New Brunswick Institute of Chartered Accountants v. Nicholson, 1993 CanLII 5404 (NB C.A.)
|Parallel citations:||(1993), 147 N.B.R. (2d) 158 • (1993), 147 N.B.R. (2e) 158|
|Noteup:||Search for decisions citing this decision|
- Kenney v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, 1991 CanLII 3989 (NB C.A.) — (1991), 120 N.B.R. (2d) 49 • (1991), 85 D.L.R. (4th) 637
- Mackin v. New Brunswick, 1987 CanLII 138 (NB C.A.) — (1987), 82 N.B.R. (2d) 203 • (1987), 82 N.B.R. (2e) 203 • (1987), 44 D.L.R. (4th) 730
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK
Hoyt, C.J.N.B., Rice and Turnbull, JJ.A.
THE NEW BRUNSWICK INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF Dickson, J.
July 29, 1993
DATE OF HEARING November 12, 1993
DATE OF DECISION November 12, 1993
Peter T. Zed, Esq. for the Appellant
David Duncan Young, Esq. for the Respondent
BY THE COURT
This is an appeal from a decision of Dickson, J. in the Court of Queen's Bench in which he quashed an inquiry by an investigation committee of the appellant New Brunswick Institute of Chartered Accountants. The committee sought to investigate the conduct of one of its members, the respondent Daniel Nicholson.
The investigation was prompted by a letter from two members of the Institute. The Judge quashed the investigation because, relying on Mackin v. Judicial Council (N.B.) 1987 CanLII 138 (NB C.A.), (1987), 82 N.B.R. (2d) 203 and Kenney v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (N.B.) 1991 CanLII 3989 (NB C.A.), (1991), 120 N.B.R. (2d) 49, it was his view that the letter did not constitute a complaint. We can add nothing usefully to his decision, except perhaps to emphasise that although courts are reluctant to interfere with the conduct of self-governing professional bodies, there must be, in this situation, a complaint before disciplinary procedures may be invoked. We do not suggest that the complaint must be viewed as valid, but it must contain sufficient particulars to inform the investigating body what it is to investigate and to alert the member what professional misconduct or unfitness to practice is being alleged.
For that reason, we dismiss the appeal with costs of $260.00 payable by the appellant to the respondent.