A British Columbia appeals court has upheld the right of individuals to provide information to a professional disciplinary body without fear of legal consequences.

The issue in this appeal was whether a person who provides information to a professional disciplinary body about the conduct of one of its members is liable in an action brought by that member. “The clear answer is that the communication of the information is subject to absolute privilege, which provides a defence to all claims,” the court said.

In this case, Christine Hung, a member of the Law Society of B.C. and the Certified General Accountants Association of B. C. sued the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. and the members of its the professional conduct inquiry committee (PCEC).

The court said that actions taken by her while employed by a firm of chartered accountants resulted in an investigation and reprimand of her supervisor by the PCEC. The members of the PCEC decided that the Law Society and the CGA Association should be informed of her conduct, so they forwarded the report of the investigator to those professional bodies. Both professional bodies declined to investigate further or to take any disciplinary action against Hung.

She brought an action for damages for defamation, malicious prosecution, negligence, breach of confidentiality, breach of the Accountants (Chartered) Act, and bylaws, misfeasance in public office, breach of the Privacy Act, invasion of privacy and conspiracy. Mr. Justice Joyce, after a summary trial, dismissed all of the appellant’s claims, finding that they were barred by the absolute privilege that surrounded the act of providing the report to the professional bodies.

In her appeal, Hung argued that absolute privilege extends to a complaint submitted to a quasi-judicial body only if proceedings ensue. The court disagreed. It said. “On close reading, the authorities cited by the appellant are consistent with those relied on by the trial judge. He applied the proper test to determine whether the report was sent on an occasion of absolute privilege. The test is whether the Law Society and the CGA Association, exercising their disciplinary powers, have attributes similar to a court of justice or act in a manner similar to that in which such courts act. There is no real question that they do.”

“The Law Society and the CGA Association are quasi-judicial bodies and are not merely administrative in nature. They have the power to determine the legal rights and to affect the status of their members.

Thus, a complaint made to them in a confidential way concerning a member’s conduct is absolutely privileged,” it said. “There are important public policy reasons for this finding. Absolute privilege allows/permits a member of the public to raise a concern about the conduct of a professional person, without fear of reprisal. In this way, the immunity afforded by absolute privilege protects both professionals and the public.”