Sentences with phrase «of the health professions act»

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.»

[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.

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...

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.

Not exact matches

Under the Health Professions Regulatory Bodies Act 2013, Act 857, the punishment for practising medicine without licence is a minimum fine of not less than GH cents 12, 000 and not more than Gh cents 120,000 or an imprisonment term of not more than 20 years or both.

Recently, naturopathic medicine has been in the spotlight in Ontario, with increased media focus on the profession's transition to new regulations, as naturopathic doctors become a part of the Registered Health Professionals Act (RHPA).

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).

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

«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».»

This is the proposal that decisions relating to a healthcare professional's health, made by the OHPA or the relevant committees of the other healthcare regulators, should be subject to the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence's power to refer to the High Court under s 29 of the NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002 (pending the GMC receiving powers to bring its own appeals against decisions of the OHPA).

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...

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.

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.

Acted for professionals before administrative tribunals, including Human Rights Tribunal, the Health Professions Review Board, the College of Dental Surgeons, the Hospital Appeal Board, the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, and the Emergency Medical Assistants Licensing Board.

The implications of the case go beyond the College of Massage Therapists, as the case clarifies the standard of evidence required for many health professions» governing bodies to act quickly in the public interest.

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.

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.

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.»

She has acted as counsel for hospitals, nurses, physicians and other health practitioners at inquests, civil trials, various levels of courts and administrative tribunals, including the Health Professions Appeal and Review health practitioners at inquests, civil trials, various levels of courts and administrative tribunals, including the Health Professions Appeal and Review Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

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.

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.

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-.

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.

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.

(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;

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.

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

He also acts in regulatory cases (for example, concerning the health professions and the care of vulnerable adults).

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.

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.&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.&health profession.»

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.

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 iHealth 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 iHealth 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 ihealth professionals bearing on whether the treatment caused the injury.

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...

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).

(3) A health profession corporation shall not practise a health profession when it does not satisfy the requirements for a professional corporation under subsection 3.2 (2) of the Business Corporations Act or a requirement established under subsection 3.2 (6) of that Act.

(2) The provisions of the Business Corporations Act, including the regulations made under that Act, that apply with respect to professional corporations apply with respect to a health profession corporation established under subsection (1).

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

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.

«health profession corporation» means a corporation incorporated under the Business Corporations Act that holds a valid certificate of authorization issued under this Act or the Code; («société professionnelle de la santé»)

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»).

Executive Director Balasa wrote a letter to leaders of both houses of the United States Congress advocating funding for the medical assistant profession and other allied health professions under Title VII of the Public Health Servicehealth professions under Title VII of the Public Health ServiceHealth Services Act.

Letter to Congress Urging Funding for the Medical Assistant Profession and Other Allied Health Professions under Title VII of the Public Health Services Act

The Sunrise Act states that a health profession should be regulated or scope of practice expanded only when:

16 SB 319 / HCSFA S. B. 319 (SUB)- 1 - HOUSE SUBSTITUTE TO SENATE BILL 319 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT 1 To amend Title 43 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to professions and 2 businesses, so as to provide that professional counseling includes diagnosing emotional and 3 mental problems and conditions; to clarify that persons licensed as professional counselors, 4 social workers, and marriage and family therapists are not authorized to conduct 5 psychological testing; to provide for legislative findings and intent; to provide for a 6 curriculum of continuing education relating to diagnosing; to provide for the establishment 7 of rules and regulations regarding testing conducted by licensed professional counselors; to 8 clarify that psychological testing is part of the practice of psychology; to provide that certain 9 licensed persons are able to perform certain tests other than psychological testing; to revise 10 definitions; to amend Code Section 37 -1-1 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, 11 relating to definitions relative to the general provisions governing and regulating mental 12 health, so as to conform a cross-reference; to provide for related matters; to provide an 13 effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

For the child care professions, such as social work, child and adolescent mental health services, and all professionals involved in implementing the Children Act, the last decade has been a particularly exciting one, with research from a variety of sources definitively showing associations between certain aspects of parenting and the emotional, social, and educational development of children.