The Health Professions Review Board has ordered the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia to reconsider its decision denying registration to a foreign-trained physician, finding the college acted unreasonably by attributing ethical failings of the applicant’s lawyer directly to the applicant.
The case centres around a physician (the Applicant) who initially applied for registration in Alberta in 2014. His legal counsel in Alberta, without his knowledge, submitted falsified International English Language Testing System (IELTS) results to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA). The physician learned of the false submission only years later, subsequently discovering his lawyer was disciplined by the Alberta Law Society for similar unethical conduct.
Despite this revelation, the British Columbia college twice denied the physician’s registration, citing ongoing concerns over his character. The Registration Committee particularly emphasized the physician’s lack of direct action in resolving discrepancies in the IELTS results with the CPSA, suggesting this showed inadequate personal accountability and character.
Reasoning behind the college’s decision
The college argued the applicant failed to demonstrate good professional conduct and good character, highlighting the physician’s reliance on his Alberta lawyer. According to the college, the applicant showed inadequate “initiative,” allowing his lawyer complete control over his application, including access to personal emails, and not proactively resolving discrepancies directly with the CPSA.
Additionally, the Registration Committee expressed concern about the applicant’s representation of his experience in British Columbia, asserting he may have exceeded his authority under a visitor-class registration. The committee stated its paramount duty is to protect public safety and maintain confidence in the medical profession, noting the serious nature of the IELTS discrepancies.
Review board finds college decision unreasonable
In reviewing the college’s decisions, the Health Professions Review Board found substantial issues with the committee’s rationale. It emphasized that hiring legal representation for professional matters is standard and does not inherently reflect poorly on one’s character. The board stated clearly that trusting one’s lawyer cannot reasonably be interpreted as negligence or unethical behaviour.
The board found no reasonable basis for the Registration Committee’s expectation that the physician personally resolve the IELTS issue directly with the CPSA, given he had explicitly retained counsel to manage this process. It criticized the college’s reasoning as setting an “unreasonably high standard,” suggesting no rational expectation exists for someone to suspect their legal counsel would commit fraud.
Additionally, the board highlighted multiple reference letters from respected medical professionals in British Columbia praising the applicant’s clinical skill, professionalism, and integrity. The board noted these character references appeared undervalued in the committee’s deliberations.
Directions for reconsideration
The review board concluded that while procedural fairness was largely upheld, the substance of the Registration Committee’s decision was unreasonable. It instructed the committee to:
- Disregard the applicant’s reliance on his Alberta lawyer as a negative factor.
- Fully reconsider the character references, giving them substantial weight.
- Reassess the disciplinary record of the Alberta lawyer as supportive evidence confirming the applicant’s integrity regarding the IELTS issue.
In its direction, the review board specifically noted, “The Registration Committee’s conclusion that reliance on Counsel showed bad judgment—equating this to bad character, cannot be maintained.”
The matter will now return to the college for a fresh decision consistent with these instructions.
For more information, see Applicant v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (No. 1), 2025 BCHPRB 29 (CanLII).
