Professional Regulatory
Professional Regulatory
Overview
Experience
People
News + Views + Events
Workshops

Field Law serves as a trusted advisor to regulatory colleges and organizations across numerous sectors – health care, policing, legal, financial, engineering, geoscience plus many more – and provides strategic guidance on matters such as governance, legislative reform, registration, continuing competence, discipline, unauthorized practice and privacy.

With one of the largest and most experienced professional regulatory groups in Western Canada, our lawyers appear before a variety of tribunals to prosecute allegations of unprofessional conduct, resolve registration issues and act as independent legal counsel to tribunals. We also have substantial experience at all levels of Court in applications for judicial review and appeals relating to the regulation of professions, and in defending lawsuits brought against regulatory organizations. 

At Field Law, we acknowledge that our clients are sophisticated professionals who are proficient in resolving many legal issues internally but provide them with support when complex situations arise involving significant legal risk that require a rapid response and our group’s breadth of experience and industry knowledge. In these instances, we collaborate with our clients and deploy the right team to develop a timely, innovative solution that achieves the best outcome possible under the circumstances.

We take a proactive approach that empowers clients to make practical, effective decisions and take preventative measures to avoid conflict, including in-house training on industry trends and regular updates on matters of interest to professional regulators. We also help clients build an interactive community with their colleagues by hosting round table discussions and a variety of social events designed to facilitate strong relationships among community members. 

