Note: Here is my letter to the College set to hear Dr. Hoffe on Feb. 13, in the limited time I had available to me to write. My arguments are based on my limited knowledge of his situation, where it is my understanding that the Tribunal is attempting to force him to be heard without his lawyer. Please feel free to copy all or part as you wish, but I urge you to strongly support Dr. Hoffe by complaining and making your views known to the College in his support. Here is a man who has risked his career, his good name and reputation for truth and justice – and his Hippocratic Oath. Let’s support him!
David
————————-
To the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
February 7, 2023
I understand that Dr. Hoffe is scheduled to appear before you for a scheduled 10 day hearing, beginning on Feb. 13, 2023. The procedure for this hearing is set out in s. 38 of the Health Profession Act, RSBC 1996 CHAPTER 183 (the Act). I am concerned that this tribunal is violating its own mandates and statutory duties to Dr. Hoffe and the public, in an attempt to simply rush this hearing through faster than Trudeau complaining about truckers who love freedom. I am unable to delve into the necessary details of my concerns due to length of presentations this would entail, so I will be somewhat brief.
In addition to the right of hearing and a right to have legal representation, the discipline committee (Committee) is invested with the statutory power pursuant to s. 38(4.2)(a)(c), to grant adjournments and make any other direction it considers appropriate if the Committee “…is satisfied that this is necessary to ensure that the legitimate interests of a party will not be unduly prejudiced.”
I further understand that Dr. Hoffe’s lawyer is unavailable for this hearing due to unexpected medical issues which required hospitalization, and that you have not only refused to accept this as a basis to adjourn Dr. Hoffe’s hearing, but have further attacked his lawyer’s character by refusing to believe him, all of which is fully documented in hospital records. Such unfortunate circumstances are nothing more or less than an Act of God.
No doctor can fully represent himself on legal administrative matters over the course of 10 days. Neither Dr. Hoffe nor any other doctor is trained in this area to so do. The lack of legal representation is, ipso facto unduly prejudicial to Dr. Hoffe.
Lawyers are, as you know, officers of the court. It is presumed that if a lawyer claims he is hospitalized and/or too ill to appear in court, this is true and correct. The Law Society has recognized the special place occupied by lawyers in our legal system, and the significance provided to them and their representations.
“Practising law is an honour and a privilege afforded to a very small percentage of society, and with it comes significant responsibilities. Three of the most serious responsibilities are managing trust funds, providing undertakings and upholding the duty to the court. Lawyers are officers of the court, and as officers of the court, lawyers make representations to the court on which the Judges and Registry staff must be able to rely. Our court system functions only because lawyers are officers of the court and the court can rely on the representations they make. Those representations are the foundation of the important decisions the judiciary makes that directly impact the lives of those members of the public involved in the court process. There is no room for a cavalier attitude, sloppy practice, or dishonesty when it comes to these hallmarks of our legal system.”
Batchelor (Re) 2014 LSBC 11 (CanLII) para. 20
The principles of natural justice apply to this body hearing this appeal.
“Lord Denning put into summary form the evolving duty of the investigator when he stated…p. 19:
In all these cases it has been held that the investigating body is under a duty to act fairly… The fundamental rule is that, if a person may be subjected to pains or penalties, or be exposed to prosecution or proceedings, or deprived of remedies or redress, or in some such way adversely affected by the investigation and report, then he should be told the case made against him and be afforded a fair opportunity of answering.”1(my emphasis)
The Constitutional right of a fair hearing includes audi alteram partem, the basic components of which are stated below:
“98. The ‘right to be heard’ rule has been described as a ‘venerable principle’: L’Alliance des Professeurs Catholiques de Montreal v La Commission des Relations Ouvrieres de la Province de Quebec et la Commission des Ecoles Catholiques de Montreal. (SCC) at 195 per Rinfret C.J.C. Adherence to the audi alteram partem rule is a matter of ‘elementary justice’. In Supermarches Jean Labrecque Inc. v Flamand, supra @ 233-234, L’Heureux-Dube J. observed:
This rule is so fundamental in our law that I do not think there is any necessity to discuss it at length.
