Complaints Review Committee

9.3 Review of Dismissal by Complaints Review Committee
9.3.1 Subject to subregulation 9.4.4, a complaint dismissed pursuant to subregulations 9.2.2, 9.2.10 or 9.2.12 
must be reviewed by the Complaints Review Committee, if within thirty days of notification of the dismissal 
being forwarded to the complainant, the complainant presents a written request for review to the to the Chair of 
the Complaints Review Committee.
Extension of Time
9.3.2 The Chair of the Complaints Review Committee may, where there are reasonable grounds to do so, extend 
the time for requesting a review under subregulation 9.3.1. 
9.3.3 The Chair of the Complaints Review Committee must advise the member and Executive Director
in writing when a complainant requests a review by the Complaints Review Committee. 
Scope of Review
9.3.4 The Complaints Review Committee may review all relevant information provided by the complainant, all 
files, records and documents obtained or produced by the Executive Director in the course of investigation of the 
complaint, including files and information that are subject to solicitor-client privilege and the Complaints Review 
Committee must not disclose any privileged information, except as permitted under the Act. 
Review by Committee
9.3.5 The procedures applicable to the review of a complaint received by the Complaints Review Committee will 
be determined by the Committee. 
9.3.6 The Complaints Review Committee will keep all requests for review confidential in accordance 
with Section 40 of the Act. 
9.3.7 Following a review of the matter the Committee must
(a) render a written decision which confirms the dismissal of the complaint; or
(b) return the complaint to the Executive Director to investigate in accordance with the Committee’s decision.
Decision of the Committee
9.3.8 In making a decision under subregulation 9.3.7, the Complaints Review Committee must determine 
whether, based on the evidence before the Executive Director, the decision to dismiss was correct because
(a) the subject matter of the complaint was outside the jurisdiction of the Society;
(b) the complaint was for an extraneous or improper purpose; 
(c) the complaint did not allege facts which, if proven, would constitute professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming, or professional incompetence, or would merit counseling, a caution or other; or
(d) the evidence that might reasonably be believed could not support a finding of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming, professional incompetence or incapacity, or would not merit counseling, a caution or both.
9.3.9 If the Complaints Review Committee determines that the Executive Director’s decision was not correct, 
then it may direct that the complaint be returned to the Executive Director.
9.3.10 The Complaints Review Committee must provide written reasons to the complainant, the lawyer and the 
Executive Director.
9.3.11 A decision made under subregulation 9.3.7 is final.
9.3.12 If a direction is made pursuant to subregulations 9.3.7(b), the Executive Director must follow the direction 
and despite the authority in subregulations 9.2.10 (a) or 9.2.12 (a), must provide a written report to the Complaints 
Investigation Committee pursuant to subregulation 9.2.12 (g).