Health Professions Review Board Final Decisions
 HomeAbout the Appeal BoardNewsContact UsSearchLinks


Final Decisions

Registration Decisions

The official version of the Review Board decision is the Member-approved copy, held in the Review Board’s files. If there is a discrepancy between a decision on our web site and the official version, the official version is authoritative.

Note: These decisions have been converted to PDF. Any error in these decisions will be corrected as identified.

2020

2019-HPA-207 re: The College of Chiropractors of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee decision under s.50.54 HPA – Registration Committee decision confirmed. The Applicant filed an application for review of the Registration Committee’s decision which declined to grant the Applicant full registration. The Applicant had been a full registrant of the College until August 2016 when he opted to change his status to non-practising. For the next three years the Applicant pursued employment is a different profession. In August 2019, a full three years after being designated as non-practising, the Applicant applied for full registration with the College. The Registration Committee wrote to the Applicant that they were not satisfied that he met the requirements for full registration in accordance with s.47(4) of the College Bylaws, which pertains to return to full registration. During his three year of non-registered status, the Applicant did not engage practicing as a chiropractor in another regulated jurisdiction for a minimum of 300 hours, nor did he complete a minimum of 20 hours of continuing education to meet the criteria and guidelines established by the quality assurance committee under s.58 of the College Bylaws. The Applicant had also not complied with and continuing education requirements during his non-practising tenure. The Registration Committee proposed that in order to be reinstated to full registration, the Applicant would need to successfully complete the clinical skills examinations specified by the Registration Committee. The Applicant found the decision to be undeserved as he only missed the reinstatement deadline by a relatively short period for various personal and professional reasons.
The Review Board found that the Applicant was informed of the College Bylaw requirements for maintaining non-practising status in anticipation of full-practising status. After reviewing the Record, it was determined the Registration Committee acted in a manner consistent with the Act and College Bylaws and that these Bylaws supported the College decision to make the Applicant’s reinstatement as a practicing member provisional on him passing the examination. Requiring the Applicant to pass a qualification examination along with required continuing education course work prior to registration for practicing status is consistent with the Bylaws and the College’s core mandate of public protection. The Committee took reasonable and justifiable steps within their jurisdiction to consider this application. The decision of the Committee is confirmed.
June 8, 2020 (Posted June 26, 2020)

2019-HPA-057 re: Applicant v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing on an application for review of a College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (“College”) Registration Committee decision under s. 50.54 of the Health Professions Act (the “Act”). Matter sent back to Registration Committee for reconsideration with direction to remove the limits and conditions it has, without legal authority, purported to place on the Applicant’s registration.
Background
The Applicant is an orthopedic surgeon who is a registrant of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons, and practised in Saskatchewan. Since 2008, he also paid annual membership dues and maintained full registration with the BC College. In 2016, the Saskatchewan health authority which had given the Applicant a permit to practise in its hospitals (“hospital privileges”), suspended his privileges due to concerns about patient safety, and commenced proceedings to determine whether his privileges should be revoked. The health authority informed the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons about this; the Saskatchewan College decided to wait for the outcome of the health authority proceedings before deciding what action to take; in the meantime, the Applicant remained a full registrant of the Saskatchewan College.
BC Proceedings
In 2017 and 2018, the Applicant disclosed the fact of the ongoing Saskatchewan health authority proceeding to the BC College on his annual licence renewal form and, at the College’s request, he provided them with the health authority’s decision of June 2018. In July 2018, the Applicant informed the BC College that he wished to attend a fellowship program at the University of British Columbia. At the College’s request, the Applicant completed an application for “return to practice”, providing information about the Saskatchewan health authority privileges disciplinary proceedings, a criminal matter in which charges were stayed, civil actions in which he was named and complaints against him with the Saskatchewan College. In January 2019, the BC College Registration Committee refused a “reinstatement” of the Applicant’s registration as it had concerns about potential safety risks associated with his practise. The Applicant applied for a review of the Committee’s decision, arguing that the Registration Committee had no legal right to refuse him registration as he was a paid-up registrant of the BC College in good standing. Also, he had provided a certificate of professional conduct from the Saskatchewan College and was thus entitled to registration under s. 25.3 of the Act; he should be registered automatically under the Labour Mobility Act.
The Registration Committee reconsidered the matter and issued a new decision in May 2019, offering the Applicant two options, both with specific conditions attached.
Submissions of the Parties
The Applicant filed a second application for review, largely reiterating his original arguments. The Applicant also submitted that when he first asked the College to confirm his registration in August 2018, his practise status was “current”. However, the Registration Committee’s “delay” in reaching a decision meant that he became subject to BC College Bylaw 2-8, which requires that a registrant must undergo a competence review if they wish to practise in an area in which they have practised less than 24 weeks in the preceding 3 years. He alleged the delay was arbitrary or in bad faith, for an improper purpose, based predominantly on irrelevant factors and in ignorance of the requirements of the Health Professions Act and the bylaws of the CPSBC. The College submitted that the Registration Committee’s decision was reasonable; Its authority applies equally to new applicants as to registrants who seek to return to active practice in BC, and the Act gives the Committee broad discretion to grant registration taking into account a person’s knowledge skills and abilities. S. 25.3 of the Act is not a rubber stamp that allows any applicant from another jurisdiction to practise in BC simply upon presentation of a certificate of professional conduct, and in any case, the Applicant’s certificate of conduct noted the suspension of the Applicant’s privileges and that the Saskatchewan College had yet to determine what action it would take. Also, the Bylaws require an applicant for registration from another jurisdiction to certify that there is nothing underway in that jurisdiction that could affect the applicant’s entitlement to practise medicine, and the Applicant did not do so.The Applicant replied that the Registration Committee has authority to accept certificates of professional conduct, but has no authority to impose conditions on a licensed registrant’s practise.
Standard of Review
The Review Board noted that the Act does not set a standard of review that must apply in reviewing registration committee decisions, although it does set out a number of criteria that must be met if the Review Board decides to grant an applicant registration in a college. Prior Review Board decisions were canvassed to identify principles to be followed when considering the standard of review. The standard of review in this hearing is correctness because the central issues are about statutory interpretation and legal in nature - whether the Registration Committee has authority over licensed registrants and its lawful role in relation to s. 25.3 of the Act and the Labour Mobility Act. The Review Board considered Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. It found this case governs judicial review, and does not speak to the internal standard of review to be applied by the Review Board on a registration review.
Finding
The Review Board determined that the role of the Registration Committee is to grant or reinstate registration of a person as a member of the College: Act s. 20(1). However, the Registration Committee was not entitled to “grant” the Applicant registration, because he was already an active, fully paid-up registrant. Neither could it suspend or place conditions on a registration it had already granted, even if the registrant is seeking to return to active practice in BC, or in the interests of public safety. The College has other bodies with the legal responsibility and statutory tools at their disposal to limit or prohibit the practise of a registrant in order to protect the public. These are the College Board and its quality assurance, inquiry and discipline committees. With respect to s. 25.3 of the Act, the decision-making role belongs to the Registrar, not the Registration Committee. The Labour Mobility Act does not give the Registration Committee additional authority to place conditions on an active registrant’s licence, as the College argued. However, it does not take away from the powers of the Registrar and other College decision-making bodies to protect the public from a registrant under the Act.
Remedy
The matter is sent back to the Registration Committee for reconsideration, with direction to remove the limits and conditions it purported to place on the Applicant’s practice. This does not grant the Applicant registration it only remedies the Registration Committee’s decision which was not lawfully made. The College’s Bylaw 2-8 requirement for “current” practise status, being in the public interest, still applies to the Applicant. The College interacted in good faith with the Applicant, and the need for public protection prevails over any prejudice to the Applicant arising from the time the process took. The Applicant’s application to reopen his Statement of Points based on discredited expert witness testimony in the Saskatchewan health authority proceeding is dismissed, as this was argued on the assumption that the Registration Committee authority over active BC registrants, which it does not.
May 28, 2020 (Posted June 12, 2020)

2019-HPA-155(b) re: The British Columbia College of Nursing Professionals
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee decision under s.50.54 of the Health Professions Act – decision confirmed. The Applicant applied for registration in British Columbia as a Licensed Practical Nurse on the basis that her registration in that class in another province is equivalent here. However, because the Applicant had not met the continuing competency requirements in the other province, the Committee required the Applicant to undergo an independent assessment of her competence. The assessment revealed that the Applicant met LPN entry-level competencies in only 1 of 8 fields, giving rise to the College’s concern about safety to the public unless the Applicant took substantial transitional education. The Applicant applied for review of the decision, asserting that the College failed to consider her licensure in the other province, and the additional course work requirements are onerous and unfair. On review of the College’s registration file, the Panel deferred to the expertise of the Registration Committee with respect to the assessment of the Applicant’s competency and found that the Committee fairly considered the Applicant’s application and material in support of her application along with the competency assessment. Based on the College’s bylaw and the competency assessment, the Registration Committee justifiably and reasonably determined that the Applicant did not meet the requirements for registration. The decision is intelligible, reasonable, justified and compliant with the Act and College bylaws.
May 13, 2020 (Posted May 29, 2020)

