Thompson v. Chiropractors' Association of Saskatchewan, (1996) 145 Sask.R. 35 (QB)

• Judge: Grotsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 31, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 145 Sask.R. 35 (QB)

Thompson v. Chiropractors Assoc. (1996), 145 Sask.R. 35 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of An Appeal Pursuant to s. 40 of the Chiropractic Act, 1994

In The Matter Of Judicial Review Pursuant to Part 52 of the Queen's Bench Rules

Brian Thompson (appellant) v. Discipline Committee of the Chiropractors' Association of Saskatchewan and Board of Chiropractors' Association of Saskatchewan (respondents)

(1995 Q.B. No. 3572)

Indexed As: Thompson v. Chiropractors' Association of Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Grotsky, J.

May 31, 1996.

Summary:

The Discipline Committee of the Chiro­practors' Association of Saskatchewan found a chiropractor guilty of misconduct for using a mechanical device (i.e., an activator) on a patient and for failing to have a female patient properly gowned during treatment. The Board of the Association imposed fines, ordered that the chiropractor pay the costs of the proceedings and agree not to use the activator until such time as it is no longer prohibited by law. The chiropractor appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal respecting the finding of misconduct and the penalty. The court varied the costs order.

Professional Occupations - Topic 4471

Chiropractors - Discipline - Offence - Using mechanical devices - The Chiro­practors' Association of Saskatchewan Discipline Committee found a chiropractor guilty of misconduct for using an activator - The chiropractor appealed, argu­ing, that the Committee erred in finding that an activator was a mechanical device as referred to in s. 49(5) of the Chiropractic Act Regulations, in finding that he used the activator as a substitute method of adjustment by hand, in finding that he deliberately breached s. 49(5), in applying an incorrect standard of proof, in providing inadequate reasons for decision, and the Committee was biased and could not ef­fectively adjudicate on whether the device was used inappropriately - The Saskatche­wan Court of Queen's Bench found no basis for interfering with these rulings - See paragraphs 6 to 8.

Professional Occupations - Topic 4471

Chiropractors - Discipline - Offence - Using mechanical devices - The Chiro­practors' Association of Saskatchewan Discipline Committee found a chiropractor guilty of misconduct for using a mechan­ical device (an activator) as a substitute method of adjustment by hand contrary to s. 49(5) of the Chiropractic Act Regula­tions - The chiropractor appealed, arguing that the Discipline Committee erred in finding him guilty of professional miscon­duct, that s. 49(5) violated public policy and was void as having an improper purpose - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that he had breached the regulation and was properly found guilty of professional misconduct - See paragraphs 9 to 30.

Professional Occupations - Topic 4472.1

Chiropractors - Discipline - Offence - Failure to appropriately gown patients - The Chiropractors' Association of Saskatchewan Discipline Committee found a chiropractor guilty of misconduct for failing to have a female patient properly gowned during treatment contrary to s. 49(6) of the Chiropractic Act Regulations - The chiropractor appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - See paragraph 31.

Professional Occupations - Topic 4476

Chiropractors - Discipline - Punishments - General - The Discipline Committee of the Chiropractors' Association found a chiropractor guilty of misconduct for using a mechanical device (an activator) and for failing to properly gown a female patient - The Association's Board ordered that the chiropractor pay the costs of the proceed­ings, imposed a $5,000 fine for using the activator, a $750 fine for failing to gown the patient and required him to agree not to use the activator as long as use was prohibited - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused to disturb the pen­alty and held that the Association was entitled to recover its taxed costs from the chiropractor, although the cost of providing statutorily mandated materials to the court pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Chiropractic Act would be borne by the Association - See paragraphs 32 to 45.

Professional Occupations - Topic 4555

Chiropractors - Disciplinary proceedings - Costs - [See Professional Occupations - Topic 4476 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 8].

Wedekind v. Director of Income Mainte­nance (Ont.) (1994), 75 O.A.C. 358; 21 O.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Forster et al. v. Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1992), 97 Sask.R. 98; 12 W.A.C. 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Cymbalisty v. Chiropractors' Association of Saskatchewan (1985), 39 Sask.R. 103 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Khosla v. Alberta and College of Phy­s­icians and Surgeons (Alta.) (1993), 143 A.R. 295; 12 Alta. L.R.(3d) 325 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

McGuire v. Royal College of Dental Sur­geons (Ont.) (1991), 44 O.A.C. 11; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 732 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

Heagy and Bailey v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Sask.) (1985), 40 Sask.R. 211 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Stephen v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.) (1991), 95 Sask.R. 176 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Huerto v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (Sask.), [1994] 9 W.W.R. 457; 124 Sask.R. 33 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Sen v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.) (1969), 69 W.W.R.(N.S.) 201 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 8].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 8].

