|
Immunity - Adjudicative. Yan v. College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario
In Yan v. College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court considered issues of 'adjudicative immunity' and statutory (RHPA/HPPC) investigative privilege, when a JR applicant sought to allege HR discrimination against an RHPA adjudicator and investigation under the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario:[3] On June 4, 2019, Ms. Yan filed an application with the HRTO against the College alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed. Ms. Yan’s application references the College’s investigation into her practice as well as College conduct following the hearing before the Discipline Committee.
[4] Following the receipt of written submissions and an oral preliminary hearing, the HRTO dismissed Ms. Yan’s application on several bases. .... Second, the HRTO determined that the application was outside of its jurisdiction because it called for a review of another adjudicator's decision. Finally, the HRTO concluded the application should be dismissed because Ms. Yan would not be able to prove the allegations due to the confidentiality provision contained in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. This provision creates a prohibition against the admissibility of evidence pertaining to the College's investigation and discipline process in subsequent civil proceedings.
....
[30] The other two bases on which the HRTO dismissed Ms. Yan’s application were the doctrine of adjudicative immunity and the confidentiality provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code. With respect to the doctrine of adjudicative immunity, the Tribunal noted that the decisions and actions of an adjudicator while performing adjudicative functions are beyond its jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that Ms. Yan had failed to point to any evidence to suggest that College’s timely actions were unrelated to its adjudicative functions. Ms. Yan has not raised any basis for this Court to interfere with this conclusion.
[31] Finally, s. 36(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code creates a prohibition against the admissibility of documents pertaining to the College’s investigation and discipline process in subsequent civil proceedings. The Tribunal applied this provision to conclude that those documents would be inadmissible before the Tribunal in this case. Ms. Yan would not be able to rely on any of the investigatory or discipline documents in support of her position that the College’s actions were discriminatory. As a result, Ms. Yan’s allegations would have no reasonable prospect of success. Ms. Yan did not raise any basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision on this point.
|