HPRB-HPA-20-A007 re: The British Columbia College of Nursing Professionals
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee decision under s.50.54 HPA – Registration Committee decision confirmed. The Applicant received training as a Registered Nurse abroad and applied to the College for registration within British Columbia. The College determined that the Applicant did not meet the requirements for practising Registered Nurse registration, predominantly in the area of education and competence. The Registration Committee explained that in order to meet the education and competence requires, the Applicant was required to successfully complete a College recognized Bachelor of Nursing Education program and successfully pass the National Council Licensure Examination. In the decision letter, the Registration Committee summarized that the results of the assessment showed that the Applicant did not exhibit knowledge, skill and ability at a level of proficiency to suggest that they were ready for safe, competent and ethical practice in British Columbia without further education. In their decision letter, the Registration Committee acknowledged that the Applicant had reported completing several courses in relation to health care, including the Nurse Ready certificate in their country of origin. The Panel was not satisfied that the certificate bridged the disparities in relation to the Applicant’s knowledge, skills and abilities, and competencies specific to practising as a Registered Nurse in this province. The Applicant asked the Review Board to review the decision, stating that the decision rendered was too harsh and unfair. The Review Board concluded that based on the Record, the Registration Committee’s decision was comprehensive, justifiable and easy to understand. The decision fairly and transparently set out and discussed all the factors the Registration Committee considered, including the Applicant’s international assessment results, work experience, education and family situation. The Registration Committee did consider the Applicant’s request for a re-entry program, only to conclude that this would not address the deficiencies identified. The Review Board found that the Registration Committee considered all reasonable alternatives for the Applicant. After reviewing the Record, it was determined the Registration Committee acted in a manner consistent with the Act and College Bylaws. The Review Board identified that the Registration Committee’s decision was reasonable, transparent and justified. The Review Board confirmed the decision of the Registration Committee.
May 13, 2020 (Posted May 29, 2020)

2019-HPA-174 re: The College of Denturists of British Columbia (No.1)
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee decision under s.50.54 of the Health Professions Act – decision confirmed. The Applicant sought review of the decision denying her full registration because she failed to pass a required examination. The Applicant wants the College to review her exam, excluding the two failing parts of it that test a subject that she says was not taught at school. The Panel noted that the Review Board does not have the expertise to assess any dissonance between what the Applicant was taught in school, and what she was examined on. The Applicant did not allege the Registration Committee acted inappropriately or unreasonably, or that it did not comply with the Act or bylaws. The Panel found that the Registration Committee simply and objectively enforced its examination standards, which formed a pre-requisite to the granting of ‘Active Full Registration.’ The Record contains no indication that the Registration Committee acted unfairly, arbitrarily, in bad faith or unlawfully. There is no evidence of bias or reliance on irrelevant factors. Neither the decision nor the decision-making process violated any legislative mandates.
April 30, 2020 (Posted May 15, 2020)

2019-HPA-157 – Decision No. 1 re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a decision made by a Registration Committee under section 50.54 of the Health Professions Act – confirmed. The Applicant was registered in the provisional category of licensure subject to certain conditions being met within five years. The Applicant sought to be relieved of those conditions and to be registered in the full licensure category of the College without obtaining the certification by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Canada (RCPSC). The Registration Committee denied the Applicant’s request and in their decision confirmed that he would remain in the provisional category and be required to obtain RCPSC certification. The Applicant took the position that the Registration Committee’s decision was unreasonable because it failed to consider the effect the closure of his practice would have on the community he served and on public health in the region. At the Review Board written hearing the Applicant took the position that the additional documents submitted by the College related to matters that occurred after the Registration Committee’s decision should not be admitted. The Panel Chair found that admitting the additional information would render the disclosure more complete and would enable the Review Board to render a full, fair and proper decision and they were admitted. The Review Board set out that the question of fairness concerns the procedure used by the Registration Committee to reach its decision, not the merits of the decision itself. Whether a decision was procedurally unfair is reviewed on the common law standard of procedural fairness, while the merits of the decision are reviewed on the standard of reasonableness. It was noted that the Applicant did not raise a procedural fairness issue in this application for review by the Review Board. The Applicant submitted that the College’s failure to communicate to him that the PER pathway to full licensure was not available to him reinforced the legitimate expectation that the route remained available to him. The Review Board disagreed with this assumption that it was College’s responsibility to keep the Applicant informed of the status of the PER route and at the time they informed the Applicant that the PER route was only available for psychiatry. The Review Board found that the Applicant did not allege that the Registration Committee’s process was unfair in any other way. The Review Board concluded that the Registration Committee was not procedurally unfair, and there is no reason to interfere with its decision on that basis. The Registration Committee decision had a rational foundation, and was sufficiently justified and intelligible having regard to the record and the reasons given, and the nature and importance of its decision. Therefore the decision was confirmed.
April 28, 2020 (Posted May 15, 2020)

HPRB-HPA-19-A238 re: The British Columbia College of Nursing Professionals
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee decision under s.50.54 HPA – Registration Committee decision confirmed. The Applicant, who trained as a Registered Nurse abroad, filed an application for review of the Registration Committee’s decision which determined that the she did not meet the requirements for practising Registered Nurse registration, specific to education, competence and the exam. The Applicant asked the Review Board to change the decision and permit registration through a re-entry program. In the decision letter, the Registration Committee directed that the Applicant’s registration was contingent on her effectively completing a recognized Baccalaureate Registered Nursing program followed by passing the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses. In their decision letter, the Registration Committee described several points that led to the decision, including the Applicant’s education not being comparable to a nursing program in Canada and that the Applicant had not practised as a Registered Nurse since obtaining her registration abroad. The Registration Committee concluded that the Applicant did not demonstrate competencies to safely meet the requirements for registration in British Columbia. The Review Board concluded that based on the Record, the Registration Committee completed a comprehensive assessment of the Applicant’s application and that they did consider a re-entry program, only to conclude that the deficiencies in the area of education and experience were too great, requiring additional education. The Review Board found that the Registration Committee considered all reasonable alternatives for the Applicant. After reviewing the Record, it was determined the Registration Committee acted in a manner consistent with the Act and College Bylaws. The Review Board identified that the Registration Committee’s decision was transparent, justified, fair and reasonable. The Review Board confirmed the decision of the Registration Committee.
April 27, 2020 (Posted May 15, 2020)

2019-HPA-137 re: The British Columbia College of Nursing Professionals
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee decision under s. 50.54 HPA – Registration Committee decision confirmed. The Applicant filed an application for review of the Registration Committee’s decision which declined to grant the Applicant provisional registration. The Applicant was trained and worked as a registered nurse abroad. In their decision letter, the Registration Committee directed that the Applicant’s registration was contingent on her meeting the requirements for provisional registration in that she must complete a College recognised re-entry program or complete a Bachelor of Nursing program and pass the National Nursing Exam. Registration with the College for out of country trained applicants is conditional on an applicant showing that they meet the competency requirements equivalent to that of a new graduate of the same class of nursing in this province. Following the Applicant’s request for a review the College Deputy Registrar agreed to reconsider the matter. During the reconsideration review, the Registration Committee reviewed additional documents submitted by the Applicant. The Registration Panel upheld their previous decision and direction that the Applicant did not meet the requirements for practising as a registered nurse in British Columbia. The Review Board found that the initial decision letter provided minimal explanation of how the Committee came to their decision. Whereas, the reconsideration decision was comprehensible, making it very clear what was required of the Applicant in order for her to obtain provisional registration. After reviewing the Record, it was determined the Registration Committee acted in a manner consistent with the Act and College Bylaws. The Review Board identified that the Registration Committee’s decision was transparent, justified, fair and reasonable. The Review Board directed the decision of the Registration Committee should be confirmed and the application for registration to practice as a Registered Nurse in British Columbia be denied.
April 9, 2020 (Posted April 24, 2020)

