The Alberta Court of Appeal recently addressed a facet of procedural fairness in the context of interim suspensions: the level of particulars a regulator is required to provide to a member.

The College of Chiropractors (the “College”) received information that a chiropractor had inappropriately touched patients without appropriate process or consent. The chiropractor also faced criminal charges for sexual assault relating to one of the patients. The College issued an interim order requiring the chiropractor to only practice under supervision by another regulated health professional. The College later received additional information that the chiropractor may not have fully complied with the supervision condition and that he had been charged with eight additional counts of sexual assault arising from his treatment of patients. The College informed the chiropractor that it was seeking an interim suspension but did not provide the chiropractor with any particulars about the alleged non-compliance so as not to compromise the pending investigation. The College issued an interim suspension, mostly citing the concern relating to the chiropractor’s breach of the supervision condition.

The chiropractor applied in court to have the interim suspension set aside, mainly arguing that the failure to receive particulars of the allegation against him was procedurally unfair.

The Court set aside the interim suspension, finding that the College had not provided the chiropractor with sufficient particulars of the allegation against him to enable him to prepare an informed response. The Court began by acknowledging there was no question that procedural fairness was owed to the chiropractor in this case, and the Court accepted that the chiropractor would not be entitled to the level of particulars or disclosure that would be required in advance of a final disciplinary hearing. However, it held that the chiropractor was still entitled to a “basic level of particularity” that would have enabled him to prepare a meaningful response to the allegations.

The Court recognized the tension between providing sufficient particularity and the need to protect the public, and acknowledged that a balancing exercise was necessary, but that, in this case, the allegation was “devoid of every detail that would have allowed him to prepare an intelligent response” and that the lack of information was not necessary to protect the public. Further, the Court rejected the College’s explanation that she did not disclose the underlying details in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation, and in this case, “sufficient particularity could have been achieved by the introduction of a few additional words or sentences”.

The Court recognized that early disclosure of information might, in some instances, have a negative impact upon an investigation. Accordingly, there may sometimes be grounds to believe that the investigated individual will alter or destroy evidence, but these considerations must be weighed against the individual’s right to fair treatment. Failing to make sufficient disclosure to “preserve the integrity of the investigation” is too broad to be accepted as a blanket explanation. In this instance, there was no reason to believe that the investigated person might have tampered with or destroyed evidence.  

Takeaways

Courts recognize that in order to protect the public, interim orders must be imposed expeditiously. They also recognize that the disclosure obligations are lower at an interim stage than they are at a final adjudication stage, and that withholding some information might be necessary in the interest of protecting the investigative process where there are concerns about the integrity of the investigation. However, these considerations have to be weighed against the individual’s right to fair treatment, and their right to receive sufficient particulars to know the case to be met. An individual must be given a “basic level of particularity” in order to prepare a meaningful response to the allegations.

If you need to revisit your interim suspension protocols or disclosure practices, contact Fancesca Ghossein or any member of Field Law's Professional Regulatory Group.

Link to decision: Basaraba v College of Chiropractors, 2025 ABKB 176