Concept
Screening model
Current Provisions Proposal
Under the existing investigations and resolutions
provisions in the Act, there are two potential
“streams” for complaints or issues to be
managed 8 . The first is the complaints system
which investigates a written complaint. This
is a paper review process by the Complaints
Committee, which does not have the power
to appoint an investigator. Following its review
of a written complaint, in addition to written
statements from relevant witnesses and/or
experts, the Committee issues its decision and
reasons, which can be appealed to the Health
Professions Appeal and Review Board. The
second is a Registrar’s Investigation process,
in which information can be brought to the
College’s attention through any number
of means (such as the police, newspapers,
anonymous sources, etc.). Such cases are
handled by the Executive Committee, which
has the power to appoint an investigator. Upon
receipt of the investigator’s report, the Executive
Committee reviews the case, and issues a formal
written decision. • Under the proposed model, there is to be one
triage or intake process which is streamlined
and transparent. In effect, the current
Complaints and Executive Committees’ roles
relating to investigations and resolutions are
collapsed into a single committee known as the
Investigations and Resolutions Committee. The
proposed model allows for an investigator to be
appointed in any case as necessary.
The options for disposition are the same for
both Committees – no further action, advice, a
caution, a voluntary undertaking, or a referral to
the Discipline Committee.
• Under the proposed model, cases that are
considered frivolous and vexatious or outside of
the College’s jurisdiction could be dismissed at
intake to reduce the inefficient use of resources
and reduce delays for high risk cases.
• The model proposes the introduction of a
mandatory alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) process in certain circumstances, such
as financial disputes and misunderstandings
related to communication.
• The model also introduces mandatory
education or remediation courses under the
Specified Continuing Education or Remediation
Program as a potential outcome where
remediation is deemed necessary.
• The proposed model maintains the arm’s length
appeal process of the Health Professions Appeal
and Review Board to ensure the accountability
of College decision-making related to its
members
8 Veterinarians Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. V.3, s 23-25, 36.
Achieving a Modern Approach to the Regulation of Veterinary Medicine in Ontario 51