…
Respect for the rule goes back to the origins of our democratic institutions and is part of our most cherished legal heritage.
100 The rule that each party has a right to be heard is so fundamental that it need not be embodied in the legislation under which the tribunal acts.”
“65. The audi alteram partem principle does…..does contemplate that both sides will have an equal opportunity to be heard. The emphasis is on an equal opportunity to be heard, rather than on a particular mode of hearing. (my emphasis)
The tribunal must listen fairly to both sides, giving the parties to the controversy a fair opportunity ‘for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to their views.” Board of Education v Rice 1911 A.C. 179,…182.”
“Such party must, in the words of Lord Denning….. ‘know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him; and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them..’ ”1(my emphasis)
“..a meaningful opportunity to present the various types of evidence relevant to their case and have it fully and fairly considered.”2(my emphasis)
I am angered that you are considering proceeding in a manner which denies to Dr. Hoffe his right to be fully heard in this matter. Such a right requires a duty upon you to adjourn the matter pending the health and availability of his lawyer. In this case, his lawyer is necessarily incidental to his right to be fully heard, as it would be for any doctor. As was held before the Health Professions Review Board (Complainant v. College of Psychologists of British Columbia (No. 2), 2020 BCHPRB 12 (CanLII), para. 111) and many others, this tribunal is bound by law to uphold these venerable principles of natural justice to Dr. Hoffe.
Though these venerable principles are not dependent on the substance of one’s defences, I further understand that Dr. Hoffe has excellent medical literature and evidence to support his comments underlying your Citation against him, that Ivermectin does work, the COVID-19 vaccines do result in frequent blood clots, and that vaccinated can shed COVID-19 onto others. I sincerely hope that you are not rushing this hearing through in this manner, to deny Dr. Hoffe’s incredible medical evidence from coming on the public record, yet whether this be your intention or not, the result is the same negative. The importance of this evidence in his defence is, precedentially, far too important to rush this hearing in a manner that will prevent Dr. Hoffe from fully defending himself.
I believe Dr. Hoffe is also required to be afforded a Constitutional right of procedural fairness, which, as the Health Professions Review Board also recognized, is of the “highest degree”, and where “…procedural fairness has been a fundamental component of Canadian administrative law since Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, 1978 CanLII 24 (SCC), [1979] where Chief Justice Laskin for the majority adopted the proposition that “in the administrative or executive field there is a general duty of fairness” (p. 324). Six years later this principle was affirmed by a unanimous Court, per Le Dain J.: “… there is, as a general common law principle, a duty of procedural fairness lying on every public authority making an administrative decision which is not of a legislative nature and which affects the rights, privileges or interests of an individual“. (Applicant v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2018 BCHPRB 76 (CanLII) Para. 119, 125)
There is no fairness in denying an adjournment to a member of your College whose lawyer is, for reasons not of his own volition, incapacitated from appearing in court. Forcing Dr. Hoffe into this hearing, where his career is on the line, unrepresented through no fault of his own, is unfair and unjust. It amounts to significant violations of Dr. Hoffe’s Constitutional rights and freedoms, and is not in the public interest as the public is not able to hear both sides of the issues to make an informed choice of whether justice was seen to be done or not – especially where significant amounts of evidence and arguments will not be on the record as a result. Justice will not be seen to be done in these circumstances. I hope these are not your intentions.
This tribunal has the power to adjourn, both in the Administrative Tribunals Act and in the Health Professions Act, where clearly Dr. Hoffe’s situation, and the extremely meritorious defences, facts, studies and statistics he has available to present, demand nothing less than this adjournment, and the test to be applied has been met. Proceeding against Dr. Hoffe in this manner, would further likely result in being overturned on appeal or review as the case may be, and result in further unnecessary costs to the public and Dr. Hoffe. I strongly urge you to reconsider any decision to proceed under these circumstances.
Yours truly
David Lindsay
CLEAR
Common Law Education and Rights