Case information

Charter of Rights — Right to liberty — Double jeopardy — Law of professions — Discipline — Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Regulatory boards — College of Physicians and Surgeons — Procedural fairness — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant found guilty of unprofessional conduct for failure to pay administrative fees, failure to comply with professional monitoring obligations, and failure to comply with personal bankruptcy obligations — Merit decision and sanctions upheld on appeal — Whether application raises concerns about double jeopardy, constitutional right to liberty, reviewable judicial errors, apprehension of bias and conflict of interest, a lowering of the standard of fairness in legal proceedings and of test for reasonableness in administrative proceedings, and an unreasonable costs award.

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.

Dr. Ali is a registered and regulated physician, and a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Following a period of license suspension for a prior disciplinary matter, the College opened a new investigation into Dr. Ali’s conduct, alleging that he failed to: pay his annual fees; cooperate with his monitoring requirements; and comply with his bankruptcy obligations. The Hearing Tribunal of the College found Dr. Ali guilty on three counts of unprofessional conduct pursuant to the Alberta Health Professions Act; he received a reprimand and was ordered to pay two-thirds of the costs of the Tribunal investigation and hearing process. The Council of the College, an internal appeal body, dismissed Dr. Ali’s appeal of the Tribunal’s decision, and ordered a further sanction — i.e., payment of the costs of the Council appeal process, in addition to the costs of the Tribunal hearing process.

A majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Ali’s appeal, finding no error in the Tribunal’s or Council’s conclusions with respect to unprofessional conduct, nor with respect to the applicable sanctions. In dissent, Justice Slatter would have partially allowed the appeal on one issue — a conviction on a particular charge related to the bankruptcy proceedings — finding that Dr. Ali’s behaviour did not rise to the level of professional misconduct.