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.
He therefore concludes that the OMT programme can be
reviewed in this preliminary ruling, also because «the alternative — namely declaring an act such as the OMT programme not actionable — would entail the risk
of excluding a
significant number
of decisions of the ECB from all
judicial review merely on the ground that they have not been formally adopted and published in the Official Journal» (at 89).
In their brief, the amici assert that the availability
of judicial review of agency
decisions serves important purposes, by «providing assurance that agencies do not exceed the limits
of their statutory authority and treat parties fairly, consistently, and rationally,» particularly in the arena
of CAMELS ratings, which «are a cornerstone to bank regulation» and have the potential to have «
significant impact» on banks» businesses and activities.