Shield Complainants From Doctor Contact

Summary#

This bill changes Nova Scotia’s Medical Act to add extra protections for people who report sexual assault or sexual misconduct by a doctor. It sets limits on what information about the complaint can be shared with the doctor and blocks any direct contact with the person who made the complaint.

• Applies only to complaints about sexual assault or sexual misconduct against physicians.
• Before the College shares complaint details that identify the complainant (the person who filed the complaint), the College must give that person advance notice so they can prepare for their comfort or safety.
• The respondent (the doctor accused) and their representative (such as a lawyer or agent) are not allowed to contact the complainant.
• Communication is expected to happen through the regulator, not directly between the parties.
• Aims to make the complaint process safer and less intimidating for people who come forward.

What it means for you#

• Patients or other complainants

  • You will be told ahead of time if your name or identifying details will be shared with the doctor.
  • The doctor you complained about, and their lawyer or representative, cannot contact you directly.
  • You can use the advance notice to make a safety or support plan if needed.
  • Most communication should go through the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

• Physicians (respondents)

  • You may still receive complaint information, but if it could identify the complainant, the College must first give them advance notice.
  • You cannot contact the complainant yourself, and your representative cannot either. Communicate through the College or formal processes.
  • You may experience changes in timelines or procedure for getting identifying details in these cases.

• College of Physicians and Surgeons (regulator)

  • Must give complainants advance notice before sharing any identifying information with the respondent.
  • Must enforce a no-contact rule between respondents (and their representatives) and complainants in these cases.
  • Likely needs to adjust policies, forms, and staff training to follow the new rules.

• General public

  • Intended to make it safer for people to report sexual misconduct by doctors, which could strengthen trust in the complaints process.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Improves safety and reduces the risk of harassment or intimidation of people who report sexual misconduct.
• Gives complainants time to prepare emotionally and physically before their identity is shared.
• Encourages more reporting by making the process less frightening and more respectful.
• Sets a clear boundary by banning direct contact from the doctor or their representatives.
• Still allows the doctor to receive complaint information; it just adds notice to protect the complainant.

Opponents' View#

• Could slow investigations if disclosure is delayed to provide notice.
• A total no-contact rule, including for representatives, may make it harder to gather information quickly or explore early resolution.
• The term “sufficient notice” is vague and could lead to uneven application or disputes.
• Delayed access to identifying information may affect how fast a respondent can prepare their response.
• May add administrative work for the College to manage notices and enforce the no-contact rule.