Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A primary legal issue was whether the Registration Appeal Committee had jurisdiction to conduct a de novo hearing instead of a review.

• A central evidentiary concern related to whether permitting fresh evidence effectively blurred the line between a review and a de novo process.

• The Court addressed whether judicial review was premature given that the administrative process was still in progress.

• The appellant asserted that the statutory and regulatory framework only authorized a review, not a de novo hearing.

• The respondents argued that the regulations permitted calling evidence, making the procedure indistinguishable from a de novo hearing.

• The Court determined there were no exceptional circumstances justifying judicial intervention before the administrative process concluded.

Facts of the case

Sybil Hogg applied to be registered as a paramedic in Nova Scotia. The College of Paramedics of Nova Scotia’s Registration Committee refused her application. Ms. Hogg appealed this decision to the Registration Appeal Committee. A dispute arose as to whether the Appeal Committee was limited to a review of the Registration Committee’s decision or could proceed by way of a de novo hearing. The Appeal Committee decided to proceed by de novo hearing. Ms. Hogg disagreed with this approach and appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, which refused jurisdiction. She then sought judicial review and, being out of time, applied for an extension of time to commence judicial review. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia declined the extension on the basis of prematurity. Ms. Hogg appealed that decision to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

Discussion of policy terms and relevant clauses

The dispute centered on the interpretation of the Paramedics Act, S.N.S. 2015, c. 33, and the Paramedic Regulations, N.S. Reg. 57/2017 as amended to N.S. Reg. 84/2018. The appellant highlighted the absence of any reference to de novo hearings in the statutory and regulatory text, emphasizing the repeated use of the term “review.” The College responded that the regulations allowed for the calling of evidence and submissions by the parties, which could render the process functionally similar to a de novo hearing. The Appeal Committee stated that evidence at the hearing could include the record before the Registration Committee as well as fresh evidence and submissions by the parties, indicating it did not intend to disregard the original decision entirely.

Outcome of the decisions

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Hogg’s appeal without costs. The Court concluded that judicial review was premature because the Appeal Committee’s process was ongoing. It found no error in the judge’s application of the prematurity principle and noted the absence of exceptional circumstances that would justify judicial intervention at this stage. The Court determined that whether the Appeal Committee lacked jurisdiction to conduct a de novo hearing would be a matter for the administrative process and any subsequent review once that process concluded. No patent injustice was found in the decision under appeal.