Not exact matches
Third, the Scott case addresses when a
professional regulatory body may take «extraordinary» action to
protect the public during an investigation and pending the outcome of a discipline hearing.
The primary mandate of these
professional regulatory bodies is to
protect the public.
On November 14, 2013, Bill 62, An Act to amend the
Professional Code to permit the immediate provisional suspension or restriction of professional activities, was tabled in the national assembly to provide an additional tool to fulfil the regulatory bodies» mission of protecting
Professional Code to permit the immediate provisional suspension or restriction of
professional activities, was tabled in the national assembly to provide an additional tool to fulfil the regulatory bodies» mission of protecting
professional activities, was tabled in the national assembly to provide an additional tool to fulfil the
regulatory bodies» mission of
protecting the public.
It may seem undesirable, even distasteful, to permit a person who has been implicated in corruption to continue to act in her or his
professional capacity without some sort of censure, and certainly the government and
professional regulatory bodies must strike a balance between
protecting a
professional's right to due process and
protecting the public from corrupt activity.
Where an investigator for a
regulatory body sends emails to two complainants who have alleged fraud against a member, the investigator may be
protected from a claim for «defamation» arising from the content of his emails (e.g., where he confirms to the recipients that the
body is prosecuting the member for
professional [mis] conduct for the fact that he recklessly [carried out certain conduct]»), based on the defence of «absolute privilege».