Regulating Disruptive Behaviour

What is the role of regulators when their members are disruptive? That question sparked a lot of debate at a conference of regulators held earlier this month.

Graeme Keirstead, chief legal counsel for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, described a range of behaviours that have caused significant concerns in the two professions he has been involved in regulating: physicians and lawyers. One category, which he called aggressive behaviours, includes yelling, foul and abusive language, threatening gestures, public criticism of co-workers, insults and shaming of others and intimidation.

Another category involves passive-aggressive behaviour such as the cold shoulder treatment, condescending language, impatience with questions, malicious gossip, discriminatory slurs often called "jokes" and sarcasm.

Keirstead clarified that regulators should not be worried about a single episode where a person had a bad day. No one is perfect and expecting absolute harmony is unrealistic. It is persistent disruptive behaviour that might attract the attention of regulators.

Some regulators have already taken action in this area. For example, guidelines have been issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the College of Physicians of Alberta. Other regulators, like the College of Nurses of Ontario, have published a similar guideline on conflict prevention and management. These documents reflect an initial strategy of identifying the issue, describing expectations and offering practical suggestions for dealing with disruptive behaviour when it does occur. There has also been quite a push in recent years among the regulators of lawyers to foster civility among practitioners.

Keirstead also gave some examples where the regulator had to deal with disruptive behaviour at the more serious end of the spectrum, particularly where the behaviour was "actionable" in the sense that other legal duties were breached. Of heightened concern would include harassment on a ground protected by the applicable Human Rights Code (e.g., sex, race) or conduct that put the mental or physical safety of people at risk (i.e., contrary to occupational health legislation). In one case the outcome of the complaint included:

the practitioner issuing a letter of apology, a formal written reprimand, counselling with a psychiatrist, visits by a supervisor to the practitioner's office, connecting the practitioner with a mentor, professional development in...