Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc Barristers & Solicitors


	Newsletters
	Professional Practice and Liability on the Net


	Frivolous Complaints: Is There Anything You Can Do?
	by Bernard C. LeBlanc
	December, 2005 - Vol 7 No 3

	Most statistics show that regulators are dealing with an increasing number of complaints against practitioners in virtually every profession. There are probably a number of reasons for this trend. In addition to the fact that more people are becoming increasingly aware of their right to complain, society, generally, has become increasingly litigious. Further, since it does not cost a complainant any money to launch a complaint, it only make sense that the number of complaints seems to be growing. While many complaints raise very serious issues about the way someone is practicing their profession, many complaints can often be described as “frivolous”. In those cases, practitioners often wonder whether their regulator should be investigating the matter at all. They also wonder if they can sue the complainant for launching a meaningless complaint which they believe is made in bad faith. In terms of the first issue, most regulators are under an obligation to investigate all complaints at least to some extent. In some cases, if the regulator is convinced that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the complaints process, the complaint can often be dismissed without the matter going through the entire complaints process. However, for many reasons, most regulators adopt a conservative view of what might constitute a frivolous complaint, or one that might be an abuse of process. Practitioners also wonder whether, if a complaint is frivolous, they can take any action against the complainant for wasting the time it may have taken to respond to a complaint. Practitioners also wonder whether they could bring an action for libel or slander against a complainant. A recent case in the Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the traditional view that a practitioner cannot sue someone because they complained to the practitioner’s regulator on the basis that a complaint is protected by what is referred to as “absolute privilege”. As such, the person making the complaint is protected from being successfully sued by the practitioner. In Hamalengwa v. Duncan, the defendant, who was a judge, complained about a lawyer to the Law Society of Upper Canada. After investigating the matter, the Law Society decided to take no action, and closed its file. The lawyer sued the judge for libel and slander, the breach of his constitutional rights, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims. Referring to fairly well established legal principles, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the action on the basis that, among other things, there is an “absolute privilege” that attaches to statements, such as complaints, made to a statutory regulatory body. The law has long protected persons who bring formal complaints against practitioners in order to encourage people to come forward with legitimate complaints. Clearly, if someone could be sued for defamation simply for making a complaint, most people would likely be very reluctant to make any complaints against practitioners. Unfortunately, therefore, for practitioners, they cannot sue people who complained about them, whether the action would be in defamation, lost income or otherwise. However, the matter could be different if statements were made outside of the formal complaints or investigation process. [Professional Practice and Liability on the Net is a monthly Internet newsletter addressing issue of interest to a wide range of professionals. Please consult with a lawyer for specific legal advice. If you wish to be removed from the list of subscribers, please simply reply to this email. If you wish to reprint this article, please provide appropriate credit, and send a copy of the publication to, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, 393 University Avenue, Suite 2000, Toronto M5G 1E6. Or, call 599-2200, ext. 232, or email: bleblanc@sml-law.com. Visit our website at http://www.sml-law.com. Comments and suggestions are also welcome. ]



	Subscribe to this newsletter

	Professional Practice and Liability on the Net is a monthly internet newsletter addressing issues of interest to a wide range of professionals. Please consult with a lawyer for specific legal advice. If you wish to be removed from the list of subscribers, please simply reply to this email. If you wish to reprint this article, please provide appropriate credit, and send a copy of the publication to, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, 401 Bay Street, Suite 2308, P.O. Box 23, Toronto, ON M5H 2Y4. Or, call 599-2200, ext. 232, or email bleblanc@sml-law.com. Comments and suggestions are also welcome.