Consultation: A Governance Framework for IP Agents
Part 2: Governance Model
Submission to
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
By the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
August 30, 2016
SubmissioninResponsetotheSecondPartoftheConsultationona
GovernanceFrameworkforIPAgents–theGovernanceModel
TableofContents
ExecutiveSummary:Anewgovernanceframeworktoserveinnovation
Résumé:Unnouveaucadredegouvernanceauservicedel’innovation
Introduction
I. Opt for the College
A. Whymodernizethegovernanceframework?
B. Whyself-regulation?
1. Context
2. Recommendations
3. Experience
4. Win-win-win
C. WhytheCollege?
D. Overview
1.Innovationagendaobjectives
2. Consultationsandpresentations
3. Roleswithinthenewgovernanceframework
4. Legislativeandregulatoryinstruments
II.Admission:Balanceprotectionofthepublicandaccessibility
A. Registerandlist
1. ModernizingtheIPCommunityrecommendations
2. Coordination
3. Non-residentagents
4. Firmsontheregister/list
B. Admission
1. ModernizingtheIPCommunityrecommendations
2. Additionalenhancements
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
6
12
19
21
22
24
24
26
26
27
29
30
30
31
31
33
34
35
35
36
36
38
39
39
40
2
3. Implementationsteps
41
4. Otherpublicinterestconsiderations
42
III. ProfessionalRequirements:Tocontributetoefficientandeffectiveself-regulation
inprotectingthepublic
43
A. Suggestedapproachestoregulation:TheguidingphilosophyoftheCollege 1. Ensuringethicalbehaviourinprotectingthepublic
44
2. Right-touchregulation
44
3. Coaching
46
4. Monitoringtrendsanddevelopments
46
5. Accountabilityandtransparency
47
B. ContinuingProfessionalDevelopment
48
1. ModernizingtheIPCommunityrecommendations
48
2. Implementationconsiderations
48
C. Insurance
52
D. Regulationoffirms
53
1. Legal/businessstructureoffirms
53
2. Entityregulation
55
E. Financialaspects
57
1. Financialmanagement
57
2. Indemnityfund
58
IV.CodeandDiscipline:Protectingthepublic
60
A. Codeofethics
61
1. ModernizingtheIPCommunityrecommendation
61
2. TheCodeofEthics
61
B. Complaintsanddiscipline
105
1. ModernizingtheIPCommunityrecommendation
105
2. Overviewofthedisciplineprocess
105
3. Thedisciplineprocess
108
4. Feedisputeresolutionmechanism
132
V.Organization:Beeffective,efficient,transparent,andaccountable
133
A. Name 134
B. Organizationalstructure
135
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
3
1. Membership
2. Council
3. Committees
4. Staff
C. Financialestimates
1. Revenues
2. Expenses
3. Reserve
135
136
137
138
140
140
141
141
VI.Alternatives 142
A. Concerns
143
1. Supportinginnovationdoesnotmeanexperimentingwithregulation 2. ModelsOneorTwowouldsendthewrongsignaltoinnovators
143
3. CIPOwouldbeinconflict
143
4. Self-regulationshouldnotbedisavowedwithoutevidence
144
5. Thelostopportunity
144
VII.Implementation:CreatetheCollege
146
A. Implementationsteps
147
1. IPIC’srole
147
2. Transitionfunding
147
3. Timeline
147
B. Legislativeoptions
149
Option1:Stand-aloneact
149
Option2:AmendmentstothePatentActandtotheTrade-marksAct 150
3. Additionalclauses
161
4. Changestoregulations
162
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
180
CodeofConduct
Question1–codeelements
182
Question2–activities
184
Disciplinaryprocess
Question3–structure
185
Question4–privilege
185
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
4
Question5–remedies
Question6–conflicts
186
187
GovernanceModels
Question7–cost-efficiency
Question8–barrierstoentry
Question9–rulesandstandards
Question10–transparency
Question11–accountability
Question12–alignment
Question13–accountability
Question14–reviewofthecode
193
195
199
200
203
205
214
215
Conflicts
Question15–directconflict
Question16–regimes
216
216
IX.ContactInformation
217
Annexes
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
IPICresponsetoconsultationoncodeofconduct
IPICFinancialAidPolicy
FrenchversionofproposedCodeofEthics
Frenchversionofproposeddisciplineprocess
Right-touchRegulation
EvaluationofICCRC
ManitobaFairRegistrationPractices
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
5
ExecutiveSummary
SustainingExcellence:ANewGovernanceFrameworktoServeInnovation
TheGovernmentofCanadahasgivenitselfthevitalgoalofmakingCanadaaglobal
innovationleader
The Government proposes to do so by focusing on six areas for action that include improving
the ease of doing business and encouraging companies to grow.
