An unreasonable delay can cause significant unfairness.

Elena, a licensed nurse, was being investigated by the BC College of Nursing Professionals (the College) after a complaint was brought forward against her in the summer of 2017. The College’s Inquiry Committee (IC) reviewed the results of the investigation and found that Elena had not acted professionally in certain matters. They requested that Elena agree to certain corrective actions by way of a Consent Agreement, an agreement Elena refused to sign.

In the Spring of 2018, the College informed Elena that a second investigation was being initiated based on allegations that she had disclosed confidential documents from the first investigation into her conduct. In January 2019, Elena received a letter from the College stating that the second investigation had been delayed because she had refused to sign the Consent Agreement. Elena inquired several times about the status of the investigation as well as why it was taking so long but Elena felt that the College’s responses were lacking.

Concerned about the impact of the delays on her professional life, Elena contacted us for help.

Our investigation focused on whether the College followed a fair process in investigating the allegations made against Elena.

Based on the Health Professions Act, the IC has 255 days from the date a complaint is made to complete the investigation and settle the complaint, including extension periods. If the matter is not resolved within this time frame, the IC must suspend its investigation for 30 days. During this time, a complainant can apply to the Health Professions Review Board (HPRB) for a review of the College’s investigation due to delay otherwise they are required to wait for the College’s final decision on the matter.

Elena was informed by the College via three letters written to her union representative about the investigation extensions. Elena never received the letters and the investigation entered the mandatory 30-day suspension period. Because Elena never received notice, she did not apply to the HPRB for a review.

We raised concerns with the College about the delays and highlighted that the licence restrictions were having a negative impact on Elena’s professional life.

The College explained to us that the delays were due to a number of different factors, including the amalgamation of three separate regulatory bodies, a change in the investigator and the external legal counsel’s schedule. Still, the delay was unfair to Elena and we asked the College to schedule Elena’s disciplinary hearing as soon as was reasonably possible and to apologize to her for the delays.

The College agreed and set a hearing date for Elena. They also wrote a letter of apology to her. As the administrative fairness issues had been addressed, we closed our investigation.