Wally Oppal's Responsibility for the Public Interest

It has been almost a year since the sentencing, incarceration and deportation of Dr. Nathalie Gettliffe, mother of the two young children forced to remain in British Columbia, Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant.

Canada Children First, a Canadian association of concerned parents involved in the legal sphere, wrote a letter to the A.G. enquiring as to why he chose not to intervene in this matter, especially since it concerned the best interests of the children and the public interest.

He responded in a letter replying that it was not his responsibility to intervene.

The Family Relations Act of British Columbia states otherwise:

"Intervention by Attorney General or other person
18 (1) The Attorney General may intervene in a proceeding and contest or argue a question or matter arising in the proceeding that affects the public interest.
(2) Any person may apply to the court for leave to intervene in a proceeding and the court may make an order entitling that person to intervene.
(3) An order under subsection (2) is subject to the terms and conditions the court, in its discretion, considers appropriate.
(4) The Attorney General or another person who intervenes under this section in a proceeding becomes a party to the proceedings. "

Furthermore, Oppal implied through written statements that Canada Children First had imagined concerns regarding the Gettliffe-Grant children.

Shortly after the receipt of his letter, Canada Children First was advised that Dr. Lucien Larre, a child psychologist who had been employed by Scott Grant, the father of the two young children, had been suspended by the College of Psychologists of British Columbia and that he was denied the ability to practise because his actions posed a "serious risk" to the public.

Surely, in his role as Attorney General of British Columbia, Wally Oppal is obligated to investigate Lucien Larre's involvement with the Gettliffe-Grant children and to monitor their safety. Especially since they remain separated from their mother who was deported to France in December 2006.

Before and during 2006, several complaints had been made to the College of Psychologists of British Columbia concerning the conduct of Lucien Larre in his practise as a psychologist.

A complaint was brought to the College's attention regarding a s.15 report prepared for the Ministry of Children and Family Development by Lucien Larre, which had been instrumental in removing several young children from the safety of their mother's home in B.C. and exposing them to foster homes where they were subsequently abused.

A similar complaint was made by Canada Children First in 2006 regarding the involvement of Lucien Larre in the forced separation of Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe Grant from their mother last year in 2006, the same year that Larre was suspended.

We expect a public response from Mr. Oppal, informing us, the public, as to his proposed intention to act in the public interest in this matter.

Lucien Larre, Former Child Psychologist Suspended

Docket: S067760

Registry: Vancouver

Between: Dr. Lucien Larre Petitioner

And

College of Psychologists of British Columbia Respondent

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Joyce

Reasons for Judgment
Date and Place of Hearing:February 16, 2007
Vancouver , B.C.

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING

[1] This is an appeal brought by Dr. Larre under s. 35(5) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 (the “Act”) from the suspension of his registration as amember of the College of Psychologists of British Columbia (the “College”) by the Inquiry Committee of the College pending further investigation or a hearing of the Discipline Committee of the College.
[2] Dr. Larre seeks an order quashing the decision of the Inquiry Committee and anorder reinstating his registration upon his giving his undertaking of his conduct or a hearing of the Discipline Committee.
BACKGROUND

[3] Prior to December 1, 2006 Dr. Larre was a member in good standing of the College.

[4] On June 30, 2006, as a result of unresolved complaints against Dr. Larre to the College concerning his competence in connection with the preparation of certain psychological assessments, the Inquiry Committee Inquiry Committee of the College commenced an investigation. Without admitting any blame or liability concerning the allegations in the various complaints, Dr. Larre signed an Undertaking and Consent pursuant to s. 36(1) of the Act that included the following provisions:1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Undertaking and Consent, or as soon aspracticable thereafter, I consent to be subject to an assessment by a psychologist (the“assessor”) appointed by the College concerning my fitness and competence to practice psychology in the various areas that are the subject of the complaints referred to approved by the Inquiry Committee, including but not necessarily limited to, that I enter into a course of psychology with a registered psychologist appointed by the College, that I undertake educational courses or training in psychology, that I limit or restrict my practice of psychology, that I consent to a period of practice supervision, or that I cease the practice of psychology altogether.

[5] The College appointed Dr. Hedrick, a psychologist who practices in Seattle ,Washington to be the assessor. On September 21, 2006 Dr. Hedrick provided her assessment, in which she recommended that Dr. Larre cease practice as a psychologist.

[6] On October 19, 2006 the Inquiry Committee wrote to Dr. Larre and advised him that it would consider the assessment on November 9, 2006. It invited Dr. Larre to make any submissions he might care to make in relation to the assessment. Dr. Larre was out of the country and did not make any submissions.

[7] On November 9, 2006 the Inquiry Committee considered the assessment and on November 10, 2006 it wrote to Dr. Larre and advised him that it approved Dr. Hedrick’srecommendation that Dr. Larre not continue to practice as a psychologist. The Inquiry Committee invited Dr. Larre to provide the College with his resignation or consent to the cancellation of his registration with the College.

[8] On November 14, 2006 … counsel for Dr. Larre wrote to the College and advisedthat Dr. Larre did not accept Dr. Hedrick’s recommendations as reasonable and that he would not resign or consent to the cancellation of his registration with the College.

… the Act to consider whether it was necessary to take action to protect the public pending ahearing of the Discipline Committee concerning Dr. Larre’s refusal to accept the recommendation.
Dr. Larre’s counsel appeared at the hearing on his behalf and proposed that Dr. Larre would refrain from the practice of psychology in British Columbia pending a discipline hearing and that it was therefore not necessary to suspend Dr. Larre’s registration. The Inquiry Committee Panel declined to accept the offer and suspended Dr. Larre’s registration.

THE STANDARD OF REVIEW

[11] The parties are in agreement that the appropriate standard of review in this case as …determined by the pragmatic and functional approach described in Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] S.C.J. No. 18 is one of reasonableness simpliciter.

THE STATUTORY SCHEME …

[13] Under s. 32 of the Act a person may make a complaint to the Registrar of the College who must then refer it to the Inquiry Committee:
[32] The investigation concerned serious allegations regarding Dr. Larre’s competence.

The seriousness of the allegations was reinforced by the review conducted by Dr. Hedrick pursuant to the undertaking. Dr. Larre refused to accept the recommendation, which the Panel considered was reasonable based upon its review of the evidence. The Panel was faced with a situation where it was satisfied that unless Dr. Larre’s practice was suspended the public was exposed to a serious risk. There was a need to act without delay.… In my opinion the Inquiry Committee Panel applied the correct test by asking itself whether there was a prima facie case that Dr. Larre breached the undertaking, not whether it was proven that he did. The panel was satisfied a prima facie case had been made out with regard to the alleged breach as well as the urgency and degree of risk posed by Dr. Larre.
To read the case in its complete form, please follow the link below to the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s website:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/07/04/2007bcsc0416.htm