Intellectual property is a fundamental element in the growth of innovative companies; the
road from idea to commercial product or service includes the key step of protecting the IP
inherent to innovation. Because innovation and intellectual property are inextricably linked,
countries that are global innovation leaders have robust IP systems.
Wehaveagap
Patent and trademark agents form a profession with a tradition of excellence, and the
Canadian Intellectual Property Office, with assistance from the profession, administers
rigorous qualification exams. However, most of the hallmarks of a professional regulatory
system are missing: there is no mandatory code of ethics, continuing education requirement,
or discipline process.
There is therefore a double anomaly by Canadian standards: a profession regulated by a
government agency, and an incomplete regulatory framework. While the provinces have
legislated the creation of more than 300 professional regulatory bodies, there is relatively
little experience at the federal level with the regulation of professions.
The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, the association of professionals practising in all
areas of intellectual property law, therefore commends Innovation, Science and Economic
Development Canada for holding a consultation, in conjunction with CIPO, on a governance
framework for patent and trademark agents.
Options
The ISED consultation document proposes that a values and ethics framework be
administered by a regulatory body established as one of the following models: an
administrative agency within CIPO (Model One); a mixed-model involving CIPO, the
public, and the profession, such as the board managed by the Australian government’s IP
office (Model Two); and self-regulation (Model Three).
6
ExecutiveSummary
Recommendation
With a history of supporting innovation in Canada and being active in various aspects of
self-regulation for 90 years, and given the research, discussions, and actions by the
profession over the last 20 years, IPIC confidently recommends self-regulation as the best
approach to protect the public interest, to help foster a culture of innovation in Canada,
and to sustain the excellence of the profession.
Self-regulation is the best approach because:
For clients to have appropriate representation, their professional advocates
should not be regulated by the agency to whom they are advocating on behalf of
their clients, as would be the case if either Model One or Model Two were
adopted. In 1995, Professor Bruce Doern, a public administration expert, stated in a
report commissioned by CIPO:
(…) my considered view is that, in the mid-1990s, there is no convincing
rationale for the patent and trade-mark profession to be so directly supervised
by an agency of the federal government in matters of its professional
qualifications. As the federal agency involved, CIPO should focus on its more
complex mandate tasks and should not be so closely regulating one of the
client groups it must interact with in other vital public interest ways.1
The objective of professional regulation is to foster and maintain a culture of
second nature ethical thinking on right conduct in protecting the public. The
evidence supports that, in the great majority of situations, the self-regulatory model
achieves that objective. IPIC is not aware of any administrative agency or mixed
models in place for a Canadian profession as discussed in the consultation paper, and
the Government of Canada need not assume the risks in selecting an untested
approach. Furthermore, Models One and Two only address the code of conduct and
discipline. IPIC believes that after all the work done by government and the
profession over the years regarding the governance framework, it is now time to
implement a complete system and that the least-risk path is to employ the selfregulatory model.
Over a million professionals are regulated by self-regulatory bodies in Canada.
If the goal is to encourage Canadian companies to innovate and grow, they must see
that their innovation professionals, the patent and trademark agents they call upon to
help them realize their ambitions, are regulated like the other professionals they hire
(e.g. engineers, accountants, and lawyers). If the Government were to choose another
1
G.BruceDoern,TheRegulationofPatentandTrade-markAgentQualifications:InstitutionalIssuesand
Options,AStudyPreparedfortheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice,June1995,p.120
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
7
ExecutiveSummary
model, it would send the wrong signal to innovators – that these professionals are not
reliable.
It is the most cost-efficient model because members of the profession give of their
time and energy to ensure its success. For example, members of IPIC contribute
approximately $480,000 of their time annually for the preparation and marking of the
admission exams.
The profession has already demonstrated that it has the ability to regulate itself.
