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

Law firm managers struggling to fill roles as demand for lawyers continues: recruiter report

Stikeman Elliott, McCarthy Tétrault assist in Osino’s $368 million sale to China’s Yintai

BC Supreme Court orders full compensation for victim in three-car collision

Alberta Court of Appeal upholds jurisdiction in cross-border divorce case

Federal Court denies anonymity for Uyghur applicants in permanent residence case

BC woman wins Provincial Court case against dentist for unauthorized and negligent dental work

Most Read Articles

BC lawyer ordered to pay up for attempting to use ChatGPT ‘hallucinations’ in application

Artificial intelligence hallucinations in legal research may become a thing of the past

BC Supreme Court deals with complex property and separation agreement dispute

US court says Baker & McKenzie LLP can face malpractice suit in Chicago