2019-HPA-212 – Decision No. 1 re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Application to re-open under Section 53(5) of Administrative Tribunals Act (ATA) (dismissed); Application for extension of time to file an application for review (dismissed); and Application for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Section 31 of ATA (granted). This review concerns three matters: 1.) The application by the Applicant to reopen Review Board Decision No. 2016-HPA-032(a) issued on October 26, 2016 which confirmed two Registration Committee decisions in relation to the Applicant. 2.) The application by the Applicant for an extension of time to file an application for review relating to a number of events concerning alleged actions taken by the College’s Executive Director, from 2016 to 2019 which related to the Applicant’s registration and the alleged blocking of access to the Registration Committee, as well as the Executive Director’s alleged interference in complaints made against the Applicant by two physicians that that were decided by the Inquiry Committee and subsequently upheld by the Court upon appeal. 3) The application by the College for summary dismissal pursuant to s.31(1) of the ATA in which they argued that no registration application had been blocked, there is no new registration decision to review, and the Applicant’s concerns about undertakings is moot and without merit. Further it submitted that the Applicant’s complaints against the College’s Executive Director are outside the authority of the Registration Committee and the Review Board. The Review Board Panel Chair rejected the application to reopen Decision 2016-HPA-032 issued in 2016 and noted that “the legislature’s statement that Review Board decisions are ‘final and conclusive’ (Act s.50.63(2)) would have little meaning if an application could be reopened more than three years after the fact based on a party’s realization that he could or should have made different or better arguments based on the evidence. With respect to the application for an extension of time to file the Review Board stated that the argument that an applicant has an absolute right to make serial identical applications to the registration committee on a matter it has already disposed of is bound to fail, and that is what the Applicant’s application amounted to. Further the Applicant’s allegations that the Executive Director’s actions improperly influenced the complaints against him and the ensuing Inquiry Committee disposition was also bound to fail as these complaints did not pertain to an underlying registration decision. Further under the Act, only complainants can apply to the Review Board to seek a review of an Inquiry Committee disposition. Applicants and registrants do not have a right to seek a review of an Inquiry Committee disposition before the Review Board, as under the Act they only have the right to seek a review of a Registration Committee decision. In conclusion the Applicant’s application to reopen Decision 2016-HPA-032(a) was dismissed. Further the Review Board concluded that based on the finding that the application for an extension of time had no reasonable prospect of success and was bound to fail on all of the grounds on which an extension of time was sought, the Applicant’s application for an extension of time was dismissed, and the College’s summary dismissal in relation to that application was granted.
April 2, 2020 (Posted April 24, 2020)

2019-HPA-102 – Decision No. 1 re: The College of Opticians of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee decision under s. 50.54 HPA – confirmed. The Applicant filed an application for review of a decision of the Registration Committee of the College which determined that the Applicant was not eligible to take the required contact lenses examination until he completed a prior learning assessment process for contact lenses, or successfully completed an accredited contact lens program. The Applicant alleged that in arriving at the Registration Committee’s decision the College ignored its own bylaws; ignored or reversed his accepted credentials; failed to notify him of changes to their policies and procedures; and made incorrect findings of fact. The Review Board did not accept the Applicant’s position which suggested that the prior approval by the College to take the Contact Lens Exam was unlimited and unending. As the College noted there have been many changes to contact lens theory since the Applicant graduated in 1981, and he had not completed any related continuing educational programs in the field. With respect to the Applicant’s allegations that the College failed to notify him of changes to their policies and procedures, the Review Board found that it is not the responsibility of the College to personally notify applicants or registrants of any such policy changes. This would require herculean administrative efforts on the part of Colleges. Notifying applicants and registrants of such changes through its annual reports, website and newsletter are reasonable and adequate steps to keep applicants and registrants current. The Panel Chair determined that Applicants and registrants can not abdicate or delegate their professional responsibilities to the College as the Applicant suggested. The Review Board found that the Applicant was unable to establish that the decision of the Registration Committee was unfair or made in bad faith. It was noted that the Registration Committee is best qualified to assess what conditions must be met before the Applicant can take the contact lens exam. It was not unreasonable or unfair to require the Applicant to address any educational or knowledge gaps prior to taking the contact lens exam. In conclusion the Review Board confirmed the decision of the Registration Committee.
March 12, 2020 (Posted April 24, 2020)

2019-HPA-096(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee decision under s. 50.54 HPA – Matter sent back to Registration Committee for reconsideration with directions. The Applicant filed an application for review of the Registration Committee ’s decision which denied her provisional registration, a type of registration tailored for international medical graduates. At the time the Applicant’s application was considered by the Committee, the College Bylaws allowed for two paths to provisional registration; the Approved Jurisdiction Route (AJR) for physicians trained in international jurisdictions with medical training accepted by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons (a national professional association that oversees the medical education and certification of specialists in Canada), and the Practice Eligibility Route (PER) for physicians trained outside of the accepted areas. The main question before the Review Board was whether the Registration Committee committed a reviewable error in its interpretation and application of s. 2-16(1)(b)(iii) of the College Bylaw which requires among other things that an applicant must have completed postgraduate training and obtained certification in the applicant’s specialty from an international accrediting body where such training meets the criteria for post-graduate specialty education as set by the RCPSC regarding standards, content and duration which, in the opinion of the registration committee, should provide access to RCPSC certification through its specialty examinations or PER. At the start of the PER route to provisional registration, the Royal College does a preliminary comparison of the applicant's non-Canadian medical training vis a vis Canadian medical training, then provides a letter stating what requirements the applicant must fulfil in order to access the PER, including the length of time the applicant must practise in Canada (the "PER Comparison Letter"). After the applicant has practised in Canada for the required period, the Royal College assesses the applicant’s practise to determine whether to allow the applicant to write the Royal College assessment exams. The Registration Committee decided that in order to be eligible for provisional registration under section (b)(iii), the applicant’s training must meet the standards as set out by the Royal College and the applicant must have been granted eligibility to write the Royal College examinations. The College submits that because the Applicant is not from an approved jurisdiction, the Comparison Letter is too “preliminary” to be able to satisfy the Committee, as it is at most an “entry point” statement by the Royal College that an applicant is conditionally eligible to write the examinations after 2 years of practice in Canada and a further assessment by the Royal College. However, for the reference to PER as a possible route to registration in the Bylaw to have any meaning, the College Board must have intended to require the Registration Committee to be prepared to grant provisional registration to at least some applicants who have a PER Comparison Letter. The Committee could not reasonably redefine “should” in section (b)(iii) to require certainty or “imminent” entitlement to take Royal College examinations when it must have known that the Royal College does not make such findings until after two years of practice. The reference to “should” and “PER” can only have rational meaning if the Registration Committee is required to make an informed forward-looking assessment based on all the circumstances. To conclude that no PER Comparison Letter would ever suffice, is to amend the Bylaw, which is outside the Committee’s mandate. The Committee cannot abdicate its role simply because the assessment is challenging, because it disagrees with the Royal College’s processes, or because it does not want to assume the risk of assessing whether a specialist candidate is worthy of provisional registration. Section (b)(iii) required the Committee to consider the PER Confirmation Letter in the context of forming an opinion about whether an applicant’s post-graduate training “should” provide access to Royal College certification through PER. As such, the Review Board found the Registration Committee decision was unreasonable and ordered that the matter be sent back to the Registration Committee for reconsideration with directions.
February 20, 2020 (Posted March 6, 2020)

2019-HPA-151(a) re: The British Columbia College of Nursing Professionals
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee decision under s.50.54 HPA – Registration Committee decision confirmed. The Applicant filed an application for review of the Registration Committee’s decision which declined to grant the Applicant reinstatement as a practising Licensed Practical Nurse. The Registration Committee determined that all conditions and requirements for reinstatement pursuant to s.20(2)(b) of the Act had not been adequately met by the Applicant, specifically in the area of competence to practice. The College noted that the evidence provided by the Applicant did not demonstrate that she had considerable knowledge, skills and abilities comparable to that of a current graduate of a College recognized Practical Nursing education program and the competencies required for practising Licensed Practical Nursing registration. After reviewing the Record, the Review Board found that the College made reasonable attempts to facilitate the Applicant’s application for reinstatement under their Policy and Bylaws and determined that the Registration Committee acted in a manner supported by the governing legislation. The Review Board identified that the Registration Committee took reasonable and justifiable steps within their jurisdiction to consider the application. The Review Board confirmed the registration committee’s denial of the Applicant’s application for reinstatement of her practising licensure.
January 15, 2020 (Posted February 26, 2020)

2019

2019-HPA-183(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee decision under s.50.54 of the Health Professions Act – application for review dismissed. The Applicant filed an application for review of a “Registration Decision” purportedly made by the College on August 28, 2019 alleging that he had not been informed until recently of a certain requirement for registration that he was unable to fulfill. On review of the Record of the Registration Committee’s file, the Panel found that the College’s letter dated March 9, 2018 provided the Applicant with a preliminary assessment of his education and credentials, and informed him of the requirements for registration. The Record also shows that the letter dated August 28, 2019 is not a decision of the Registration Committee, but a piece of administrative correspondence from the Executive Director of the College responsible for the Registration department responding to the Applicant’s inquiry and reiterating the conditions for registration set by the Registration Committee on April 19, 2018 which were communicated to him in its decision dated May 2, 2018, that he was eligible for registration in the provisional – general/family class subject to certain conditions. The Applicant did not apply within the statutory time limit to have that decision reviewed; rather, he took steps to meet several of the conditions. The Review Board has previously found that a letter from the Executive Director, Registration of the College that is written in response to an inquiry by an applicant and describes the consequences that flow from an applicant’s failure to meet conditions set by the Registration Committee is not a “decision” that is subject to review. The Panel concluded that there is not a Registration Committee decision properly before the Review Board for review and dismissed the application.
December 30, 2019 (Posted February 26, 2020)