The profession has shown strong ethical behaviour throughout its history (there have
been very few complaints made against agents) and is already involved in many
elements of a regulatory framework through IPIC, such as:
• adopting a code of ethics in the 1920s, periodically updated to reflect changes
in the public’s expectations and court decisions;
• contributing significant resources to the professional examination process
(IPIC is named in the Patent Rules and in the Trade-marks Regulations for its
role in the examinations, which shows that the government recognizes the
expertise and integrity of the profession with regards to the aspect of
professional regulation that has the most impact on the economy: the
admission);
• hiring an expert in measurement and evaluation of competency to assist with
the preparation of the exams;
• developing strong knowledge in continuing professional development
programs; and
• overseeing an insurance program specific to patent and trademark agents to
protect both the agents and the clients.
The profession has invested a tremendous amount of time and effort,
voluntarily, to facilitate access to the profession. IPIC offers introductory courses
in partnership with McGill University every summer and offers via Internet a number
of patent and trademark agent training courses and tutorials. Every year, members of
the profession volunteer about 1,500 hours of their time (preparing, teaching, and
marking exercises) to essentially train their future competitors. In addition, IPIC has a
financial aid policy to assist some of the candidates. The self-regulation model is
therefore best positioned to deal with various future developments and issues to
ensure on-going fair access to practice.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
8
ExecutiveSummary
Implementation
IPIC agrees with the consultation paper that the implementation of self-regulation is best
achieved by the creation of a new organization whose purpose will be the regulation of
agents in the public interest, and agrees with the suggested appellation of college. IPIC
proposes that this organization be called College of Patent and Trademark Agents of
Canada / Ordre des agents de brevets et de marques de commerce du Canada. IPIC’s response to the ISED consultation has a dual purpose: it provides comments on the
proposed models and answers to the questions posed, and it provides suggestions on
implementation, demonstrating a straightforward approach to establishing the proposed
College. IPIC hopes that providing the result of its research and consultations with
members will help both the government and the profession to act efficiently in creating a
governance framework to serve innovation in Canada.
Instilling and maintaining an ethical consciousness and ethical-based conduct will be an
underlying theme in policy considerations and program development. Various tools and
processes can be, and are, used in self-regulation models to achieve this objective (CPD,
codes of ethics, on-going communications to members, peer review and involvement,
etc.).
In this regard, IPIC makes recommendations, provides options for consideration, and
suggests implementation steps:
To maintain or improve aspects of the current system when transferring the
responsibility of the register of patent agents and list of trademark agents from
CIPO to the College (e.g. regarding firms on the register/list);
To balance protection of the public and accessibility in the admission process
when implementing the recommendations of CIPO’s Modernizing the IP
Community initiative and examining other public interest considerations;
To contribute to efficient and effective self-regulation through a guiding
philosophy focused on public protection and new professional requirements such
as mandatory continuing professional development (CPD) and insurance;
To protect the public with a code of ethics and a complaints/discipline process
(IPIC provides a complete code of ethics and, in the form of by-laws, a detailed
discipline process); and
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
9
ExecutiveSummary
To be an effective, efficient, transparent, and accountable organization in terms of
governance (including the appointment of members of the public to the Council),
committees, staff, and budget.
Finally, IPIC provides legislative options to implement the governance framework. Both
options would ensure accountability of the College to the Minister of Science, Innovation
and Economic Development:
As mentioned in the consultation paper, one option is stand-alone legislation such
as the Canada Lands Surveyors Act. However, a disadvantage of the stand-alone
legislation option is that it is difficult to amend as may be necessary from time to
time.
IPIC also examines the option of legislation similar to sections (5), (5.1), and (6)
of article 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (added in 2011). This
option would involve simple amendments to the Patent Act and to the Trademarks Act that would allow the Minister to designate a regulatory body, require
that body to report on its activities, and be able to revoke the regulatory powers of
that body. This approach provides flexibility for the regulator to adapt as the
environment evolves and it ensures that the regulatory body performs well
because it would be simple for the Minister to remove the regulator’s powers.
IPIC provides, as a starting point for discussion, possible amendments to the
Patent Act, Trade-marks Act, Patent Rules, and Trade-marks Regulations to
implement this legislative option (and that may also be required to complement
stand-alone legislation).
IPIC’srole
IPIC understands the government’s desire to act quickly on innovation initiatives and is
ready to assist the government and take a proactive role in the creation of the College.