Partner
Edmonton
780-423-9595
aakgungor@fieldlaw.com
Partner
Edmonton
780-423-7675
cbailey@fieldlaw.com
Partner
Edmonton
780-423-7665
dcranna@fieldlaw.com
, Practice Group Leader
VCARD
Partner
Edmonton
780-423-7673
gsim@fieldlaw.com
Partner
Edmonton
780-423-7615
jcasey@fieldlaw.com
Lawyer
Edmonton
587-773-7174
jkully@fieldlaw.com
Lawyer
Edmonton
780-423-7602
lmonsma@fieldlaw.com
Lawyer
Edmonton
780-643-8766
lnguyen@fieldlaw.com
Partner
Calgary
403-260-8550
seichler@fieldlaw.com
Lawyer
Edmonton
780-423-7630
tgregson@fieldlaw.com
McCarthy v. Schindeler, 2017 ABQB 511 , Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
Deluca v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2017 ABCA 252, Alberta Court of Appeal
Kozina v. Edmonton (Police Service), 2017 ABLERB 020, Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Fitzpatrick v. Physiotherapy Alberta College, 2017 ABQB 453, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
Deluca and Paulino v. Edmonton (Police Service), 2017 ABLERB 003, Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
M.K. Engineering Inc. v. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, 2017 ABCA 17
Cole v. Edmonton (Police Service), 2016 CanLII 101000 (AB LERB)
Engel v. Edmonton (Police Service)
Simic v. Edmonton (Police Service), 2015 ABLERB 014, Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
RE v. Edmonton (Police Service), 2015 ABLERB 009, Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Tibu v. Camrose (Police Service), 2015 ABLERB 008, Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Kozina v. Edmonton (Police Service), 2014 ABLERB 046, Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Allard-Bourque v. Edmonton (Police Service), 2014 ABLERB 044, Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
RL v. Edmonton (Police Service), 2014 ABLERB 016, Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Kozina v. Kemp, 2014 CanLII 31052 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Kozina v. Kemp, 2014 CanLII 10796 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Law Society of Alberta v. Charnock, 2014 ABLS 17, Law Society of Alberta
Land v. Law Enforcement Review Board, 2013 ABCA 435, Alberta Court of Appeal
Law Society of Alberta v. Venkatraman, 2013 ABLS 29, Law Society of Alberta
Camrose (Chief of Police) v. MacDonald, 2013 ABCA 422, Alberta Court of Appeal
Smith v. Chief of Police of the Edmonton Police Service, 2013 CanLII 78548 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Addow v. Johnson, 2013 CanLII 60926 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Gulaga v. Hove, 2013 CanLII 48775 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Gulaga v. Neufeld, 2013 CanLII 48818 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Bergmann v. Neumeier, 2013 CanLII 48827 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Camrose (Police Service) v MacDonald, 2013 ABCA 225, Alberta Court of Appeal
Addow v. Johnson, 2013 CanLII 27271 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Fitzgerald v. Knecht, 2013 CanLII 27266 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
Land v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2013 ABCA 68, Alberta Court of Appeal
Wasylyshen v. Edmonton Police Service, 2012 ABQB 406, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
J.M. v. Cst. S.M., 2012 CanLII 104617 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
J.M. v. Cst. S.M., 2012 CanLII 104615 (AB LERB), Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board
TBM Transportation Ltd. v. Tri-Star Transport Ltd., 2011 ABCA 358, Alberta Court of Appeal
Edmonton (Police Service) v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2011 ABCA 288, Alberta Court of Appeal
Mitzel v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2010 ABCA 336, Alberta Court of Appeal
Edmonton (Police Service) v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2010 ABCA 241, Alberta Court of Appeal
Moore v. Alberta Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2010 ABCA 009, Alberta Court of Appeal
Mitzel v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2009 ABCA 288, Alberta Court of Appeal
Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation, 2009 FC 368, Federal Court of Canada
Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation, 2005 ABCA 15, Alberta Court of Appeal
Moss v. TransCanada Pieplines Ltd., 1999 SKQB 118, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
June 2017
The Canadian Free Trade Agreement – “Old Wine in New Bottles” for Labour Mobility
Professional Regulatory Alert
May 2017
If It Looks like a Duck: British Columbia Court of Appeal Rules on Title Use
Professional Regulatory Alert
April 2017
Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Regulators Have Broad Authority and Discretion to Fulfil Mandate
Professional Regulatory Alert
January 2017
Case Summary: Third Party Accreditation
Perspectives for the Professions
January 2017
Case Summary: Test for Interim Conditions
Perspectives for the Professions
January 2017
Joint Submissions on Sanction: The Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies the Amount of Deference that Should be Given
Perspectives for the Professions
October 2016
Court of Appeal Recognizes Regulator's Robust Implied Power in Name of Public Protection
Professional Regulatory Alert
October 2016
Professional Regulatory Workshop: Assessing Credibility: More Art Than Science
Seminars
June 2016
Counsel Comments: Lum v. Alberta Dental Association and College (Review Panel), 2016 ABCA 154
June 2016
Performance Reviews: Check-Ups Keep Regulators Running in Top Condition
Perspectives for the Professions Newsletter
June 2016
Case Summary: Duty to Cooperate with Regulator
Perspectives for the Professions Newsletter
June 2016
Case Summary: Good Character Requirement
Perspectives for the Professions Newsletter
May 2016
Court of Appeal Confirms Deference Owed to Registration Decisions and Explores Meaning of "Good Character and Reputation"
Professional Regulatory Alert
May 2016
Prohibition on Pharmacy Inducements Beyond College of Pharmacists’ Authority
Professional Regulatory Alert
April 2016
Restoring the Balance: Lessons from the Human Rights Appeal of Mihaly v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta 2016 ABQB 6
Perspectives for the Professions Newsletter
March 2016
Significant Consequences Mean Significant Procedural Rights: Alberta Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on Procedural Fairness in Incapacity Assessments
Professional Regulatory Alert
February 2016
The Regulator Knows Best: British Columbia Court of Appeal Upholds Bylaws Prohibiting Customer Incentive Programs
Professional Regulatory Alert
January 2016
Alberta Court Determines APEGA’s Registration Examinations Are Not Discriminatory
Professional Regulatory Alert
January 2016
The Role of the Board - Practical Strategies to Add Value and Minimize Risk
Presentations
December 2015
Case Summary: Liability of Regulators for Negligence
December 2015
Professional Regulation and Ungovernability
December 2015
How Not to Regulate the Profession: Findings of Discrimination at B.C. Veterinary Body Offers Cautionary Tale
2013-2015
Professional Regulation and Ethical Issues in the Laboratory
October 2015
Case Summary: Expired Appeals
October 2015
Case Summary: Standard of Review in Discipline Matter
October 2015
Requirement on Regulator to Follow Policies
July 2015
Question Everything… Except the Witness - Tips on Maintaining Impartiality From R. v. Crawford, 2015 ABCA 175
June 2015
Merely a Witness? The Uncertain Rights of a Complainant in Disciplinary Proceedings
May 2015
Alberta Courts Enforce Fair Access to the Professions: Farhat v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
February 2016
Case Summary Ho v. Alberta Association of Architects
February 2015
Case Summary Katsoulakos v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario
February 2015
Case Summary Levesque v. Nova Scotia College of Optometrists
February 2015
Good Character and Reputation - The Registrar Knows Best!
November 2014
B.C. College of Optics Inc. v. The College of Opticians of B.C., 2014 BCSC 1853
October 2014
Case Comments: Interpretation of Standards of Practice and Standard of Review
October 2014
Case Comments: Finality and Relitigation
October 2014
Infonex Professional Regulation and Discipline Conference
October 2014
Professional Discipline and Reasons Workshop
May 2014
Complying with Notice Provisions
May 2014
Ready, Set, Charge!
May 2014
Avoiding Regulatory Liability
March 2014
Hearing Panel Training
December 2013
Recent Cases of Interest to Regulators
November 2013
To Adjourn or Not to Adjourn, That is the Question
October 2013
Hearing Tribunal Orientation
September 2013
Did SCC Flip Flop on Finality?
September 2013
Recent Cases of Interest to Regulators
November 2012
Recent Cases of Interest to Regulators
November 2012
Round Table Discussion: Human Rights Issues for Regulators
November 2012
Round Table Discussion: Human Rights Issues for Regulators
November 2012
Round Table Discussion: Human Rights Issues for Regulators
June 2012
Professional Regulators Must Address Human Rights Issues: Burden or Blessing?
April 2012
The Social Media Challenge -  Discipline, Good Character, and the Right to Freedom of Expression.
November 2011
Should Applicants Be Denied Registration Based on Past Criminal Conduct?
September 2011
Discipline and Appeal Panel Training under the Regulated Accounting Profession Act
Summer 2011
Joint Submissions on Sanction: The Hearing Tribunal’s Role
April 2011
Round Table Discussion: Registration and Use of Title Under the Professional and Occupational Associations Registration Act
February 2011
Discipline and Appeal Panel Training
Fall 2010
Recent Cases of Interest to Regulators
Fall 2010
Written Reasons: Elucidating, or Merely Complicating...
Fall 2010
Changes to the Health Information Act
September 2010
Case Update: Visconti v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
Summer 2010
Is Non-Compliance With Statutory Timelines Fatal?
April 2010
Professional Regulatory Organizations and the Law: Current Trends
December 2009
How to Run a Professional Discipline Hearing and Writing Administratively Fair Decisions
December 2009
Orientation and Training for Complaint Review Committees
Winter 2009
HIV/AIDS Reporting
April 2008
Compellability of Witnesses in Arbitration
April 2008
Compellability of Witnesses in Arbitration
February 2007
Expert Witness Immunity in a Disciplinary Setting
2006
Alberta Guidelines for the Disclosure of Harm to Patients
April 2005
A New Era in Resolution of Complaints Against Profesionals
2005
Police Experience with the Health Information Act:  The Edmonton Police Service's Submissions to the Select Special Health Information Act Review Committee
 The Edmonton Police Service's Submissions to the Select Special Health Information Act Review Committee

