Court Overturns Interim Practice Permit Suspension For Chiropractor

In Basaraba v College of Chiropractors, 2025 ABKB 176, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench provides guidance on procedural fairness requirements for interim suspensions of healthcare professionals.  This decision highlights that even when public protection is urgent, regulators must provide professionals with enough information to meaningfully respond to allegations.

This case is noteworthy because it not only clarifies the minimum procedural fairness requirements for interim suspensions but also results in the unusual outcome of allowing a healthcare professional facing serious allegations to continue practicing while the regulator reconsiders its approach. This stands in contrast to the typical pattern where professionals remain suspended during regulatory proceedings.

Facts

The key facts of the case are as follows:

• The applicant, Dr. Bradley Basaraba, was a chiropractor with over 30 years of practice experience.
• Between January and April 2024, the College of Chiropractors of Alberta (the “College”) received three complaints alleging that Dr. Basaraba had touched patients’ sensitive areas without appropriate process or consent.
• In May 2024, the Edmonton Police Service notified the College that Dr. Basaraba had been charged with sexual assault related to his conduct with a patient.
• Initially, the College’s Complaints Director requested an interim suspension, but instead, a committee imposed a supervision condition requiring Dr. Basaraba to practice only with another regulated health professional present.
• On December 13, 2024, after receiving information suggesting Dr. Basaraba may have breached the supervision condition, and after learning of eight additional sexual assault charges, the Complaints Director requested another interim suspension.
• The Complaints Director alleged that Dr. Basaraba “was reportedly in a separate treatment room with a patient without the supervisor present” but provided no additional details about when this occurred, which patient was involved, or other relevant particulars.
• Dr. Basaraba was given only until December 18, 2024, to respond in writing to the suspension request, and his request for an oral hearing was denied.
• Without sufficient particulars about the alleged breach, Dr. Basaraba could only submit a general denial.
• On December 20, 2024, the committee imposed an interim suspension, relying significantly on the alleged breach of the supervision condition.

Analysis / Conclusion

Justice Whitling considered the appropriate level of procedural fairness required in interim professional suspensions and concluded:

[51] I conclude that the Applicant was denied procedural fairness since the allegation that he breached the supervision condition was devoid of every detail that would have allowed him to prepare an intelligent response. Consequently, he was not notified of the case to be met.

[52] In concluding that the Applicant was denied procedural fairness, I do not find or suggest that he was entitled to the level particularity or disclosure that would be required in advance of a final disciplinary hearing. Rather, I find that the Applicant was entitled to that basic level of particularity that would have enabled him to prepare a meaningful and intelligent response to the allegations.

Justice Whitling rejected the College’s position that withholding details was necessary to “preserve the integrity of the ongoing investigation,” noting that such a blanket claim is simply too broad to be accepted by a court charged with the duty of protecting the subject’s right to fair treatment.

Because the allegation of breaching supervision conditions featured prominently in the committee’s decision, the Court set aside the interim suspension. Dr. Basaraba can continue practicing as a chiropractor while the College reconsiders its approach – a notable departure from the typical outcome in such cases, where professionals usually remain suspended pending new proceedings. The Court noted that the Complaints Director remains free to submit another suspension request with proper particulars.

My Take

This decision offers several important lessons:

1. Basic Particulars Required: Even for interim suspensions, regulators must provide sufficient details to allow professionals to meaningfully respond.
2. Balancing Public Protection and Fairness: While protecting the public is paramount, courts recognize that procedural fairness can coexist with public protection through simple measures like providing basic details about allegations.
3. Blanket Claims are Insufficient: Regulators cannot simply claim that withholding details is necessary to preserve investigative integrity without specific justification.
4. Interim vs. Final Hearings: The Court distinguishes between interim versus final disciplinary hearings -while interim proceedings may require less disclosure, they still require basic details allowing a meaningful response.
5. Restored Practice Rights: Perhaps most significantly for professionals, this case demonstrates that procedural defects can result in the restoration of practice rights even in cases involving serious allegations. This is exceptional, as courts typically err on the side of public protection and maintain interim suspensions while regulators correct procedural issues.

The case serves as a reminder that regulatory bodies, while having significant powers to protect the public through interim suspensions, must exercise these powers with fundamental fairness. Professionals facing complaints should request sufficient particulars when confronted with vague allegations, and regulators should ensure their processes meet minimum fairness requirements even in urgent situations.

Isabella Hernandez is an employment lawyer at Bow River Law in Calgary, Alberta.

Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession.  These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice.  If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.

Bow River Law is a team of knowledgeable, skilled and experienced employment lawyers handling employment law, human rights (discrimination) and labour law matters.  Bow River Law is based in Calgary but we are Alberta’s Workforce Lawyers.