The overriding goal for IPIC’s assistance will be to help establish the College as soon as
practical, and then withdraw to ensure that the College is, and is seen to be, a separate
and distinct entity. In this regard, IPIC proposes to work with the government on the
legislation to modernize the governance framework and to manage the initial steps in the
creation of the College after legislation is enacted (e.g. recruiting a governing Council
and implementation committees, providing support to these groups, drafting of by-laws,
rental of office space, incorporation (depending on legislation), and organizing the
founding general meeting.)
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
10
ExecutiveSummary
Win-Win-Win
With the creation of the College of Patent and Trademark Agents of Canada:
The public interest and innovators will benefit because the recommendations of
the Modernizing the IP Community report can be implemented. The College will
provide the key elements of a modern governance framework: admission,
professional requirements, code of ethics, and a complaints and discipline process.
The government will benefit because it can retain oversight of the regulatory
system while allowing CIPO to focus on its core mandate. The Minister will be
able to monitor the regulatory activities of the College without having to devote
resources to an activity that is not usually performed by government in Canada.
Both the public interest and the profession will benefit because the latter is the
group the most motivated to devote time and resources to sustaining its
excellence. The profession’s body of knowledge will be used to set standards and
to judge the actions of its members in protecting the public.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
11
Résumé
Soutenirl’excellence:unnouveaucadredegouvernanceauservicede
l’innovation
LegouvernementduCanadaestdéterminéàfaireduCanadaunchefdefilemondialde
l’innovation.
Le gouvernement propose d’y arriver en concentrant ses efforts dans six domaines d’action,
notamment en facilitant la conduite des affaires et en encourageant la croissance des
entreprises.
La propriété intellectuelle est un élément fondamental dans la croissance des entreprises
innovatrices; la voie menant de l’idée jusqu’au produit ou service commercial comporte
l’étape essentielle de protéger la PI inhérente à l’innovation. Compte tenu des liens
inextricables entre l’innovation et la propriété intellectuelle, les pays qui sont des chefs de
file mondiaux de l’innovation possèdent des régimes de PI robustes.
Ilyaunelacune.
Les agents de brevets et de marques de commerce forment une profession ayant une tradition
d’excellence et l’Office de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada, épaulé par la profession,
administre les rigoureux examens de qualification. Cependant, la majorité des
caractéristiques d’un système de réglementation professionnelle sont manquantes : il n’y a
pas de code de déontologie obligatoire, d’exigence en matière de formation continue ou de
processus disciplinaire.
Selon les normes canadiennes, une double anomalie existe : une profession réglementée par
un organisme gouvernemental et un cadre réglementaire incomplet. Même si les provinces
ont adopté des lois pour la création de plus de 300 organismes de réglementation
professionnelle, l’administration fédérale possède une expérience plus limitée de la
réglementation des professions.
L’Institut de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada, l’association canadienne des
professionnels qui œuvrent dans tous les domaines du droit sur la PI, félicite donc Innovation,
Sciences et Développement économique Canada pour l’organisation d’une consultation, en
collaboration avec l’OPIC, sur un cadre de gouvernance pour les agents de brevets et de
marques de commerce.
12
Résumé
Options
Le document de consultation d’ISDE propose l’administration d’un cadre des valeurs et
de l’éthique par un organisme de réglementation qui serait établi comme un des modèles
suivants : une agence administrative à l’intérieur de l’OPIC (modèle 1), un modèle mixte
composé de membres de l’OPIC, du public et de la profession, semblable à la
commission gérée par l’office de la PI du gouvernement australien (modèle 2) et
l’autoréglementation (modèle 3).
Recommandation
Compte tenu de ses 90 ans de soutien à l’innovation au Canada et d’activité dans divers
aspects de l’autoréglementation, ainsi que de la recherche, des discussions et des actions
de la profession au cours des 20 dernières années, c’est en confiance que l’IPIC
recommande l’autoréglementation comme la meilleure approche pour protéger l’intérêt
public, pour contribuer à favoriser une culture d’innovation au Canada et pour maintenir
l’excellence de la profession.
L’autoréglementation est la meilleure approche pour les motifs suivants :
Pour que les clients puissent avoir la représentation appropriée, leurs agents ne
devraient pas être réglementés par l'organisme auquel ils font des revendications
au nom de leurs clients, comme ce serait le cas si le modèle 1 ou 2 était adopté.
