Sentences with phrase «health professions act»

Dental Assistants across Canada are governed by different rules and regulations, which are established by the Health Professions Act and their provincial dental assisting regulatory authorities.

When the Inquiry Committee of a college under BC's Health Professions Act (the «Act») disposes of a complaint without a citation, the complainant may apply for review by the Health Professions Review Board (the «HPRB»).

To develop, establish and maintain programs to assist individuals to exercise their rights under this Code and the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

«certificate of authorization» means a certificate of authorization issued under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 or this Code; («certificat d'autorisation»)

In the first significant judicial review of a decision of the BC Health Professions Review Board (the «HPRB»), the BC Supreme Court found that a registrar investigating a complaint and exercising a summary dismissal power under s. 32 (3) of the Health Professions Act (the «Act») was entitled to deference as to adequacy of the investigation in Moore v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2013 BCSC 2081.

(2) The funding shall be provided in accordance with the regulations made under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

(4) Despite the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, no person shall disclose quality assurance information except as permitted by the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, including this Code or an Act named in Schedule 1 to that Act or regulations or by - laws made under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 or under an Act named in Schedule 1 to that Act.

The B.C. Supreme Court recently upheld the power of an inquiry committee under B.C.'s Health Professions Act to issue a non-disciplinary letter of direction (or expectation)-- one that a respondent could not seek review by a court — under HPA section 33 (6)(b).

In the recent case of College of Chiropractors of British Columbia v. Health Professions Review Board, 2016 BCSC 391, the B.C. Supreme Court addressed the duties of an inquiry committee under the Health Professions Act, when a complainant asserts injury...

The HPRB as a party on judicial review: On judicial review, the registrant and the complainant were not in attendance, but the Review Board sought to be heard on the Court's role in a judicial review in cases under Health Professions Act.

The B.C. Supreme Court recently upheld the power of an inquiry committee under B.C.'s Health Professions Act to issue a non-disciplinary letter of direction (or expectation)-- one that a respondent could not seek review by a court — under...

In the recent case of College of Chiropractors of British Columbia v. Health Professions Review Board, 2016 BCSC 391, the B.C. Supreme Court addressed the duties of an inquiry committee under the Health Professions Act, when a complainant asserts injury caused by alleged negligence, but the committee dismisses the complaint based on the treatment having been appropriate, regardless of evidence from other health professionals bearing on whether the treatment caused the injury.

The BC Supreme Court recently found that the Health Professions Review Board improperly failed to defer to an interpretation of the Health Professions Act by a college under that statute, where its Inquiry Committee dismissed a complaint about what appeared...

For example, the B.C. Health Professions Act stipulates that while a Registration Committee can impose limits or conditions (or refuse to grant registration) where an applicant has committed an indictable offence (i.e., something more serious than a summary conviction offence), the Registration Committee must be «satisfied that the nature of the offence or the circumstances under which it was committed give rise to concerns about the person's competence or fitness to practise the designated health profession.»

[24] The substantive disposition was in fact made by the College's Registrar, which the College identified to the HPRB as being made under s. 32 (3)(c) of the Health Professions Act.

After considering the interplay of various provisions of the Health Professions Act (HPA), the HPRB concluded that under one process stream available under the HPA, «the Registrar has room to conduct those investigations he or she considers necessary to fulfill his functions, including the «reporting and recommendations» function, and then to recognize that when the matter comes before the Inquiry Committee under s. 33 (1), the Inquiry Committee is itself still under a statutory duty to investigate the complaint.»

Decision on statutory immunity: The court noted that under s. 38 of the Ontario Regulated Health Professions Act, the defendants were statutorily immune from suit, absent bad faith.

The Health Professions Act insulates college personnel from personal law suits which allege misconduct while carrying out duties.

Mootness: Although the College asserted the issue was moot, as no one's registrant status was impacted, and furthermore, paramedics had recently been transitioned from the HDA to the Health Professions Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H - 7, which gives the College control over its own forms, the court decided that due to live controversies and an ongoing relationship between the College and the technician, declaratory relief would help them with their ongoing relationship, and would address future problems.

Section 89 of Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2001, chapter 8, section 225.

Thus, they argued that their employer had a duty to accommodate such that a modified disciplinary procedure was required under the Health Professions Act, RSA 2000, c H - 7 («HPA»).

Many professions regulated under the Regulated Health Professions act have very strict prohibitions against dating a current and even former patient.

On November 21, 2012 a petition was filed by the College of Dental Surgeons to judicially review this decision on the basis of the Review Board's interpretation and application of the Health Professions Act.

Under s. 76 of the Health Professions Procedural Code (which is Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18), a College investigator has a power (under Part II of the Public Inquiries Act) to «inquire into and examine the practice of the member» and for that purpose may issue, without court authorization, a summons to require a person to give or produce relevant evidence to the investigator.

Lorna, as chair of the Inquiry Committee of CMTBC, chairs panels under section 35 of the Health Professions Act and meetings of the Inquiry Committee which is charged with investigations under the Health Professions Act and Massage Therapists Regulation.

