Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Administrative law – Jurisdiction – Natural justice – Procedural fairness – Professional responsibility – Practice and procedure – Allegations of discrimination and institutional bias – At hearing into complaints of professional misconduct against applicant, respondent association refused to consider certain allegations of bias – Court of Appeal finding that allegations are already being considered by B.C. Human Rights Tribunal – Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with allegations – Whether Tribunal’s potential findings will leave applicant without a remedy?

The applicant Dr. Bhullar was a member of the respondent veterinary medical association (the “Association”). Charges of professional misconduct were brought against him. In addition to defending himself against the charges, Dr. Bhullar made allegations of bias and discrimination against both the individual decision-makers and the administrative bodies involved. Dr. Bhullar and several of his veterinarian colleagues also filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and other grounds, and alleging that the Association investigated complaints against Indo-Canadian veterinarians in a different manner than it investigated complaints against non-Indo-Canadian veterinarians. A decision on the merits of that complaint is still pending.

21 charges were deemed proven and Dr. Bhullar was struck from the register of veterinarians. On appeal before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, one of the issues was whether the Association had jurisdiction to consider the allegations of institutional bias made by Dr. Bhullar. Saunders J. concluded that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over allegations of discrimination contrary to human rights legislation, but that the Association had jurisdiction to consider the issue of institutional or systemic bias. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision on the basis that to allow the Association proceedings to continue in respect of the issue of bias would constitute an abuse of process, since the Tribunal was considering those very same issues. It remitted the case back to the B.C. Supreme Court, to await the decision of the Tribunal and address other outstanding grounds of review.