En 1995, le professeur Bruce Doern, un expert en administration, a précisé ce qui suit
dans un rapport demandé par l’OPIC :
(…) après mûre réflexion, je considère qu’il n’existe, au milieu des années
1990, aucune justification convaincante pour toute supervision directe de la
profession d’agent de brevets et d’agent de marques de commerce par un
organisme du gouvernement fédéral relativement à ses qualifications
professionnelles. À titre d’organisme fédéral concerné, l’OPIC devrait mettre
l’emphase sur les tâches plus complexes de son mandat et éviter de
réglementer trop étroitement un des groupes de clients avec lequel l’Office
doit interagir dans d’autres avenues vitales d’intérêt public.2 [Traduction]
La réglementation d’une profession vise à favoriser et maintenir, comme partie
intégrante, une culture de réflexion éthique sur la bonne conduite à suivre pour
protéger le public. Selon les données probantes, le modèle d’autoréglementation
permet de concrétiser cet objectif dans la vaste majorité des situations. L’IPIC ignore
l’existence d’organisme administratif ou de modèles mixtes en place pour une
2
G.BruceDoern-TheRegulationofPatentandTrade-markAgentQualifications:InstitutionalIssuesand
Options,AStudyPreparedfortheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice.Juin1995,page120.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
13
Résumé
profession canadienne, tel que discuté dans le document de consultation; il n’est pas
nécessaire pour le gouvernement du Canada d’assumer les risques liés à la sélection
d’une approche non éprouvée. En outre, les modèles 1 et 2 ne traitent que du code de
déontologie et du processus disciplinaire. Selon l’IPIC, suite à tous les travaux
effectués au fil des ans par le gouvernement et la profession sur le cadre de
gouvernance, il est temps de mettre en application un régime complet et l’adoption du
modèle d’autoréglementation représente la voie la moins risquée.
Plus d’un million de professionnels sont régis par des organismes
d’autoréglementation au Canada. Si le but est d’encourager les sociétés
canadiennes à innover et prendre de l’expansion, elles doivent remarquer que les
agents de brevets et de marques de commerce, ces professionnels de l’innovation vers
lesquels ils se tournent pour les aider à réaliser leurs ambitions, sont réglementés
comme les autres professionnels qu’elles embauchent (p.ex. les ingénieurs, les
comptables et les avocats). Le choix d’un autre modèle par le gouvernement enverrait
un mauvais signal aux innovateurs – notamment qu’on ne peut pas faire confiance à
ces professionnels.
Il s’agit du modèle le plus rentable parce que les membres de la profession
consacrent du temps et de l’énergie pour en assurer la réussite. Par exemple, les
membres de l’IPIC contribuent annuellement environ 480 000 $ sous forme de temps
pour la préparation et la correction des examens d’admission.
La profession a déjà démontré qu’elle possède la capacité de s’autoréglementer.
La profession a toujours démontré un comportement éthique irréprochable (très peu
de plaintes contre les agents ont été déposées) et elle participe déjà, par l’entremise de
l’IPIC, à plusieurs éléments d’un cadre réglementaire, notamment :
• Adoption d’un code de déontologie au cours des années 1920, périodiquement
mis à jour pour refléter l’évolution des attentes du public et des décisions des
tribunaux;
• Contribution d’importantes ressources pour le processus d’examen
professionnel (l’IPIC est cité dans les Règles sur les brevets et le Règlement
sur les marques de commerce pour son rôle dans les examens, ce qui
démontre que le gouvernement reconnaît l’expertise et l’intégrité de la
profession relativement à l’aspect de la réglementation professionnelle qui
influence le plus l’économie : l’admission);
• Embauche d’un expert en mesure et évaluation pour aider à la préparation des
examens;
• Expérience des programmes de perfectionnement professionnel continu;
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
14
Résumé
•
Supervision d’un programme d’assurance-responsabilité conçu
spécifiquement pour protéger les agents de brevets et de marques de
commerce et leurs clients.
La profession a déjà investi volontairement un montant considérable de temps et
d’énergie pour faciliter l’accès à la profession. L’IPIC offre des cours de formation
et des tutoriels en ligne pour les agents de brevets et de marques de commerce, ainsi
que des cours d’introduction en partenariat avec l’Université McGill. Chaque année,
les membres de la profession donnent environ 1 500 heures de leur temps
(préparation, enseignement et correction d’exercices) pour former leurs éventuels
concurrents. Le modèle d’autoréglementation est la meilleure option pour traiter
d’éventuels développements et problèmes afin d’assurer un accès équitable et continu
à la pratique.