Professional regulatory organizations are committed to the ongoing professional development of their members. Equally, professional regulatory organizations should be committed to the ongoing professional development of their regulatory committees and administrators. The reasons are self-evident: regulatory functions are challenging; the stakes are high for the member; and the public interest is fully engaged. Volunteers serving on regulatory committees are experts in their own profession but are usually not experts in regulatory functions. Training helps our volunteers and staff become high-performers in their roles while at the same time minimizing legal risks.

As part of our commitment to “preventative lawyering”, our Professional Regulatory Group provides a broad range of formal training and workshops for regulatory committees and administrators. “Preventative lawyering” means helping clients take proactive steps to prevent legal problems from arising rather than only addressing the legal issues after a problem has occurred. Regular training is cost effective and in the public interest helping regulatory committees make better decisions and greatly reduce the risk of successful legal challenges. Preventing just one legal challenge from arising will pay for many years of training.

Training for regulators is most effective when it is offered on a regular, annual basis with adjustment to the training program each year depending on need. The composition of regulatory committees frequently changes. New members need orientation and experienced members require reinforcement of their knowledge and skills. Regulators which offer training on an irregular basis will fail to reap the full benefits of a formal training program.

Our Professional Groups customizes our workshop depending on the needs of the individual organization. Workshops that we currently offer are as follows:

Registration

  • “Making Appropriate Registration Decisions”: This half day workshop addresses how to interpret governing legislation regarding eligibility to enter practice; how to assess “good character”, and how to reduce the risk of human rights challenges in the registration context. The workshop also provides tips on how to prepare written reasons in the registration context.  This workshop is appropriate for members of registration committees or staff working in the registration area.

Privacy 

  • “Privacy:  Understanding Privacy Legislation in the Context of Professional Regulation”: This half day workshop explains a regulator’s obligations under the Personal Information Protection Act , including what constitutes “personal information”, and the key rules relating to collection, use and disclosure of personal information. Other topics covered include tips to ensure compliance, and how to deal with privacy breaches if they occur.  This workshop is useful for staff members of regulatory organizations.

Investigations

  • “Conducting Effective Professional Discipline Investigations”: This full day workshop is designed for investigators and those who supervise the investigatory process.

Complaint Dismissals

  • “Reviewing the Dismissal of Complaints”: This half day workshop is designed for members of Committees which have the obligation to review dismissal of complaints. What is your role? What is the standard of review? What are the major areas of focus? How do you prepare effective reasons for your decision? 

