NCA Administrative Law - Practice Exam A Questions
Instructions
This is an original practice examination for study purposes. Like an official NCA exam, it is comprised of a detailed fact pattern, followed by an essay question.
You should:
- Identify the relevant legal issues.
- State the applicable legal rules and authorities.
- Apply those rules to the facts.
- Assess the strongest arguments available to both sides.
- If applicable, explain how the decision may be challenged and what remedies may be available.
- Do not address Charter issues.
Do not simply repeat the facts or provide a general essay on administrative law. Focus on the specific issues raised by the facts.
Facts
Ms. Leila Haddad is a permanent resident of Canada and has lived in Canada for eight years. She works as a licensed practical nurse at the federally operated North River Detention Centre, where she provides medical assistance to inmates.
The Correctional Health Services Licensing Act (the “Act”) establishes the Federal Health Services Licensing Board (the “Board”). The Board issues licences to health-care professionals working in federal correctional institutions. Section 18 of the Act provides:
The Board may suspend or revoke a licence where the licensee has engaged in professional misconduct, failed to comply with a condition of employment, or otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with the protection of patients and the proper administration of correctional health services.
Under section 21, the Board may appoint an investigator to investigate complaints and report findings to the Board. The Board may then dismiss the complaint, impose conditions on a licence, suspend the licence, or refer the matter to a disciplinary hearing.
The Board’s published Investigation Policy states that:
- The investigator will provide the licensee with a summary of the allegations.
- The licensee will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
- The investigator will ordinarily interview the licensee before submitting a final report.
- The Board will consider the investigator’s report together with any written response from the licensee.
The policy also states that the Board may take interim action where necessary to protect patient safety.
The incident
One of Haddad’s patients, Mr. Cole, complained that Haddad had refused to provide him with a prescribed medication during a night shift. Haddad says that Cole had become aggressive, had threatened staff, and had attempted to take another patient’s medication. She says that she followed the Centre’s emergency medication protocol and contacted the supervising physician.
The supervising physician, Dr. Markovic, made a brief note in the electronic medical record:
Medication withheld temporarily due to security concerns. Physician notified. Review in morning.
The next morning, Cole received the medication. No medical injury was reported.
Cole later complained to the Board. His complaint alleged that Haddad had withheld medication because of his nationality and had told him, “People like you always exaggerate your medical problems.” Haddad denies making that statement.
The Board appointed Mr. Evan Price as investigator. Price had previously worked as a policy adviser for the North River Detention Centre. During that period, he had publicly criticized staff members who, in his words, “use security concerns as an excuse for poor patient care.” Haddad was not aware of Price’s previous statements when the investigation began.
The investigation
Price sent Haddad a letter stating that he was investigating allegations that she had:
- discriminated against Cole on the basis of nationality;
- improperly withheld medically necessary medication; and
- failed to comply with professional standards.
Haddad responded that the medication had been withheld temporarily for safety reasons and provided the medical record, the emergency protocol, and a statement from Dr. Markovic.
Price did not interview Haddad. When Haddad’s lawyer asked when the interview would occur, Price replied:
I have reviewed your written response and do not think an interview is necessary. The facts are sufficiently clear.
Price interviewed Cole twice but did not provide Haddad with a transcript or summary of those interviews. He also interviewed two correctional officers who had not witnessed the incident but said that Haddad was “often difficult” and “not popular with inmates.”
Price obtained an email from Dr. Markovic confirming that he had been notified about the medication issue. Price did not contact Dr. Markovic to ask whether the medication decision had complied with the emergency protocol.
Price’s report concluded:
The complaint is credible. Haddad’s explanation appears to be an after-the-fact attempt to justify her conduct. Her reliance on security concerns is inconsistent with the Centre’s duty to provide medication. The complainant’s account is more believable than Haddad’s account, particularly because Haddad has a history of conflict with inmates. I recommend that the Board revoke Haddad’s licence.
The report did not discuss the emergency medication protocol or explain why Dr. Markovic’s note did not support Haddad’s account. It also did not address whether the alleged discriminatory comment had been made.
The Board’s decision
The Board consisted of seven members. One member, Ms. Grant, was the Director of Patient Safety at the North River Detention Centre. She had previously complained to senior management that Haddad was “unsuitable for correctional health work.”
Grant chaired the Board meeting at which Haddad’s case was considered. Haddad’s lawyer requested that Grant recuse herself, but the Board rejected the request. The Board permitted Haddad to make a written submission but refused her request to make oral submissions.
The Board did not hold a disciplinary hearing. It decided that the investigator’s report was sufficient and revoked Haddad’s licence under section 18 of the Act.
The Board’s reasons stated:
The Board accepts the investigator’s conclusions. A health professional who withholds medication from an inmate has engaged in conduct inconsistent with patient safety. We also accept that the complaint is credible. Haddad’s explanation does not overcome the serious concerns identified in the report. The Board therefore revokes her licence.
The reasons did not:
- Analyze the statutory meaning of “professional misconduct.”
- Address the possibility that the medication was withheld under the emergency protocol.
- Discuss Dr. Markovic’s note.
- Address the allegation of discrimination separately.
- Explain why revocation, rather than a warning, conditions, suspension, or referral to a disciplinary hearing, was appropriate.
- Address Haddad’s procedural objections.
- Explain why oral submissions were unnecessary.
Subsequent events
Haddad applies to the Federal Court for judicial review. She seeks:
- An order setting aside the Board’s decision.
- An order requiring the Board to reconsider the matter.
- An interim order allowing her to work while the application is determined.
- Any other appropriate remedy.
The Attorney General argues that the Board’s decision is entitled to deference because the Board is an expert statutory body responsible for protecting patients in federal correctional institutions. The Attorney General also argues that Haddad had an adequate opportunity to respond through written submissions and that the Board was entitled to rely on the investigator’s report.
Question
Prepare a brief memorandum (no formal formatting required) advising Haddad on:
- The procedural administrative-law issues arising from the investigation and the Board’s decision.
- Any reasonable apprehension of bias or improper participation issues.
- The substantive grounds on which the Board’s decision could be challenged.
- The applicable standard or standards of review.
- The strongest arguments available to the Board in response.
- How Haddad can challenge the decision in Federal Court.
- The remedies that may be available, including the prospects of obtaining interim relief.
Do not address Charter issues.