Miseenœuvre
L’IPIC est d’accord avec l’énoncé du document de consultation qui précise que la mise
en œuvre de l’autoréglementation profiterait grandement de la création d’une nouvelle
organisation dont le but serait la réglementation des agents dans l’intérêt du public.
L’IPIC propose que l’organisation porte le nom suivant : Ordre des agents de brevets et
de marques de commerce du Canada / College of Patent and Trademark Agents of
Canada. La réponse de l’IPIC à la consultation d’ISDE comporte un double but : formuler des
commentaires sur les modèles proposés et des réponses aux questions posées, en plus de
fournir des suggestions sur la mise en œuvre, en démontrant une approche relativement
simple pour l’établissement de l’Ordre proposé. L’IPIC espère que la présentation des
résultats de ses recherches et des consultations auprès des membres aidera le
gouvernement et la profession à agir efficacement pour créer un cadre de gouvernance au
service de l’innovation au Canada.
L’instauration et le maintien d’une conscience et d’une conduite éthique sera un thème
sous-jacent dans les considérations de politiques et l’élaboration des programmes. Divers
outils et procédés peuvent être utilisés (et ils le sont) dans les modèles
d’autoréglementation pour réaliser cet objectif (FPC, codes de déontologie,
communications ouvertes avec les membres, examen par les pairs et participation des
collègues, etc.).
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
15
Résumé
À cet égard, l’IPIC formule certaines recommandations, en plus de proposer des options à
considérer et de suggérer des étapes pour la mise en œuvre, afin de :
Maintenir ou améliorer les aspects du système actuel lors du transfert de la
responsabilité du registre des agents de brevets et de la liste des agents de marques
de commerce, de l’OPIC vers l’Ordre (p. ex., les sociétés figurant sur le registre/la
liste);
Trouver un juste équilibre entre la protection de l’intérêt public et l’accessibilité
dans le processus d’admission lors de la mise en application des recommandations
de l’initiative de l’OPIC intitulée Modernisation de la communauté de la PI;
Contribuer à une autoréglementation efficiente et efficace à l’aide de principes
directeurs axés sur la protection du public et de nouvelles exigences
professionnelles, notamment la formation professionnelle continue (FPC) et
l’assurance-responsabilité obligatoires;
Protéger le public à l’aide d’un code de déontologie et d’un processus de
plaintes/discipline (l’IPIC propose un code de déontologie complet et, sous forme
de règlements administratifs, un processus disciplinaire détaillé);
Créer une organisation efficace, efficiente, transparente et imputable en fait de
gouvernance (y compris la nomination de membres du public au Conseil), de
comités, de personnel et de budget.
Enfin, l’IPIC propose deux options législatives pour la mise en œuvre du cadre de
gouvernance. Les options suivantes veillent à ce que l’Ordre rende compte au ministre
des Sciences, de l’Innovation et du Développement économique :
Tel que mentionné dans le document de consultation, une des options est une loi
distincte comme la Loi sur les arpenteurs des terres du Canada. Cependant, un
désavantage d’une loi distincte réside dans le fait qu’elle peut être difficile à
modifier lorsque nécessaire.
L’IPIC a également examiné l’option d’une législation semblable à celle des
dispositions des paragraphes (5), (5.1) et (6) de l’article 91 de la Loi sur
l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés (ajoutés en 2011). Cette option
concernerait l’apport de modifications simples à la Loi sur les brevets et à la Loi
sur les marques de commerce pour permettre au ministre de désigner un
organisme de réglementation, d’obliger l’organisme retenu à rendre compte de ses
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
16
Résumé
activités et de pouvoir révoquer ses pouvoirs réglementaires. Cette approche
accorde à l’autorité chargée de la réglementation une souplesse d’adaptation en
fonction de l’évolution de l’environnement, en plus de veiller à ce que
l’organisme de réglementation exécute convenablement ses travaux, car le
ministre pourrait facilement révoquer ses pouvoirs.
À titre de point de départ pour les discussions, l’IPIC suggère des modifications à
apporter à la Loi sur les brevets, à la Loi sur les marques de commerce, aux
Règles sur les brevets et au Règlement sur les marques de commerce pour mettre
en application cette option législative (cela pourrait également être nécessaire à
titre de complément pour une loi distincte).
