Not exact matches
Registration, mobility and good character: The manner in which a professional
regulatory body may assess the «good character» of mobility applicants was
addressed by the Alberta Queen's Bench in the Lum case (2015 ABQB 12, which we wrote about here.
If anything, the Australian example suggests that better (and less) regulation
by legal
regulatory bodies might be a better way to
address concentration.
While there can be many reasons why a registrant may refuse to accept a consent resolution to a bona fide, serious complaint, if the investigation committee had first proposed a non-disciplinary way to deal with that registrant's underlying addiction and
address the resulting negative effects, such a rejected proposal can be used to demonstrate that the
regulatory body did not discriminate against that registrant
by then moving on to a disciplinary hearing.
Thus even where an appeal or review
body has gone on to
address alleged discrimination
by a
regulatory body, this does not necessarily oust the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal to
address discrimination.