(b) to a College within the meaning of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 for the purpose of the administration or enforcement of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 or an Act named in Schedule 1 to that Act;

This will be examined as part of a review Hoskins ordered this fall of the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA), following the Star's investigation of sexual abuse by doctors.

But the courts struck out his mention of her recantation in his defence, on the basis the complainant's statement was inadmissible in the court action, due to section 36 (3) of Regulated Health Professions Act stipulating that no document prepared for a proceeding under the Act was admissible in a civil proceeding.

For example, section 53 of BC's Health Professions Act not only imposes a duty on persons to «preserve confidentiality», but also provides that records are «not compellable in an court or in proceedings of a judicial nature» except for proceedings under the Act, or where disclosure is authorized by a college board as «being in the public interest» (s. 53 (1) and (3)-RRB-.

The court noted that s. 44 of the Regulated Health Professions Act («RHPA») provides that a panel obtaining legal advice shall make the advice known to the parties and the parties may make submissions with respect to the advice.

Proposed Changes to the Regulated Health Professions Act Furthering Patient Protection and Accountability

Note that in British Columbia, the Health Professions Act does not require that panels disclose the advice of ILCs to permit the parties» counsel to make submissions on the advice.

For example, sections 34 and 36 (1.1) of the Health Professions Act (HPA) require an inquiry committee to provide a written summary of any final disposition of a complaint other than a citation.

To insulate college personnel from personal law suits which allege misconduct while carrying out duties, section 24 of the BC Health Professions Act provides that «no action for damages lies or may be brought» against a board member or a person acting for a board or college «because of anything done or omitted in good faith.»

First, some or all of the documents may be «confidential», e.g., under the common law, or under a statutory provision like section 53 of the B.C. Health Professions Act.

In Stelmaschuk, a court found extraordinary action under the BC Health Professions Act to be invalid where a regulator could not establish an urgency that would justify a lack of sufficient notice to a registrant as to the issues an Inquiry Committee would be considering, i.e., interim conditions versus an interim suspension, or a lack of opportunity for the registrant to make submissions: Stelmaschuk v.

Under B.C.'s Health Professions Act, an inquiry committee has a power, based on provisional findings, to «take any action it considers appropriate» to resolve the matter between a complainant and a respondent: HPA s. 33 (6)(b).

Additional protection arises from the BC Health Professions Act, and the Ontario Registered Health Professions Act, preventing personnel from being compelled to give evidence in judicial proceedings, and prevents related records from being compellable in judicial proceedings (except proceedings under the HPA or RHPA).

This question arises under BC's Health Professions Act, when any inquiry committee may take action «necessary to...

Join Lindsay Kantor on May 14th in Toronto at the OBA's Professional Development Program on Advanced Issues in Professional Regulation, where she will speak on the topic of Exploring New Interim Suspension Powers under the Regulated Health Professions Act alongside Shenda Tanchak, Registrar and CEO, of the College of Physiotherapists.

Where, for example, a registrant or member suffers from an alcohol or drug addiction, a regulator must accommodate that disability to the point of undue hardship when addressing professional misconduct resulting from that disability, or when addressing the registrant's competence, or when acting under any provision relating specifically to addictions that may impair the professional's ability to practice, e.g., under sections 33 (4)(e) and 39 (1)(e) of the Health Professions Act.

For example, under the Health Professions Act, Inquiry Committees have an express mandate to investigate matters, and can obtain court assistance to obtain relevant evidence from non-parties (HPA s. 29), whereas registration committees do not.

This question arises under BC's Health Professions Act, when any inquiry committee may take action «necessary to protect the public» (section 35), but registrants may demand that the committee weigh evidence of their «innocence» as part of their decision - making.

Where an inquiry committee of a college under the BC Health Professions Act summarily dismisses a complaint, on the basis the college lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint (e.g., a financial dispute between the parties), the Health...

They developed a romantic and sexual relationship, and engaged in consensual sexual contact six days after the pharmacist filled a prescription for Ms. W. Under the Ontario Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, and its Schedule 2, the Health Professions Procedural Code (the «Code»), a health professional who commits sexual misconduct by sexual abusing a patient (in certain specific ways) is subject to mandatory revocation and can not apply for reinstatement for five years (Code ss.

«Medical Practitioner» is defined at section 29 of the BC Interpretation Act as «a registrant of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia entitled under the Health Professions Act to practice medicine and to use the title «medical practitioner».»

Richard Steinecke of Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Barristers & Solicitors, spoke about recent amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act in Ontario.

Yes, N.D.'s are regulated in Ontario under the 1991 Regulated Health Professions Act and are licensed by the College of Naturopaths of Ontario (CONO).

36 (3) No record of a proceeding under this Act, a health profession Act or the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, no report, document or thing prepared for or statement given at such a proceeding and no order or decision made in such a proceeding is admissible in a civil proceeding other than a proceeding under this Act, a health profession Act or the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act or a proceeding relating to an order under section 11.1 or 11.2 of the Ontario Drug Benefit Act.

42.1 Section 76 of the Provincial Offences Act does not apply to a prosecution under this Act, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act or a health profession Act.