(SML ONLY PROSECUTES MDs DOES NOT DEFEND MDs ).
rsteinecke@sml-law.com
416 625-6897
401 Bay street,suite 2308 (near Queen St.West)
CMAJ & OMA (4 in-house lawyers) provide no legal commentaries on Cases relevant to physicians.
Richard Steinecke practises law exclusively in the area of professional
regulation. He is the editor and writer of the widely read Grey Areas
newsletter commenting on recent developments in professional regulation.
Because of its comprehensive nature, courts and tribunals have cited
his book “A Complete Guide to the Regulated Health Professions Act” well
over dozen times even in cases dealing with non-health professions. The
book is updated twice a year.
Today he spends most of his professional
life teaching, writing, speaking, training and consulting on
professional regulation issues. A life-long learner, Richard reads every
Canadian common law court decision on professional regulation he can
find and has a Certificate in Risk Management from the University of
Toronto.
- Richard Steinecke has been published in the May 2015 edition of HEALTH LAW IN CANADA.. His article entitled “Applying Risk Management Principles to the Complaints System of Regulators” can be found at pages 98.- 105 .
Applying Risk Management Principles
to the Complaints System of Regulators
Richard STEINECKE
Introduction:
Risk management has become a popular tool to
assist organizations identify and address challenges.
There are some barriers to applying risk
management processes to regulators. Risk management
is most prominent in the business world,
where the primary goal of the organization is to enhance
profits. In the business world, even considerations
such as reputational damage and fairness to
employees can be measured in terms of its impact
on the organization’s net revenue. The goals of
regulators are more difficult to define and measure.
In addition, regulators work in a very legalistic environment.
They have a specified legal mandate,
express and implicit statutory authority, and a
common law duty to act with procedural fairness.
Many of a regulator’s legal obligations are contained
outside of their home statute (e.g., human
rights codes, the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, case law). As a result, the risk focus of
regulators often shifts to legal risks. An overreliance
on obtaining and following legal advice
can obscure, and even make regulators vulnerable
to, other very important sources of risk.
.
