Nurse failed to appeal misconduct decision, reconsideration not allowed: Manitoba Court of Appeal

Nurse alleged denial of procedural fairness; sought reconsideration at penalty hearing

Nurse failed to appeal misconduct decision, reconsideration not allowed: Manitoba Court of Appeal

The Manitoba Court of Appeal has upheld a misconduct and penalty decision imposed upon a nurse, ruling that it had no jurisdiction where the time limit for filing a notice of appeal had lapsed.

In College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba v. Hancock, 2022 MBCA 70, Shannon Hancock was tried before an inquiry panel of the College of Registered Nurses. She was found guilty of misconduct and ungovernable under The Regulated Health Professions Act, CCSM c. R117.

Hancock did not appeal the misconduct decision. Instead, she sought reconsideration of the decision at the next hearing, which was supposed to determine her penalty.

The panel at the penalty hearing dismissed the application for reconsideration. It ruled that the appropriate action was not to move for reconsideration but to appeal the misconduct decision. The panel continued, ordered her registration cancelled, and imposed costs at $40,000.

After receiving the penalty and costs decision, Hancock filed a notice of appeal.

Hancock raised a number of grounds on appeal as to both the misconduct and penalty decision. She argued that the panel failed to perform the correct analysis under the charter and denied her procedural fairness.

The appellate court disagreed.

Appellate jurisdiction is entirely statutory; there is no inherent right of appeal other than what is provided by statute, said the court.

Under the Regulated Health Professionals Act, an appeal from a decision, finding, or order must be commenced by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days after the decision is given to the investigated member, said the court.

The appellate court found that Hancock failed to comply with these appeal provisions of the Act with respect to the misconduct decision despite this flaw having been pointed out to her. She could have brought a motion for extension of time but did not do so, said the court.

As such, the appellate court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to entertain her arguments.

However, even assuming that it did, the appellate court found no merit to the appeal as the appellate court found no reversible errors with the panel’s decision.

Recent articles & video

Lawyer’s reprimand letter from NL legal regulator must be reconsidered: provincial court of appeal

Lawyer suing feds over Ukraine refugee program wants Ottawa to come to table before it’s too late

NS Supreme Court rejects father’s allegation of ‘parental alienation’

Dickinson Wright, Lenczner Slaght, Fasken, other firms act in $333-million commercial case

Ontario Superior Court rejects statement of claim amendment based on disciplinary proceeding

Clifford Chance penetrates global energy hub with Houston office

Most Read Articles

Steve McKersie, CEO of Gowling WLG, on his firm’s people-first strategic plan

From in-house counsel to angel investor, 1Password’s CLO Erin Zipes reflects on building a practice

Top Personal Injury Boutiques for 2023 unveiled by Canadian Lawyer

Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies insurance coverage rule for passengers of stolen vehicles