Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant, Dennis Shinski, requested full disclosure of the Alberta College of Social Workers’ (ACSW) investigation file before participating in an investigatory interview.

• The main legal issue was whether procedural fairness and natural justice require such disclosure at the investigatory stage, with reference to R v Stinchcombe and Knight v Indian Head School Division No. 19.

• The ACSW maintained that only the substance of the complaint and notice of investigation must be disclosed at this stage, not the entire file.

• The court found that the statutory requirements under the Health Professions Act were met by providing notice and a copy of the complaint, and that full disclosure is only required if the matter proceeds to a hearing.

• The court distinguished between the investigatory and adjudicative stages, holding that the duty of fairness is reduced during investigation and does not require full disclosure before an interview.

• The application for an order compelling disclosure prior to the interview was denied.

Facts of the case

Dennis Shinski is a social worker and a member of the Alberta College of Social Workers (ACSW). On February 27, 2024, a complainant reported to the ACSW that Mr. Shinski engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant’s daughter after she had been discharged from the Northern Addictions Center in Grande Prairie and transitioned to inpatient treatment, then to her mother’s home. The ACSW’s Complaints Director appointed a private investigative agency to investigate the complaint. Mr. Shinski was given notice of the investigation, a copy of the complaint, and the name of the investigator, who was to arrange a meeting with him.

In April 2024, Mr. Shinski, through counsel, formally demanded disclosure of “all relevant documents that have been collected and reviewed as part of the investigation in advance of arranging an investigation meeting with the Applicant.” The ACSW refused further disclosure at the investigatory stage, maintaining this position through multiple letters. Mr. Shinski did not attend an investigatory meeting scheduled for August 30, 2024. On September 5, 2024, the ACSW confirmed that no further particulars would be provided.

Mr. Shinski sought disclosure of the ACSW’s file before deciding whether to participate in the investigation, arguing that lack of disclosure denied him the ability to respond to the allegations, identify credibility issues, or prepare a defense.

Arguments and legal framework

Mr. Shinski argued that principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, as established in R v Stinchcombe [1991] 3 SCR 328 and Knight v Indian Head School Division No. 19 [1990] SCJ No 26, required the ACSW to provide full disclosure at the investigatory stage. He claimed that without such disclosure, he could not mitigate, qualify, or contradict the allegations.

The ACSW argued that there is a distinction between the investigative and adjudicative processes, as defined by statute and jurisprudence. They maintained that the duty of fairness at the investigative stage is reduced, and that they had satisfied their obligations by providing notice of the investigation and a copy of the complaint. The ACSW relied on the Health Professions Act RSA 2000, c H-7, and cited that full disclosure would be provided if the matter was referred to a hearing after the investigation.

Discussion of policy terms and statutory clauses

The court examined the Health Professions Act, specifically section 66, which outlines the process for investigation reports and subsequent actions by the Complaints Director, and section 61, which details notification requirements. The Act allows for conditions or suspension of a member’s practice permit during proceedings (section 65), but this authority is separate from the investigation process and was not exercised in Mr. Shinski’s case. The Complaints Director attested that, as of the hearing, there were no interim conditions or suspension imposed on Mr. Shinski.

Court’s analysis and outcome

Justice Inglis reviewed relevant case law, including Kuny v College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba, Puar v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists (British Columbia), Levesque v Nova Scotia College of Optometrists, and Independent Investigations Office of British Columbia v Vancouver (City) Police Department. The court found that these cases consistently held that the duty of fairness at the investigatory stage is reduced and does not require full disclosure before an interview. The court also distinguished the present case from Stinchcombe, noting that even in criminal proceedings, disclosure is required only after charges are laid.

The court found that the ACSW had complied with its statutory obligations by providing notice and the substance of the complaint, and that there was no statutory or common law obligation to provide full disclosure of the investigatory file before Mr. Shinski’s interview.

Ruling and overall outcome

The application to order disclosure was denied. The court found no breach of Mr. Shinski’s rights to procedural fairness if the ACSW did not disclose their investigatory file prior to his participation in an interview as part of the investigation. No amount was ordered or awarded, as the relief sought was procedural and the application was dismissed in favor of the ACSW.