Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses whether lengthy delays in disciplinary cases (for regulatory bodies like doctors and lawyers, for example) should result in allegations being thrown out after a case is delayed too long, as in criminal trials.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week, and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
For more Kyla Lee, follow her on Twitter.
Pierre Mailloux was ultimately the subject of disciplinary hearings by the college of doctors in Quebec. He was convicted of a number of disciplinary offences and he argued there was delay in rendering his disciplinary decisions and argued that the Supreme Court decision in the Jordan and Cody cases about delay in criminal cases should apply in the disciplinary context, even though it’s not a criminal charge.
It makes sense. Disciplinary proceedings can have a significant impact on somebody’s ability to earn an income, their reputation within the profession , they can be life altering, they can end your career. it’s important to ensure these proceedings are done in a manner that is resolved quickly and gives satisfaction to the individuals who are dealing with the tribunal.
The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case, which leaves open the question: do the Jordan and Cody frameworks change anything with respect to disciplinary proceedings?