Milne v. Joint Chiropractic Professional Review Committee (1992), 97 Sask.R. 299; 12 W.A.C. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judi­cial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869; 130 N.R. 121; 75 Man.R.(2d) 81; 6 W.A.C. 81; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 105, refd to. [para. 8].

Hutterian Brethren Church of Starland v. Starland No. 47 (Municipal District) (1993), 9 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 135 A.R. 304; 33 W.A.C. 304 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Harker et al. v. Regina (City) et al. (1995), 128 Sask.R. 224; 85 W.A.C. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Atkins et al. v. Calgary (City) (1994), 162 A.R. 97; 83 W.A.C. 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Pasiechynk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al. (1992), 97 Sask.R. 286; 12 W.A.C. 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Camgoz (Bankrupt), Re (1989), 74 Sask.R. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Mackey v. Board of Chiropractors (Sask.) (1987), 60 Sask.R. 163 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Mackey et al. v. Association of Chiroprac­tors (Sask.) et al. (1990), 88 Sask.R. 274 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Brett et al. v. Board of Directors of Physiotherapy (Ont.) (1991), 48 O.A.C. 24; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 144 (Div. Ct.), affd. (1993), 64 O.A.C. 152; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 421 (C.A.) refd to. [para. 16].

Fenton v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (Ont.) (1974), 52 D.L.R.(3d) 321 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Bernstein v. College of Physcians and Surgeons (Ont.) (1977), 76 D.L.R.(3d) 38 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Casullo v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (Ont.) (1973), 42 D.L.R.(3d) 43 (Ont. C.A.), revd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 2; 9 N.R. 239; 67 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 16].

Samson v. Sisters of Charity (1984), 6 D.L.R.(4th) 431 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1985), 20 D.L.R.(4th) 547 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Scarborough General Hospital v. Schiller (1974), 47 D.L.R.(3d) 485 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Qidwai v. Brown, [1984] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 100 (N.S.W.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Cranley v. Medical Board of Western Australia, [1992] 3 Med. L.R. 94 (S.C.W.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hallam v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (Ont.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 143 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

VanZiffle v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (B.C.), (1993), 100 D.L.R.(4th) 305 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hamilton, Re (1975), 63 D.L.R.(3d) 504 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Stilling, Re (1961), 28 D.L.R.(2d) 102 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Veterinary Asso­ciation (Ont.) (1986), 34 D.L.R.(4th) 246 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Szmuilowicz v. R. et al. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 183; 24 O.R.(3d) 204 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Trace v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Alta.) (1988), 91 A.R. 241; 54 D.L.R.(4th) 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hay v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Alta.) (1988), 91 A.R. 60; 54 D.L.R.(4th) 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Carefoot, Re, [1926] 1 W.W.R. 49 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Lambert v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.) (1990), 82 Sask.R. 23 (Medical Profession Act Appeal Tribu­nal), refd to. [para. 16].

Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority, [1985] 1 All E.R. 635 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Wilson v. Swanson (1956), 5 D.L.R.(2d) 113 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 382; 133 N.R. 153; 45 Q.A.C. 299; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 27, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181; 14 C.R.(3d) 22 (Eng.); 106 D.L.R.(3d) 212; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 193; 17 C.R.(3d) 34 (Fr.), refd to. [para. 33].

Sugarman v. Association of Optometrists (Sask.) (1990), 86 Sask.R. 207 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].

Crawford v. College of Physical Therapists (Sask.) (1986), 48 Sask.R. 155 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Lazar v. Association of Professional Engineers (Man.), [1971] 5 W.W.R. 614 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Chiropractic Act, S.S. 1994, c. C-10.1, sect. 12 [para. 42]; sect. 27 [para. 27]; sect. 34(4), sect. 34(5) [para. 38]; sect. 40 [paras. 42 to 44]; sect. 41(b) [para. 44].

Chiropractic Act Regulations (Sask.), sect. 49(5), sect. 49(6), sect. 49(7) [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Griffith and Street, Principles of Adminis­trative Law (4th Ed. 1967), pp. 156, 157 [para. 8].

Ivankovich, Ivan F., The Judicial Erosion of Professional Self-Governance (1994), 23 Admin.L.R.(2d) 19, pp. 29, 30, 31 [para. 16].

Counsel:

J.D. Watson and D. Smith, for the appel­lant;

J.S. Ehmann, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard before Grotsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on May 31, 1996.