2018-HPA-135(a) re: The College of Denturists of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee decision under s. 50.54 of the Health Professions Act (Act) – matter sent back for reconsideration. The Applicant sought a review of the decision of the Registration Committee to deny the Applicant a license to practice as an active full denturist. The Registration Committee determined that the Applicant was not eligible for Registration as he had failed to pass the Complete Denture Examination (CDE). The Applicant submitted that the Registration Committee failed to consider the significant testing and scoring errors that occurred during the CDE. Further he alleged there were breaches of the examination protocols and established procedures that resulted in unfairness for him during the exam. Upon review of the Record the Review Board could not conclude that the registration decision in regard to the results of the examination before them was made arbitrarily or in bad faith, or was made for an improper purpose, was based on irrelevant factors, or failed to take into account the requirements under the Act. However, it was apparent from the Record that strict compliance with established protocols was not followed which included assigning the Applicant to a last-minute patient who had not been properly pre-screened. The difficult situation for the Applicant was recognized by the exam coordinator at the commencement of the exam, but the additional challenges for the Applicant were not brought to the attention of the three examiners or the Registration Committee. The Review Board ordered that the matter be sent back to the Registration Committee for reconsideration with the direction that they take into consideration the challenges faced by the Applicant during the examination and acknowledged by the examination coordinator.
July 31, 2019 (Posted August 16, 2019)

2017-HPA-107(b) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee decision under s. 50.54 of the Health Professions Act (Act) – Decision confirmed. Following an abeyance of the application for review the applicant passed all necessary assessments on his third examination attempt, and he sought to change his licensing status from “provisional specialty class” to conditional-practice setting class” to practice independently and free from direct supervision of another psychiatrist. In the second Registration decision the Registration Committee declined to change the Applicant’s license status, they required continued supervisor reports, and advised they would defer any decision to upgrade of the Applicant’s license status for a period of one year. The Applicant maintained that the Registration Committee’s decision was unfair and arbitrary and further the conditions imposed were contrary to the Labour Mobility Act (“LMA”) as he had an unrestricted license to practice medicine in New Brunswick. The Review Board noted that the Registration Committee did not seek to deny the Applicant registration as a psychiatrist, but did seek to have some additional, temporary oversight to ensure that its mandate of public safety is properly addressed. A reasonable interpretation of Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the LMA would provide for this. The Review Board was satisfied that the conditions imposed on the Applicant were not arbitrary or made in bad faith, and were focused on protection of the health and safety of the public. As such the decision of the Registration Committee was confirmed. July 29, 2019
July 29, 2019 (Posted August 16, 2019)

2016-HPA-199(d) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a complaint Inquiry Committee disposition under s. 50.6 of the Health Professions Act (Act) – Disposition confirmed. The initiating complaint to the College related to the Registrant’s interaction with the Complainant in September 2013 during a clinic appointment for an injury to his penis, as well as with regard to a number of subsequent unanswered phone calls and voice messages the Complainant received from the Registrant and an unidentified third party. The Complainant asserted that he was extremely traumatized by his experience with the Registrant. During the course of the investigation by the College the Complainant provided more information and submissions on an ongoing basis that required investigations beyond the initial complaint and the total process continued for over three years. After investigation the College concluded the matter with a Consent Agreement which included the requirement that the Registrant be registered in the Conditional-Disciplined class of registration. In addition the College directed that the Registrant’s professional conduct record would permanently reflect the reprimand, he would be required to take certain educational courses, and the matter would be published on the College’s website. The completion of the Review Board hearing was delayed due to a number of interlocutory applications and decisions on preliminary matters relating to the College Record. Ultimately, that Review Board determined that the Inquiry Committee undertook a lengthy and complex investigation that, in total, was thorough, painstaking and comprehensive. As the complaint evolved so did the investigation and it was found to be not only reasonably adequate but it was also inclusive and transparent. In considering the disposition of the Inquiry Committee as a whole the Review Board concluded that it was transparent, understandable, rational, clear and reasonable. It was responsive to the original complaint and other issues progressively disclosed by the Complainant. The disposition reflected the relative degree of seriousness of the matter by providing deterrent discipline and provided strict remedial conditions on the Registrant’s return to his active practice. It both acknowledged the concerns of the Complainant and addressed the safety of the public.
July 23, 2019 (Posted August 7, 2019)

2018-HPA-086(a) re: College of Licensed Practical Nurses of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a registration decision under section 50.54 of the Health Professions Act (Act) – Decision confirmed. The Applicant applied to the Review Board for review of a registration decision. Based on documents submitted by the Applicant, the College Registration Committee was unable to determine that the Applicant’s nursing education was substantially equivalent to that of a College-recognized practical nursing program, and therefore was not satisfied that the Applicant’s knowledge, skills and abilities were substantially equivalent those expected of an entry-level practitioner in BC. The Committee then asked the Applicant to complete an independent competency assessment to assist with their determination. The Applicant completed the assessment, and the resulting report was put before the Committee. The Committee was still not satisfied that the Applicant met the requirements for registration, and determined that the Applicant would have to complete a recognized practical nursing program and write the Canadian Practical Nurses Registration Examination before registration could be granted. On review, the Review Board was not satisfied that the Decision Letter was unfair, or that the Committee acted in bad faith in refusing to grant the Applicant registration. The reasons provided by the Committee were reasonable in that they were easily understood, transparent as to the factors considered, and justified based on the facts and the law. The Review Board confirmed the Registration Committee’s decision.
June 20, 2019 (Posted July 31, 2019)

2019-HPA-035(b) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Expedited hearing of an application for review of a registration decision under section 50.54 of the Health Professions Act (Act) – Decision confirmed.
The Applicant applied to the Review Board for review of a registration decision made on reconsideration by the College’s Registration Committee. The Review Board had previously directed the Committee to undertake a “full and fresh reconsideration of the Applicant’s continued licensure”, concluding that the initial registration decision was procedurally unfair. On reconsideration, the Committee advised the Applicant that he would remain provisionally licensed to provide him time to write the required exam, and that supervisor reports would be required on a more frequent basis. Due to the more onerous supervision requirements, the health authority withdrew their sponsorship for the Applicant’s clinical practice. On review, the Review Board found that the Committee erroneously and unreasonably described the Review Board’s order, and had failed to comment on the supervisor reports beyond stating that they had been reviewed and that “no deficiencies were noted”. However, the Review Board found that the Committee’s decision fell within the ranges of reasonable outcomes. The Committee’s decision to place greater weight on the PER assessment over the supervisor reports was not an unreasonable exercise of its duty to protect the public interest. Additionally, the Committee’s decision was not unreasonable for failing to anticipate that the conditions it imposed would lead to a withdrawal of sponsorship. The Review Board concluded that the process was fair and the outcome was reasonable, and confirmed the Committee’s decision.
June 11, 2019 (Posted July 5, 2019)

2018-HPA-127(a) re: The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a registration decision under section 50.54 of the Health Professions Act (Act) – Decision confirmed. The Applicant applied to the Review Board for review of a decision of the College’s Registration Committee. The Committee had determined that the Applicant’s educational credentials did not satisfy the College’s registration requirements. The Committee concluded that the Applicant’s three-year diploma in an “accredited post-secondary program” was not the equivalent of the “successful completion of not less than two years of liberal arts or sciences study” as required by s. 48(1)(a.1) of the College bylaws. To determine eligibility for future examinations, the Committee invited the Applicant to submit a prior learning assessment report to confirm that the Applicant’s knowledge, skills and abilities are substantially equivalent to the requirements of s. 48(1)(a.1). The Review Board concluded that the Committee’s decision was reasonable, as it was both understandable and justifiable. The Review Board found that the question of whether the Applicant met the requirements of s. 48(1)(a.1) via equivalency under s. 48(4) had not yet been decided, noting that the Applicant is free to request a review of any consequent decision of the Committee on substantial equivalency should she choose to provide the Committee with a prior learning assessment report.
June 7, 2019 (Posted June 21, 2019)

2018-HPA-128(a) re: The College of Denturists of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee (RC) decision under s. 50.54 of the Health Professions Act (HPA) – RC decision confirmed.
The Applicant filed an application for review of the Registration Committee’s decision which declined to grant the Applicant a license to become a Denturist. The Registration Committee advised the Applicant that they had scored within the passing range in some components, however they had not met the minimum passing mark in another area. The Registration Committee directed the Applicant to re-take the portion of the exam that they had not passed at the next opportunity scheduled for July 2019. The Review Board recognized the Applicant’s remarkable grades, high scores in other areas and outstanding references. The Review Board found that the Registration Committee acted within their authority. After reviewing the Record, it was determined the Registration Committee acted in a manner consistent with the Act and College Bylaws. The Review Board identified that the Registration Committee’s decision was transparent, justified, fair and reasonable. The Review Board upheld the Registration Committee’s decision.
January 17, 2019 (Posted February 1, 2019)

