Case information

Law of professions — Discipline — Nurses — Administrative law — Appeals — Standard of review — Statutory appeal of administrative decision on penalty and costs — Professional body’s inquiry panel imposing a penalty and costs on a member — Court of Appeal dismissing member’s appeal — Whether the Court of Appeal deviated from standard of review framework for statutory appeals set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, and thereby created undue uncertainty, incoherence, and unworkability — Whether the Court of Appeal and the inquiry panel failed to apply the Charter scrutiny required by Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395, thereby failing to hold the inquiry panel accountable to the Charter — Whether the Court of Appeal’s and the inquiry panel’s failures to consider the inquiry panel’s ability to reconsider a decision and admit new evidence were incorrect — Whether the Court of Appeal’s incorrect standards of review led to cascading failures to consider extricable legal errors and palpable and overriding mixed fact and law errors — The Regulated Health Professions Act, C.C.S.M., c. R117.

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.

The applicant, Ms. Hancock, was a member of the respondent College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba (“College”). An inquiry panel of the College held a hearing into Ms. Hancock’s conduct, and found her guilty of misconduct and to be ungovernable. Ms. Hancock did not appeal that decision to the Manitoba Court of Appeal as she was entitled to do under The Regulated Health Professions Act, C.C.S.M. c. R117. Instead, she sought a reconsideration of that decision at a subsequent hearing that was held to determine the penalty to impose. The inquiry panel declined to reconsider its misconduct decision. It ordered that Ms. Hancock’s registration under The Regulated Health Professions Act be cancelled and that she pay costs in the amount of $40,000. Ms. Hancock appealed that decision. The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. It concluded it had no jurisdiction over the misconduct decision as it was not under appeal. It held that there were no reversible errors in the inquiry panel’s decision on penalty and costs.