument and issued a Notice of Intention to Take No Action in regards to the complaint.  The Applicant took the position that as a public health nurse, there were nursing duties inherent in the nurse’s position.  There were necessary overlaps between nursing knowledge and skills and the administrative and investigative function of a public health nurse that could not be separated.

The submission of defence counsel was that the nurse was clearly working within an administrative role (similar to a Director of Care) under the jurisdiction of a health unit with its own statutory regime regulating.  In that, even with an overlap of knowledge or skill, the nurse’s duties and standards did not lie with the College to assess.  They more correctly lay through the employer’s regulatory regime (in this case the HPPA).  Choice of regulatory regime was important to avoid a multiplicity of decisions, the potential for conflicting standards and to ensure a consistent approach across different venues.  The only way to do that was for the employer’s regulatory regime to prevail.

The College accepted this argument and dismissed the complaint without further investigation.

On appeal to the HPARB, the Applicant argued that both the reasonableness of this approach and the adequacy of the investigation to the point of that decision should be challenged pursuant to s. 33(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”).

The standards of review at the HPARB involved the adequacy of the investigation and the reasonableness of the CNO’s conclusion pursuant to s. 33(1) of the Code.

On the adequacy of the CNO’s investigation, the Applicant raised additional information about the underlying health unit investigation that he offered to the HPARB.  He raised these concerns to support the argument that if the CNO had investigated further, they would have had concerns with the nurse’s practice.  The Applicant argued that the CNO’s investigation and choice to take summary measures without a more thorough investigation was inadequate.

In successfully defending this point, we argued that all the “new” materials had been available to the Applicant at the time submissions were made before the College.  These materials, even if presented at the time, further bound the nurse to the more administrative and regulatory role that lay under the HPPA regime.  The proper standard was not whether all relevant material was available to the CNO, but whether the CNO had “adequate information” to make the conclusion it did.  On that standard, the CNO’s investigation was adequate.

The HPARB accepted defence counsel’s position.  It concluded that the CNO did obtain the necessary information “adequate” to make the abuse of process determination under the Code.  It was accepted that all the CNO needed to do was to conduct enough of a review “to conclude that the [Applicant’s] complaint fell within the abuse of process provisions under section 26(4) and (5) of the Code.” [para 30].  A full investigation was not required under this standard, so the investigation that led to the summary determination was adequate.

The Applicant then argued that the CNO’s decision to dismiss his complaint was unreasonable.  He argued that there was overlap in nursing knowledge in any administrative position and particularly with health standards were in issue.  He challenged the nurse’s knowledge and professional practice, specifically the infection prevention and control standards which were inherently nursing related.  Given that a public health nurse was still a nurse, the College’s decision to summarily dismiss was unreasonable without a full investigation and review.

Defence counsel countered that the complaints made, even if proven, tied the matter back to the adequacy of an investigation under a different statutory regime (the HPPA).  The nurse was acting within a statutory defined role under the HPPA and using powers granted to her by that statute.  The actions in issue did not relate to care.  Even if the issues were an “emergency”, the nurse’s role remained “administrative and investigative” in nature, making the College’s decision reasonable.

The HPARB again sided with the defence.  The HPARB held that the concerns articulated by the Applicant “occurred in the context of the Respondent’s administrative and investigative duties as a public health nurse.”[para 41] As such, the information before the Committee did not give rise to concerns about the Respondent’s nursing practice.

The HPARB accepted as well that the focus of concerns fit within the parallel statutory regime.  These should be resolved under that parallel process and not at the professional colleges.  The HPARB accepted the defence argument that jurisdiction can be successfully argued to protect professionals in administrative, investigative or non-traditional roles.

This decision upholds the rarely used defence of jurisdiction.  For professionals working in non-therapeutic roles, there are often conflicting duties of care that may be at odds with the interests those who are the subject of an investigation.  These professionals are particularly vulnerable to attack by complainants wishing to challenge the underlying investigation.  Such professionals can be targeted by those hoping to circumvent other regimes or wishing to punish them personally by limiting their professional licenses.

Our successful defence supports a rarely argued path forward to protect such professionals from these attacks both at their Colleges and then on subsequent appeal.  The HPARB, which oversees all regulated health professional colleges in Ontario, has sustained this jurisdictional approach as a valid defence to protect health professionals working in administrative and investigative roles.

Insights & Commentary

Now is the Winter of Our Discontent: ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties - photo
  • Commentaries

Now is the Winter of Our Discontent: ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties

Now is the Winter of Our Discontent:[1] ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties By: Michael A. Valdez Introduction In the recent decision of Musa v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 255,[2] the Ontario Court of Appeal offers clear guidance as to how long a … Continued

The Question of Coverage for Innocent Passengers in Stolen Vehicles: A Review of the 2023 Ontario Court of Appeal Decision in Burnham v Co-operators General Insurance Company - photo
  • Commentaries

The Question of Coverage for Innocent Passengers in Stolen Vehicles: A Review of the 2023 Ontario Court of Appeal Decision in Burnham v Co-operators General Insurance Company

By Thomas Russell Background On August 25, 2014, Joshua Burnham was asleep in the back of a stolen pickup truck when it was involved in a motor vehicle accident, tragically killing the driver and front-seated passenger of the vehicle.[1] Arising out of this horrible situation was the question of who should cover the damages that … Continued

Causation and Foreseeability in Case v Pattison: Negligent Inspections Conducted by an Intervening Party do not Negate the Liability of a Preceding Tortfeasor - photo
  • Commentaries

Causation and Foreseeability in Case v Pattison: Negligent Inspections Conducted by an Intervening Party do not Negate the Liability of a Preceding Tortfeasor

By: Zachary Sherman Introduction In the May 2023 decision of Case v. Pattison,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ the Court”) provided clarification on the foreseeability and causation analysis to be applied where an intervening party negligently performs their duty to inspect the work of a preceding tortfeasor. In conducting their analysis, the Court concluded … Continued

From Settlement to Stay: The Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Importance of Prompt Disclosure of Settlement Information to Related Parties - photo
  • Commentaries

From Settlement to Stay: The Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Importance of Prompt Disclosure of Settlement Information to Related Parties

In its recent decision, Skymark Finance Corporation v Ontario, 2023 ONCA 234[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal took the opportunity to comment on the importance of immediate disclosure of settlement minutes to other parties in an action and to clarify the meaning of the phrase “to change the entirety of the litigation landscape”. The Immediate … Continued

by

When are Insurers Required to Provide Medical Reasons for the Denial of Statutory Accident Benefits? - photo
  • Commentaries

When are Insurers Required to Provide Medical Reasons for the Denial of Statutory Accident Benefits?

An insurer may discontinue an insured’s entitlement to benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule[1] (“the SABS”) pursuant to any of the specified grounds enumerated under section 37(2). If the insurer determines that the insured is ineligible for benefits on the basis of any of these grounds, section 37(4) requires the insurer to provide notice, … Continued

by

Vitriol or Value? ONCA Provides Direction on Anti-SLAPP Analysis - photo
  • Commentaries

Vitriol or Value? ONCA Provides Direction on Anti-SLAPP Analysis

Introduction In Thorman v. McGraw,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified section 137.1(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and further narrowed the class of public expression deemed worthy of protection under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation. Background In December 2013, the respondent entered into an agreement with the appellants to renovate her bathroom. The respondent was … Continued

by

All News