2018

2016-HPA-239(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee (RC) decision under 50.54 Health Professions Act (HPA) – remitted back to RC with directions. The Applicant, who was educated and trained in another country, was granted temporary registration status in 2001. Her licence was not renewed in 2010 because she had failed to satisfactorily meet the conditions for full registration despite have been given several extensions to do so. In November 2012 the Applicant informed the Registrar that she had not practiced clinical medicine since February 2010. Her subsequent request for re-instatement was denied and she was informed in 2012 that any further consideration would depend on her meeting certain requirements, a decision that the College reiterated in 2013. In 2014 the Applicant advised the Deputy Registrar that she had met some of the 2012 requirements. In 2016 she advised she had just passed an exam to meet another 2012 requirement. In 2016, and on reconsideration in 2017, the RC determined that the Applicant did not meet the current requirements for re-registration and re-licensure, which had changed since 2014. The College argued that the Applicant did not have the right to seek review of the 2016 and 2017 RC decisions because she had not completed the College’s application for registration form, a requirement under College bylaw 2-3(1). The College submitted that the RC had the discretion in 2012 to “grandfather” the applicant – ie. to decide whether the Applicant should be subject to the earlier requirements or the current ones. It also argued that College staff provided the Applicant in 2012 and 2013 with requirements for eligibility, not registration and licensure, and given the time gap between 2014 and 2016 it was unreasonable for the Applicant to expect the eligibility requirements to never change. In 2016 and 2017 the RC relied on the Applicant’s failure to file a formal application, and on her contravention of the College’s 2014 policy that limited the period an applicant may remain on the provisional register to 5 years. The Applicant argued that the College gave her a set of clear conditions in December 2012 and she had set out to satisfy those expectations. The Panel held that the filing of a formal application under College bylaw 2-3(1) is not a legal pre-requisite to a person applying to the Review Board for review where the College process involved the RC making a substantive registration eligibility decision without the necessity of filing an application. The Panel found that the content and absence of stated time limits in the College staff recommendations and the RC’s 2012 decision can only be properly and fairly understood as a decision to grandfather the Applicant given her licensing history. The 2016 and 2017 decisions were not reasonable because the RC arbitrarily changed the 2012 decision grandfathering the Applicant based on “consistency” with no explanation as to why the conditions in the 2012 decision were no longer adequate to address any concerns about protecting the public. The Panel remitted the matter back to the RC for reconsideration with a number of specific directions, one of which was that the College not rely on the 2014 policy for determining that the Applicant should not be granted provisional registration.
August 24, 2018 (Posted September 11, 2018)

2017-HPA-106(b) re The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee (RC) decision under s. 50.54 HPA – Matter referred back to RC with directions. This is a review of a College decision to revoke the Applicant’s provisional license to practice medicine. The Review Board granted a stay of the RC’s decision pending the disposition of the review or until further order of the Review Board. At the hearing the Panel Chair found that there were numerous aspects to the breach of the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness. The Review Board noted that deference to the RC’s expertise is not inconsistent with requiring it to explain its own thinking on key issues and their lack of transparency in this regard rendered their decision unreasonable. Having found that the decisions of the RC were tainted by procedural unfairness those decisions are invalid by operation of law. It follows that the Applicant’s provisional registration and licensure status continues until a procedurally fair decision is made by the RC. The Review Board directed the RC to undertake a full and fresh reconsideration of the Applicant’s continued licensure.
August 13, 2018 (Posted August 31, 2018)

2018-HPA-007(a) re: The College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee (RC) decision under s. 50.54 HPA – RC decision confirmed. The Applicant filed an application for review of the RC’s decision which found that he did not satisfactorily meet the College’s competence requirements and was no longer eligible for provisional registration. The RC decision set out that the Applicant must complete certain transitional education courses to be eligible for practicing RN registration. The Review Board was satisfied that the RC was entitled to consider whether the Applicant had demonstrated that he had competence comparable to a Canadian RN graduate. The Panel Chair noted that the reasons for the RC decision only partially met the accepted indicia of reasonableness in that they were not easily understood. That said, the reasons transparently set out the factors that the RC considered, and the decision was justified, in the result. No purpose would be achieved by sending the matter back to the RC for reconsideration where the result was reasonable. The RC is tasked with ensuring that the internationally educated nurses that it registers and licenses are as competent as the new Canadian graduates of nursing who are registered by the College. It is in the public interest from them to do so. The Review Board confirmed the RC’s decision to decline to extend the Applicant’s provisional registration and to require him to complete further coursework before granting registration.
June 25, 2018 (Posted July 13, 2018)

2017-HPA-105(b) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee (RC) decision under s. 50.54 HPA – RC decision confirmed. The Applicant filed an application for review of the RC’s decision which declined to grant the Applicant an extension of his provisional registration and licensure for the practice of psychiatry. The RC directed that the Applicant’s registration and licensure be cancelled. The Review Board issued a preliminary decision granting the Applicant’s application for a stay of the RC’s decision pending the outcome of the Review Board hearing on the merits. At the hearing the Review Board noted that public safety was a concern considered by the RC and played a significant role in their decision to restrict the Applicant’s practice up until the time it was set to lapse. The Review Board found that the Applicant had been offered every opportunity to make submissions to the RC and upon a review of the Record the Panel Chair did not uncover any failure by the RC to act fairly. It was determined that the RC acted in a manner consistent with the Act and the College Bylaws and that its decision was transparent, justified, fair and reasonable. The Review Board directed that the Applicant’s registration and licensure to lapse in two months, and that the Applicant enter into a voluntary undertaking with the College to refrain from accepting any new patients into his practice and providing any services in emergency medicine.
June 25, 2018 (Posted July 13, 2018)

2017-HPA-038(a) re: The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee (RC) decision under s. 50.54 HPA – Matter sent back to RC for reconsideration with directions. The Applicant filed an application for review of a decision of the RC of the College in which the RC determined that the Applicant’s educational credentials did not satisfy the College’s registration requirements for full registration as a registered acupuncturist. The Review Board raised a number of concerns and found it could not conclude that the RC’s reasons regarding the substantially equivalency issue were transparent, intelligible or justified. The Panel Chair was not satisfied that it was reasonable for the RC to conclude that the Applicant had not demonstrated that she had the “knowledge, skills and abilities” that “are substantially equivalent to the standards of academic and technical achievement and the competencies or other qualifications.” It was found that the Registrar’s letter offered only a conclusory statement that the Applicant did not satisfy the requirements of the Bylaw. It was unclear what test the RC applied to its deliberations and it was equally unclear whether the Applicant was advised of the threshold she would have to meet to satisfy the RC and afforded the opportunity to make submissions on the issue. As such the Review Board found the RC decision was unreasonable and ordered that the matter be sent back to the RC for reconsideration with directions.
June 11, 2018 (Posted July 4, 2018)

2017

2017-HPA-053(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA– decision confirmed. Registrant sought Review Board review of RC denial of time extension of his provisional registration and licensure for the practice of general surgery restricted to a city on Northern BC. Provisional registration had first been granted by the College in 2005 on terms that included obtaining national qualifications by passing specific exams by a certain date. After passing two qualification examinations, failing another, and seeking certification by way of practice-based assessment – which was not available in the case of general surgery - and obtaining a number of time extensions for his provisional licensure, the College set a final date for obtaining the required qualifications. If the Applicant did not succeed by the deadline his licensure would be subject to cancellation. The Applicant did not succeed. On review, the Review Board found that the RC had acted in accordance with the terms it had set and could find no failure by the RC to act fairly. Its actions complied with the terms of the Health Professions Act. The RC decision was confirmed.
December 1, 2017 (Posted December 22, 2017)

2017-HPA-069(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA– decision confirmed. Review of Registration Committee (RC) decision. Applicant, a provisional Registrant diagnosed with a serious medical condition, received from RC in April 2017 an extension of time until end of June, 2018, to complete a qualifying examination. Applicant sought similar extensions for two other qualifying examinations the deadline for which was August 1, 2019. RC declined to grant extension. Review Board noted that Applicant submitted no evidence as to why his adverse medical situation would still be a factor in determining the existence of “exceptional circumstances” for deadlines two years away. Review Board found RC’s decision to be reasonable.
November 2, 2017 (Posted November 21, 2017)

2017-HPA-068(c) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Written hearing of an application for review of a registration committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA– decision confirmed. Review of Registration Committee (RC) decision to cancel Applicant’s provisional registration effective at a certain date. Record showed that in spite of very good performance reviews by medical supervisor, applicant had failed to meet registration criteria, in particular the required qualification exams, for which the Applicant had received extensions of time to complete but in the result failed ten times. Applicants submission of "extenuating circumstances" was not accepted by RC.
October 27, 2017 (Posted November 21, 2017)

