This was an Application for Judicial Review. The Applicant, Dr. Basaraba, sought to set aside an interim suspension imposed by the College of Chiropractors of Alberta under Section 65 of the Health Professions Act. Although the Judicial Review raised various issues, Rule 3.19, which requires the filing of a certified record of proceedings, was directly engaged.

While the central issue was procedural fairness, Rule 3.19, which requires the filing of a certified record of proceedings in Judicial Review Applications, was also engaged. No certified record had been filed in accordance with Rule 3.19. Instead, the parties proceeded using affidavits originally submitted in support of a prior stay application. The Respondent acknowledged that everything that would have been included in the certified record was present in the affidavits.

The Court accepted this irregular approach but noted that Judicial Review is generally confined to the evidentiary record before the original decision-maker, citing Northern Air Charters (PR) Inc v Alberta Health Services, 2023 ABCA 114. The Court emphasized that while it was willing to proceed due to the parties’ agreement and absence of objection, it remained reluctant to consider any extrinsic evidence not before the committee at the time of the impugned decision. The absence of a proper Rule 3.19 record did not, in and of itself, justify setting aside the decision, but it contributed to the procedural irregularities that framed the overall fairness concerns in the case.

The suspension was ultimately set aside due to the Respondent’s failure to provide the Applicant with sufficient particulars of the allegations, which rendered his ability to respond effectively “wholly illusory.”