Discipline Hearings

  • “Orientation of Public Members”: This half day workshop is designed to familiarize new public members with their role and responsibilities as the “public member.” Participants are provided with an overview of the discipline and hearing process. Tips on meeting the challenges are presented including tips on how non-professionally trained public members can effectively judge the conduct of professionals in a technical context. 
     
  • “The Top 10 Tips and Traps for the Conduct of Discipline Committee Members During Hearings”:  A two hour presentation providing practical guidance to discipline committee members on how they should and should not conduct themselves during a hearing. What type of conduct engenders confidence in the process and what creates legal and institutional risk. The “traps” identified are all taken from case law in which tribunal member conduct resulted in a judicial review or an appeal. 
     
  • “Running a Professional Discipline Hearing and Preparing Effective Decisions”: A full day workshop designed for members of discipline committees. This workshop can be custom-tailored to the appropriate degree of complexity but the workshop is generally presented at an introductory level and is useful for new discipline committee members, those without significant hearing experience, and experienced members wanting a refresher.
     
  • “Assessing Credibility: More Art than Science”: Assessing credibility is one of the most difficult of all the adjudicative arts. This half-day, interactive, small group workshop is designed to teach discipline committee members how to make credibility assessments. Members of Field Law’s Professional Regulatory Group present the credibility factors that must be considered in every case. What factors are considered reliable indicators of credibility and what factors are unreliable? In addition, we present a structured methodology for discipline committee members to use in caucus while assessing credibility. Tips and pitfalls with respect to addressing credibility in written decisions are addressed. The pitfalls are identified from the case law where credibility findings by tribunals were challenged in Court. After the initial presentations, participants are shown a videotaped mock discipline hearing professionally developed by our Professional Regulatory Group. The video is based on some of the most challenging credibility issues we have faced in real-life hearings. After each examination and cross-examination the video is stopped and Field Law lawyers facilitate discussion with the participants identifying what factors are important in the particular examination. The video proceeds with more group discussion after each witness. Closing arguments are made. The participants are broken into small groups to act as a discipline committee making credibility findings and preparing reasons for their decisions.  A spokesperson for each “committee” reads their reasons.  Field Law lawyers critique providing supportive coaching. By the end of the workshop, attendees will be able to identify the credibility factors to be considered; practiced the assessment of credibility through use of the video and role plays; applied the structured methodology of assessing credibility while in caucus; and practiced writing the part of a decision dealing with credibility assessment. 
     
  • “Professional Discipline Sanctions”: This half day workshop is designed for members of discipline committees. We address the purpose of disciplinary sanctions, the role of case law, the range of options available, and pitfalls to avoid. 
     
  • “Developing Advanced Skills in Running Discipline Hearings”: This full day small-group workshop is designed for experienced adjudicators seeking to enhance their skills or develop the skills necessary to be a Chair. The workshops consist of a series of role plays with attendees serving as members of a discipline committee. The hearing  scenarios unfold with members of Field Law’s Professional Regulatory Group playing the roles of prosecuting counsel, defence counsel, and witness. Each scenario represents real-life difficult challenges faced by chairs and discipline committees. At the end of each scenario, we review how the discipline committee handled the situation. What went well? What did not? While we critique how the scenario was handled, the goal is to provide supportive coaching to improve performance.  All attendees will have the opportunity to sit on one or more of the committees addressing a scenario.
  •  “Conducting Effective Caucus Sessions and Preparing Effective Reasons”: A workshop designed for members of discipline committees that can be completed in a half day or extended depending on preference. The workshop is useful for all committee members but it is especially useful for committee members who have the responsibility of leading caucus meetings or preparing a first draft of the decision. A useful template for decisions is presented. 


Appeals

  • “Hearing Discipline and Registration Appeals”: A half day workshop designed for Council or committees serving in an appellate role. Topics include standard of review, the conduct of appeals, new evidence, and preparing effective reasons.
     

Governance and Strategy

  • “Trends in Professional Regulation: Identifying and Formulating Effective Responses”: This workshop is designed for Council members and senior regulatory staff. The workshop explores major trends affecting professional regulators across Canada. The Field Law presenter facilitates discussion helping attendees identify effective responses for their organization.

We typically offer our workshops on a “fixed fee” basis so that our clients have complete cost certainty with respect to the training initiative. The precise cost will depend on the nature of the workshop. However, given the number of individuals that an organization can send to a workshop, our training is cost-effective for organizations and is much less than an organization would spend sending attendees to conferences offered by professional conference companies. We offer our workshops across western Canada. 

Any organization that wishes to explore retaining our Professional Regulatory Group to provide a workshop to one or more of its regulatory committees are invited to contact the leader of our Professional Regulatory Group, Greg Sim (gsim@fieldlaw.com;  780-423-7673). Greg can discuss your particular needs and provide you with a fixed fee quotation for the proposed workshop.