2016-HPA-209(b); 2016-HPA-210(b) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of applications for review of two registration committee (RC) decisions under 50.54 HPA – decisions confirmed. Application for review of two registration committee (RC) decisions, filed by two internationally-trained applicant physicians (husband and wife) practising in British Columbia under provisional registration and licensure granted by the College in the General/Family Practice Class. Issue on review was decision by RC declining further extension of time limit for the passing of key certification examinations (Medical Council of Canada, College of Family Physicians of Canada) required for the award of full registration. RC had previously granted extensions of time for obtaining certifications based on “extenuating circumstances” (defined as to excuse; mitigate; make excuses for) that included significant health issues and the death of a family member, in addition to adjusting timelines for compliance due to the “de-harmonization” of the administration of the certification examinations. Panel found that the actual language of the bylaw is “exceptional circumstances” meaning unusual or not typical, and beyond the applicants’ control. Panel also found that the RC gave full consideration to the submission of extenuating circumstances by the applicants in their request for a further extension, were aware that the applicants had each sat and failed a required examination four times, and that the applicants faced ongoing issues with balancing professional responsibilities and family needs with the demands of exam preparation. The RC’s ultimate decision to grant no further extensions, and to set a final deadline after which registration would be cancelled, was unfortunate for the applicants but not unreasonable. Additional observations by the Panel: the Panel, while confirming the decision of the RC, noted its concern that it had observed a deeply troubling pattern involving many applications for review by foreign trained physicians. These applicants faced broadly similar circumstances of attempting to pass certain exams within a stipulated period while working long hours in a foreign culture with overwhelming patient loads, family needs and financial demands. The Panel noted that the College has a duty both to serve and protect the public, and asked whether the College might “play more of an interventionist role working with the physician between the time of arrival in the under-serviced community and the deadline for meeting requirements of ongoing registration.” The Panel also queried “how the RC is serving the public by letting physicians practice with large patient loads for many years without passing the requisite exam, only to then determine that the same physician is not qualified to provide the services based on not passing an exam?” The Panel closed by noting “[t]here must be a better way and the Panel encourages the College to work with interested stakeholders to find it both for these Applicants and others.”
September 15, 2017 (Posted October 3, 2017)

2017-HPA-027(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA– decision confirmed. The Applicant sought review of the RC’s decision to cancel his registration. On review, the Record showed that the Applicant’s provisional registration was originally cancelled effective December 31, 2015 because he had not met the conditions for full registration since being granted temporary registration in 2002. In 2016 the Applicant reapplied and was granted provisional registration from March to September 2016. On July 28, 2016 the RC cancelled the provisional registration effective October 28, 2016 because the Applicant had failed to respond to the RC’s communications and requests to provide confirmation of eligibility to sit RCPSC exams and to provide the results of the Spring 2016 exams. The RC reaffirmed its July 28, 2016 decision on October 30, 2016 and February 10, 2017, noting that a thorough investigation concluded there was no procedural irregularity during the Spring 2016 exam as asserted by the Applicant. The RC also noted that the Applicant did not need to be licensed to sit the Spring 2017 exam, and reminded him that if he applies for re-registration and re-licensure he will be subject to the registration requirements and standards in effect at that time. The Panel noted that the Record shows that the RC considered all correspondence and submissions received from the Applicant or submitted on his behalf. It also shows that the Applicant did not fully wind down his practice as directed and may have practiced a day after his registration ended. At all times from 2002 to the present, the RC kept the Applicant accurately informed of the College’s registration requirements. The RC’s decision was not made arbitrarily nor in bad faith or for an improper purpose, nor based entirely or predominately on irrelevant factors, nor did it fail to take into account the requirements of the Act. The Panel held that the RC acted in a manner consistent with the HPA and the College Bylaws, and their decision was transparent, justified, fair and reasonable.
August 3, 2017 (Posted August 18, 2017)

2016-HPA-195(b) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA– remitted back to RC with directions. The Applicant applied for review of the RC’s decision cancelling his registration ostensibly because he failed to meet the mandatory requirements for registration and did not respond to College communications. That decision was temporarily stayed to the end of this proceeding or further order of the Review Board (see Preliminary Decision 2016-HPA-195(a)). The Panel examined the standard of review which may depend on the issue. The Review Board cannot uphold a clearly flawed or unintelligible decision. The RC was not provided with the Applicant’s response to the College’s communication, and that omission caused the RC to act on a patently incorrect factual basis. The RC’s rationale is impenetrable and lacking transparent or intelligible explanation for how it addressed certain factors; it did not address the issue that the Applicant requested a limited extension of time as permitted in the College’s Bylaws, but focussed instead on concerns that did not arise in this case. Where the RC has given reasons that cannot withstand scrutiny or the rationale for the decision is impenetrable, the Review Board may consider what remedy is appropriate. The Panel remitted the matter back to the RC with directions regarding previously omitted evidence, appropriate new information and reasons.
July 13, 2017 (Posted July 28, 2017)

2016-HPA-114(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA – no order made since HPRB has no jurisdiction in this matter. The Applicant has not applied to the College for registration as required; therefore there is no refusal of a registration application to review. Although lacking jurisdiction to make an order, the Panel issued a directive that the College inform the Applicant that, notwithstanding the preliminary assessment of administrative pre-clearance, the Applicant still has the right – subject to the Bylaws – to apply for registration and that the Committee has an obligation to consider the matter anew with an open mind.
June 19, 2017 (Posted July 7, 2017)

2016-HPA-202(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee (RC) decision under s. 50.54 HPA – decision confirmed. The Applicant is a medical doctor who received his training outside of Canada and sought to obtain registration from the College to practice medicine in BC. The RC of the College denied the Applicant registration and provided the steps he would have to take for the RC to reconsider his eligibility. The Applicant claimed that the RC treated him in an unfair and unjust matter. The Panel Chair of the Review Board considered this claim and rejected it in its entirety. The Review Board found that the College and the RC responded to a series of repeated requests from the Applicant in a manner that was always professional, thoughtful and considerate. It was noted that the RC is under no obligation to create a program uniquely designed to fit the Applicant’s situation as he has requested. He may be well qualified to practice medicine, however, under the Bylaws of the College, the Applicant is not qualified to practice in BC. In this matter the Applicant did not provide the RC with the information that demonstrated he met at least the most of the basic requirements to be granted registration. The Review Board determined that the RC decision was justified as it was entirely consistent with the College Bylaws and it was transparent and clearly communicated in plain language.
May 2, 2017 (Posted May 19, 2017)

2016-HPA-192(a) re: The College of Denturists of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA – confirmed. The Applicant applied to the Review Board to review the RC’s decision to deny him registration as a denturist until he passed the required examinations. The Applicant had passed two sections of the examination but failed the laboratory section. The Applicant’s also had concerns regarding the educational institution where a high percentage pass the educational program but fail the examination. The Review Board indicated that this issue should be taken up with the educational institution in question as it does not fall within the Review Board’s mandate under the HPA. The Panel found that the Applicant had failed to establish that the RC acted unreasonably by failing to reassess the results of the one specific section of the examination that he did not pass. In conclusion the Review Board determined that the actions taken by the RC were reasonable and were within the jurisdiction and reasonable discretion of the RC.
March 29, 2017 (Posted April 24, 2017)

2016-HPA-197(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee (RC) disposition under s. 50.54 HPA – confirmed. The Applicant applied for review of the RC’s decision to cancel the Applicant’s registration and licensure. The Applicant is an Anesthesiologist trained and qualified in South Africa. She moved to BC where she was registered in the provisional specialty practise class of licensure. The RC cancelled her registration due to the Registrant’s non-compliance with the requirement to successfully complete the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) examinations. The Applicant stated that she does not disagree with the decision of the RC but seeks registration in one of two alternative categories. The Review Board found that the remedy sought by the Applicant was beyond the scope of the review process, and as she agrees with the RC’s decision in regard to her current registration her application for review of that decision is dismissed. The Panel determined that there was no evidence to suggest the registration decision was made arbitrarily, in bad faith or for any improper purpose. Having reviewed the Record the Panel found that the factors upon which the decision was based are fully supported by evidence contained in the Record. Under the HPA it is the College that has the authority to establish the classes of registrants and the standards and requirements for registration in those classes. The Review Board concluded that the decision of the RC was not unreasonable and should be confirmed.
March 24, 2017 (Posted April 7, 2017)

2016-HPA-151(a) re: The College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA – decision confirmed. After reviewing the Applicant’s Standard Equivalency Competency assessment results, the RC advised the Applicant that she would require supplementary education to meet Canadian nursing standards. The Applicant asserted that completion of further courses is not warranted as she already possesses the fundamental skills, knowledge, and experience as a result of her UK training, and already meets the standards and competencies required by a Canadian entry-level nurse. The Panel held that the Applicant failed to show that the C failed to act fairly in considering her application for registration or to meet the onus of showing that the Decision offends s. 50.54(10)(a)(ii) (A)-(D) of the HPA or that the conditions in ss. 11(a) or (b) are met.
January 24, 2017 (Posted February 10, 2017)

