Character requirements are a preventative and protective regulatory tool. By ensuring that only qualified applicants are admitted to a profession, the public is protected at large and can trust that anyone admitted to the profession meets a specific threshold of qualifications, or in this case, of good character. However, “good character” sometimes remains puzzling, especially when addressing serious issues in one’s past.

One’s character may refer to moral qualities, ethical standards, principles or values. It is often profession dependent, highlighting the important task of self-regulation. Some terms relied on are that a person is of “good repute”, a person who holds “moral fibre,” or a person of “high regard and esteem”. Nonetheless, the question remains: what does a professional need to show to prove that they are of good character prior to being admitted to a profession?

In Alberta, the Court of Appeal in Lum v Alberta Dental Assn. and College, 2016 ABCA 154, reviewed the character of Dr. Lum. He had applied to Alberta from British Columbia and had some character concerns in his application, including 22 complaints (two outstanding upon his application, but no findings of unprofessional conduct). In reviewing the issue, the Court of Appeal summarized numerous key broad principles to keep in mind.¹  These are outlined further below.

Since Lum, there have been many examples of “good character” being tested and determined by regulators. Two important themes that continue to be heavily relied on in more recent decisions are remorse and rehabilitation.

In Applicant 20 (Re), 2024 LSBC 36, the Law Society of British Columbia (“LSBC”) assessed the character of a prospective articling student. When the applicant was younger, she had dated someone with criminal involvement and gang association.² During their relationship, the applicant rented an apartment for her boyfriend but she lived with her parents. The police raided the apartment, finding drugs and guns. The police charged the applicant, as the apartment was under her name, and her boyfriend. After their arrest, the applicant and her boyfriend breached their bail conditions to not have any contact with each other. The applicant spent two months in jail due to breaching her bail conditions. She also declined to cooperate with the police when they questioned her about her boyfriend’s involvement in a murder they were investigating, for which he had confessed to her. Later on, her boyfriend plead guilty to manslaughter and other offences. As a part of his guilty plea, all charges against the applicant were dropped in 2015. They continued to have contact while he served a long jail sentence and eventually, in 2021 she ended her relationship.

At the LSBC hearing, the applicant had witnesses positively describe her character. The Panel emphasized that their focus was on who the applicant was at the time of her hearing, not who she was at the time of the concerning conduct. They considered her growth and experiences since 2021 and found that the factors that weighed in her favor were her character references (both personal and professional) and her truthfulness. Despite noting a concerning lack of cooperation and respect for the criminal justice system while with her ex-boyfriend, the Panel found that the applicant had rehabilitated herself and admitted her errors, noting that she appreciated the difference between right and wrong, she held a belief that the law must be upheld and had the moral fibre to do what is right. The applicant’s remorse and rehabilitation successfully established good character of the applicant and she was admitted to the LSBC to complete temporary articles.

On the other hand, in Leontowicz v the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the Health Professions Appeal Review Board reviewed the denial of a Registration Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (“CPSO”) to issue certification to Mr. Leontowicz, who has a publicized history of unprofessional conduct in Saskatchewan.³ Briefly, Mr. Leontowicz was alleged to have sexually assaulted a woman after a Tinder date. Mr. Leontowicz was found responsible by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan but was not criminally charged (although a police investigation took place). He applied to the Registration Committee for membership to complete physician residency and later on, for post-graduate education.

In his application, Mr. Leontowicz submitted a description of his complaint in Saskatchewan but maintained his innocence and indicated he regretted how the complainant felt. He provided information from psychiatrists and numerous references from members of the community, friends, family and former romantic partners. He was also willing to do psychiatric assessments, counselling and medical evaluations. The Registration Committee collected photos of the complainant from the police investigation.

The Registration Committee took issue that there was no admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of responsibility from Mr. Leontowicz, noting the importance of decency, integrity, and honesty in practicing medicine. Despite clear rehabilitative efforts, the Registration Committee found that such efforts were insufficient given the lack of remorse and that he “blamed” the complainant and he did not express insight into the absence of the complainant’s consent to sexual activity. The Registration Committee also did not find the absence of criminal charges to be persuasive and emphasized the “violent” nature of the allegations. The Registration Committee’s decision to deny Mr. Leontowicz admission to the profession was upheld on review by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

These two decisions show the ongoing importance of tackling rehabilitation and remorse, especially when the underlying issues relating to an applicant’s character are serious. Applicant 20 relied on remorse, openness and insight to grant her admission while in Leontowicz, he was denied largely due to his lack of remorse and insight. The recent decisions show how remorse and rehabilitation are very complex and factually dependent.

Key Considerations in Assessing Good Character Evidence

In addition to the two decisions discussed above, below are some key considerations from Lum and other cases to keep in mind:

1. Good character issues are often triggered by properly crafted application questions. It is helpful to consider whether the questions being asked in registration processes are supported and authorized by legislation while being broad enough to sufficiently protect the public and avoid non-disclosures by applicants.

2. An applicant bears the burden of proving their character. However, requiring an applicant to prove “good character” is somewhat misleading.⁴ An applicant is more accurately required to prove that they are not of “bad character”. This burden may practically be met through collection of documents, reports, references, and other information. It is helpful to consider what specific documents, if any, are being requested and how they are targeted in addressing the issue that has been raised as potential “bad character”.

3. This focus of assessing good character is on the present, not the past. The assessment is on the person when they apply, not as the person they once were. No matter how egregious an applicant’s past conduct may be, it is crucial to keep fairly and objectively focused on the applicant at the time they apply.

4. The overarching mandate of public protection and maintaining the reputation of the profession are relevant, but not necessarily determinative. A regulator must meaningfully grapple with the evidence and information presented by an applicant. The assessment of good character evidence may be very fact-specific and complex, as demonstrated by Applicant 20 and Leontowicz.

Contact Jason Kully, Vita Wensel or any member of Field Law’s Professional Regulatory Group for assistance in determining your scope of authority in addressing good character evidence through registration processes, tackling the issue of good character evidence received and to review the latest cases about this issue.