2016

2015-HPA-065(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA –remitted to the RC under s.50.54(9)(c) for reconsideration. The Panel reviewed the history from 2010 to the 2015 decision which showed that the ruling was based on false premises and that the policy the RC purported to follow over a period of four years was set out in confusing and conflicting language. The Panel determined that the RC acted in an unreasonable manner and unduly fettered its discretion In applying any version of the policy in question. The RC provided the Applicant with an eligibility letter in 2010 which set out the conditions under which he could obtain registration with the College. The Applicant accepted a job offer from a Health Authority in BC in August 2012, received the application package from the College sometime prior to October 2012, completed the application and moved with his family to BC by the end of October 2012. The College then advised the Applicant that he would have to complete English Language testing to be registered. The Review Board found no basis in the RC Policy on English Language Proficiency (“ELP”) to justify the requirement that the Applicant be subject to testing. Between October 2012 and February 2015, the RC applied a rigid policy to assess ELP which resulted in the Applicant taking the test multiple times. College staff failed to understand basic facts in their records and proceeded on the basis of assumed conditions to the detriment of the Applicant. The Review Board found that the RC unduly fettered its discretion in the application of rigid testing criteria for ELP and made an eligibility ruling in February 2015 which is not based on facts in evidence. The Panel could not grant the Applicant’s request for registration as he does not meet the strict conditions for such a finding. The Panel ordered the RC to reconsider the condition in the 2015 eligibility ruling regarding ELP with specific directions to provide fulsome reasons for any decision other than exempting the Applicant from demonstrating ELP. The Panel strongly encouraged the RC to reconsider the condition in the 2015 eligibility ruling regarding registration with the College of Family Physicians of Canada and consider granting him registration in accordance with the 2010 eligibility ruling. The College is encouraged to take steps to ensure that its policies are accurately represented; that staff clearly understand the policies and apply them as set out by the College Board; that materials provided by applicants are read and accurately represented by staff; that assumptions are not made about what is in the files; and that staff do not usurp the role and mandate of the RC. The Panel, under s. 50.2 ATA, ordered the RC to issue a new eligibility ruling within 60 days of the date of the order.
December 16, 2016 (Posted January 4, 2017)

2016-HPA-122(a); 2016-HPA-123(a); 2016-HPA-124(a) re: The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia
HPA s. 50.54 Applications for review of three registration decisions – Applications Dismissed – Stage 1 hearing. The three internationally educated Applicants applied for review of decisions that denied them registration because they had not met the mandatory requirements of the College’s bylaw s.48(1)(a.1); successful completion of not less than (2) years of liberal arts or sciences in an accredited college or chartered/approved university acceptable to the Registration Committee. Although the individual circumstances of the Applicants varied, the applications were heard together as it was the College’s application of its bylaw that was identified as the issue. The three Applicants were represented by the same agent who made one joint submission. The Review Board extends deference to the College in performing its gatekeeper function to govern its registrants. There is no evidence the Registration Committee failed to act fairly or made arbitrary decisions. The decisions to deny registration were made because the Applicants did not meet the requirements of the bylaw and the Committee declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicants.
November 9, 2016 (Posted November 25, 2016)

2016-HPA-032(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
HPA s. 50.54 Application for review of a registration decision – Application Dismissed – Stage 1 hearing. The internationally educated Applicant applied for review of two decisions of the Registration Committee. The decisions imposed conditions on the Applicant’s eligibility to be registered and licensed under the Educational-clinical trainee class and denied his eligibility to be registered and licensed under the Provisional class. The Applicant was originally issued a license in the Educational-clinical trainee class with conditions. The Applicant, experienced financial stress and applied to be physician in a rural town. He was advised that his license did not entitle him to independent practice and that he did not meet the requirements for a full or Provisional class of license. The Educational-clinical trainee decision contained 11 conditions. The Applicant requested the review nullify all the conditions and for his Educational-clinical trainee license to be modified to a Provisional license so he could practise independently. The duty of the College at all times is to serve and protect the public. The College has the duty to govern its registrants according to the HPA, the regulations and its bylaws. The College has the further duty to establish conditions or requirements for an applicant to become a member of the College. These duties and objects are set out in s.16(1) and (2) of the HPA. The duties and objects of the College must be adhered to even if doing so causes financial hardship to the Applicant as the paramount duty is to serve and protect the public. The review determined the Provisional registration decision was expressed clearly and fully to the Applicant. He is not eligible because he does not meet the mandatory requirements of the College bylaws. The Applicant failed to establish any basis for a decision other than for the Board to confirm the Provisional registration decision. The Educational-clinical trainee decision contains a series of conditions and limitations that are reasonable and there is no evidence the decision is unfair or offends s.50.54(10) of the HPA.
October 26, 2016 (Posted November 15, 2016)

2016-HPA-088(a) re: The College of Denturists of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee (RC) decision under s. 50.54 HPA – Decision confirmed. The Applicant, a current registrant with the College of Dental Technologists of Alberta, sought a review of the decision of the RC of the College of Denturists of BC which denied him registration on the basis that “satisfactory evidence of good character was not evident” in his application. The RC had relied on a report from the Registrar of the Alberta College which listed a number of complaints and disciplinary matters that were found in the review of the Applicant’s file. The Review Board determined that upon a review of the entire Record provided by the College, the Applicant had failed to provide the required evidence of character sufficient to mitigate the evidence of his unethical and improper conduct provided by the Alberta College. The RC responsible for ensuring the public is protected made the correct decision and it was confirmed by the Review Board.
September 1, 2016 (Posted September 16, 2016)

2015-HPA-208(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA– decision confirmed. The Applicant had been granted specialist provisional class registration from 2004 to 2010, then left the country for family reasons after unsuccessfully attempting the required RCPSC certification exams in 2009. His renewed registration application in 2015 was denied. The Panel deferred to the College in its determination of appropriate examination requirements for registration noting that it is the College’s statutory duty to establish academic standards that are necessary for protection of the public and to apply them in a fair and reasonable manner. The policy that an applicant is only eligible for one provisional registration term of five years is reasonable to protect the public and the Review Board has no authority to change it. There is no evidence in the Record of unfairness, bad faith, improper purpose or of the decision makers taking into account entirely or predominantly irrelevant factors. The RC’s decision meets the justifiable, transparent and intelligible test of reasonableness.
July 22, 2016

2015-HPA-176(a); 2015-HPA-181(a); 2015-HPA-183(a); 2015-HPA-184(a); 2015-HPA-185(a); 2015-HPA-186(a); 2015-HPA-187(a) re: The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of seven applications for review of registration committee (RC) decisions under 50.54 HPA – dispositions confirmed. The Review Board earlier determined that all seven matters were to be heard at the same time because they involved the same or similar questions about the College’s new bylaw making the education requirement a pre-condition to eligibility to write the Pan-Canadian Entry-Level examination. The Applicants asserted that the new bylaw does not apply to them even though the education requirement for registration has been policy since 2009. The College’s Education and Examination Committee (EEC) denied the seven Applicants’ requests for eligibility to write the exam because they did not meet the education requirement. The EEC’s decision amounts to a registration decision since the exam is the last requirement for registration. The Panel noted that the HPA empowers the College to establish “conditions or requirements for eligibility to take examinations...” and the requirements are part of the College’s performance of its duty to protect the public. The education requirements were not applied to the Applicants retroactively, but when they sought eligibility to take the exam. The RC’s decision is reasonable as it is justifiable, transparent and intelligible.
May 17, 2016 (Posted June 22, 2016)

2015-HPA-086(b) re: The College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia
Stage 1 hearing of an application for review of a registration committee (RC) decision under 50.54 HPA– decision confirmed. The Applicant disagreed with the RC’s requirements that she complete certain coursework and provide confirmation of a prescribed psychiatric assessment in order to be eligible for reinstatement. The Applicant failed to establish that the RC acted unfairly by prescribing the pre-conditions. The new evidence submitted by the Applicant was not admitted as it was not necessary for a full and fair hearing of the matter.
February 5, 2016 (Posted February 26, 2016)

2015

2014-HPA-164(a); The College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia
HPA s. 50.54 Application for review of a registration decision – Application Dismissed – The internationally educated and trained Applicant, currently employed in BC with provisional registration, applied for a review of the College’s registration decision requiring him to complete two courses before being allowed to write the National Nursing exam. The College’s discretionary statutory jurisdiction in s. 20(4.3) of the HPA allows the College to require provisional registrants to complete examinations or upgrading of knowledge that the Registration Committee considers necessary. The Registration Committee determined the need for the two courses based upon the results of a Substantially Equivalent Competency (SEC) assessment that the Applicant completed. The Applicant argues the courses are not necessary as they are for nursing areas that he is not intending to practise in. The review determined the College’s registration process was fair, transparent, impartial and led consistently to the conclusion. The Applicant must meet the standards of a general entry level nursing graduate and the issue before the Committee is to ensure foreign educated applicants meet established standards of SEC that satisfactorily protect the public interest.
October 22, 2015 (posted November 16, 2015)

2014-HPA-187(a) re: The College of Dental Technicians of British Columbia
Application for review of a college Review Panel decision under 50.54 HPA (the “Act”)—referred back to the Registration Committee (“RC”) for reconsideration, with directions. The Applicant was denied registration because he failed an assignment which was part of the registration examination. Noting irregularities in the marking and examination processes, the Applicant applied to the College’s Review Panel for review of the failed assignment. The Review Panel issued a decision which upheld the examination result and informed the Applicant that he could seek review by the Health Professions Review Board. The Review Board held that the RC cannot delegate to a committee or panel its power to grant or deny registration, and a college’s Review Panel may only review a RC decision since it does not have authority to make a registration decision. The Review Panel may report the results of its review, leaving the decision to the RC. The Registrar, who also acted as Examination Coordinator, is a witness and should not be involved in the investigation by the Review Panel so as to remove any possibility of conflict of interest, perceived or actual. The matter was referred back to the Review Panel and RC with directions to appoint an independent person to conduct the review and report to the Applicant and RC; then the RC to then consider the report and issue a registration decision.
July 20, 2015 (posted August 14, 2015)

2014-HPA-053(a) re: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stage 2 hearing of an application for review of a Registration Committee decision under s. 50.54 of the HPA – Decision of Registration Committee confirmed. The Applicant is a retired physician who applied to return to practise as a Registrant of the College at the age of 75. The Registration Committee determined that he met the currency requirements for re-entry to practice but he was required to take and pass an English language proficiency test as the native language of the country where he was trained as a physician was not English. The Applicant maintained that he should not be required to take the English language proficiency test as he had worked for many years as a physician in British Columbia prior to his retirement. The Review Board determined that the Registration Committee applied the requirements in the bylaws as they would to any new Registrant or re-Registrant, and they adopted standards for English proficiency which are internationally recognized and accepted as objective ways to measure that proficiency. The Registration Committee’s decision was found to be sufficiently justified, transparent and intelligible.
March 31, 2015 (posted July 21, 2015)

2014

2013-HPA-175(a), 176(a), 177(a), 178(a), 179(a), 180(a), 181(a), 182(a), 183(a) and 209(a) re: The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia
HPA s. 50.54 Application for review of a registration decision – Application Allowed – Matter referred back to Registration Committee for reconsideration with directions. The application concerned ten applicants, all graduates of Chinese medicine and/or acupuncture education programs recognised by the College, deemed not eligible to write the a national competency examination. The Registration Committee had determined that to be eligible to write the national examination an applicant must have met the educational requirement under Bylaw s.48(1)(a.1). The Review Board found the Registration Committee made an error in its interpretation of Bylaw s. 48 and, in particular, its application of Bylaw s. 48(1)(a.1) to deny eligibility to write the national examination. There is no College Bylaw that establishes a condition or requirement for eligibility to write the national examination. The educational requirements under Bylaw s.48(1)(a.1) are the requirements for registration, not the requirements for eligibility to write the examination. The ten matters were referred back to the Registration Committee for reconsideration. Successful completion of the examination is a factor to be weighed by the Registration Committee when exercising its discretion under Bylaw s. 48(4)0. Deference is extended to the Registration Committee in context of all other relevant factors as part of assessing the applicant’s knowledge skills and abilities which would include the respective education requirements under s. 48(1)(a.1).
December 2, 2014 (Posted January 6, 2015)

2013

2012-HPA-149(a) re: The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia
Application for review of a Registration Committee decision. HPA s. 50.54 - Registration Committee Decision Confirmed. The applicant is qualified to practise acupuncture in Israel, Russia and Armenia and has requested full licensure with the BC College. In 1998 she contacted the then Acupuncturists of British Columbia and claims she was informed her qualifications would allow her to practise in BC. In 2011 when the applicant applied to the College, the College, advised the applicant the grandfathering provisions had been removed and she would need to take a competency examination as required by s. 48(4) of the current College bylaws to practise in BC. The Applicant has not made a formal completed application to the College and is not willing to sit a qualifying exam as prescribed by the College. The College does not have the regulatory authority to grant registration to persons from outside of Canada who do not take or pass the competency examinations. The College has acted in good faith and has offered assistance in this process. The Registration Committee has ruled in an appropriate manner.
September 10, 2013 (Posted September 27, 2013)

2013-HPA-002(a) re: The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia
Application for review of a Registration Committee Decision, HPA s. 50.54 - Registration Committee Decision Confirmed. Bylaw 48(1)(a.1) of the College states that an applicant must have two years of “liberal arts or sciences study” (comprised of 60 credits) in an accredited college or chartered / approved university acceptable to the Registration Committee. The applicant has 63 credits from an Institute however the College deemed 51 credits to not qualify as “liberal arts or sciences study”. The Board determined bylaw 48(1)(a.1) of the College’s bylaws is interpreted to mean the College can ensure its registrants have a background education consisting of two years of liberal arts and science study exposure. The applicant does not have this background. The College decision is reasonable. Bylaw 48(4) allows the College to exercise discretion in determining the substantially equivalent knowledge, skills and abilities of applicants. The Applicant fully indicated her background and life experiences. The Registration Committee did not act in bad faith in its decision to not exercise discretion under bylaw 48(4) to consider the Applicant as having substantially equivalent knowledge, skills and abilities as a person who has satisfied bylaw 48(1)(a.1).
August 14, 2013 (Posted August 23, 2013)

2011-HPA-133(e); 2011-HPA-134(e) re: The College of Opticians of British Columbia
Applications under s. 50.54 of the HPA for review of two registration decisions of the College. The two Applicants made application for membership in the College. Applicant 1 wanted to be registered as a dispensing optician and new contact lens fitter. Applicant 2 sought registration as a contact lens fitter. The Registration Committee of the College decided both Applicants needed to complete bridging educational requirements before the College would approve the Applicants’ challenge of the mandatory national examination. The Applicants are graduates of the B.C. College of Optics which provides education to prepare students for a career as dispensing opticians and/or contact lens fitters. As the B.C. College of Optics is not a recognized optician education program listed in Schedule “A” of the College Bylaws the Applicants had to satisfy the Registration Committee that they had the substantially equivalent knowledge, skills and abilities. The College enrolled the Applicants in a prior learning and assessment recognition process and determined that they would both need to complete additional bridging at a Schedule “A” recognized institution before challenging the national exam. The agent acting for the Applicants has a material interest in the B.C. College of Optics. The Review Board found that the decisions of the Registration Committee with respect to Applicants 1 and 2 were reasonable in the sense that they were transparent, justified and intelligible. Further it is not the role of the Review Board to substitute its opinion for that of the Registration Committee and their decisions were confirmed.
June 10, 2013 (Posted July 10, 2013)

2011-HPA-234(a) re: The College of Speech and Hearing Health Professionals of British Columbia
Application for review of a Registration decision of the College under section 50.54 of the Health Professions Act. The Applicant sought an order from the Review Board directing the College to register her as an Audiologist without having to write the certification exam. The College indicated that it would permit the Applicant admission on a provisional status that would allow her to practice as an Audiologist while she completed her registration requirements including the successful completion of a certification examination. The Review Board determined that the requirement for all applicants to successfully complete a Canadian standard certification examination is neither unfair nor arbitrary. Its purpose is to set an objective and reliable standard for admission of applicants for membership. Further, it was noted that the Applicant was made aware of the new exam criterion as well as the transitional provisions related to the grandfathering of current practitioners as these new standards were established. Accordingly, the Review Board confirmed the registration decision of the College.
April 8, 2013 (Posted April 26, 2013)

2012-HPA-208(a) re: The College of Psychologists of British Columbia
Applicant was not an applicant as defined by s.50.54(1)(a) of the HPA. The Applicant, previously a registrant of the College but who had undertaken by consent pursuant to s.36(1) of the HPA to relinquish her right to practise in British Columbia, did not reapply for re-registration. Accordingly, as there was no application, there was no refusal of registration hence the Applicant is not an applicant as defined in s.50.54(1)(a). In addition, the effect of the voluntary consent signed by the Applicant prevented the commencement or completion of an investigation review or other proceeding that could have resulted in the entitlement to practise being suspended or cancelled. Accordingly s.20(2.1) applies and the Review Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the matter because of the exception set forth in s.50.54(1)(a).
January 30, 2013 (Posted February 26, 2013)

2011

2010-HPA-0079(a): The College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia
     Summary dismissal application

Administrative Tribunals Act s31(1)(f) - College Summary Dismissal application denied - College claimed no reasonable prospect of success. Party raising summary dismissal bears onus of satisfying Review Board that summary dismissal is appropriate. Issues raised by applicant require full consideration and comment.
     Decision on the merits
HPA s. 50.54 Application for review of a registration decision - Registration Committee Decision Confirmed - Applicant requested reciprocal registration in BC on basis of unregulated extensive experience practising in Ontario and regulated practise in Florida. College by-law requires that an applicant hold registration or licensure in another Canadian jurisdiction as the equivalent of a full registrant or that an applicant successfully complete an acupuncture examination.
College by-law leaves no discretion to waive requirement for full registration from another Canadian jurisdiction. Labour Mobility Act does not apply as applicant does not hold current certification as defined in the Labour Mobility Act.
October 12, 2011

2009-HPA-0039(b): The College of Denturists of British Columbia
HPA s. 50.54 Application for review of a registration decision – Application Allowed – Matter referred back to Registration Committee for reconsideration with directions.
March 7, 2011

2010

2009-HPA-0033(a) re: The College of Chiropractors of British Columbia
Application for review of a registration decision - Allowed - decision remitted back to Registration Committee for reconsideration with directions; Application for summary dismissal pursuant to s. 31(1)(a) of the ATA -Dismissed
March 23, 2010