Rôledel’IPIC
L’IPIC reconnaît que le gouvernement souhaite agir rapidement pour certaine initiatives
d’innovation; l’Institut est disposé à collaborer étroitement avec le gouvernement et à
jouer un rôle proactif dans la création de l’Ordre. L’objectif primordial de l’assistance de
l’IPIC sera de contribuer à l’établissement de l’Ordre le plus tôt possible, puis à se retirer
pour veiller à ce que l’Ordre devienne (et soit perçu comme) une entité séparée et
distincte. À cet égard, l’IPIC propose de collaborer avec le gouvernement sur la
législation visant à moderniser le cadre de gouvernance, de gérer les étapes initiales de la
création de l’Ordre suite à l’adoption de la loi (p. ex., recruter les membres du conseil
d’administration et des comités de mise en application, fournir un soutien à ces groupes,
rédiger les règlements administratifs, louer les locaux pour bureaux, veiller à la
constitution en société - en fonction des dispositions de la loi - et d’organiser l’assemblée
générale inaugurale).
Gagnant-Gagnant-Gagnant
La création de l’Ordre des agents de brevets et de marques de commerce du Canada
procurera les avantages suivants :
L’intérêt public et les innovateurs en profiteront, car les recommandations du
rapport intitulé Modernisation de la communauté de la PI pourront être mises en
application. L’Ordre fournira les éléments clés d'un cadre de gouvernance
moderne : admission, exigences professionnelles, code de déontologie, et un
processus de plaintes/discipline.
Le gouvernement en tirera des avantages, car il pourra surveiller le régime
réglementaire tout en permettant à l’OPIC de se concentrer sur son mandat
principal. Le ministre sera en mesure de contrôler les activités de réglementation
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
17
Résumé
sans être tenu d’affecter des ressources à une activité qui ne relève habituellement
pas du gouvernement au Canada.
L’intérêt public et la profession en profiteront, cette dernière étant le groupe le
plus motivé pour consacrer du temps et des ressources pour le maintien de son
excellence. L’ensemble de connaissances de la profession sera utilisé pour établir
les normes et pour juger les actions de ses membres pour la protection du public.
Noteaulecteur:
Lasuitedecemémoireestrédigéeenanglais.Cependant,lecodededéontologieetle
processusdedisciplineproposésàlaSectionIVsontprésentésenfrançaisenannexe.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
18
Introduction
The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC) is the association of professionals
practising in all areas of intellectual property (IP) law. Our membership totals over 1,700
individuals, consisting of practitioners in law firms and agencies of all sizes, sole
practitioners, in-house corporate intellectual property professionals, government
personnel, and academics.
Our members’ clients include virtually all Canadian businesses, universities and other
institutions that have an interest in intellectual property (e.g. patents, trademarks,
copyright and industrial designs) in Canada or elsewhere, and also foreign companies
who hold intellectual property rights in Canada.
One of IPIC’s objectives, as stated in its constitution, is to “ensure high levels of
knowledge, training, and ethics in Canadian intellectual property practitioners.”
IPIC therefore affords great importance to this consultation by Innovation, Science and
Economic Development Canada (ISED), in conjunction with the Canadian Intellectual
Property Office (CIPO), on a governance framework for IP agents.
The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development stated this objective for
the government’s innovation agenda:
“Make Canada a global innovation leader”
With this objective in mind and a history of supporting innovation in Canada for 90
years, IPIC proposes – to protect the public interest, to foster a culture of innovation in
Canada, and to sustain the excellence of the profession – that the College of Patent and
Trademark Agents of Canada be created.
Howtoreadthisdocument
This document has a dual purpose: it is a response to the consultation on the governance
framework and it is a suggested implementation guide for a modern governance
framework for patent and trademark agents, one that empowers the profession to both
better protect the public interest and help foster a culture of innovation in Canada. IPIC
hopes that providing the result of its work on the governance framework will help both
the government and the profession to act efficiently in creating a governance framework
to serve innovation in Canada.
19
Introduction
The May 2016 consultation document produced by Innovation, Science and Economic
Development Canada proposes that a values and ethics framework could be implemented
and administered by a regulatory body, which could have one of three types of
governance models. These models are:
1. an administrative agency model
2. a mixed-model
3. a self-regulatory model of governance
Section I explains the rationale for proceeding with the third model – self-regulation –
proposed in the consultation paper.
Sections II to V provide details as to the guiding philosophy for the College, operations
of the College, and additional reasons for proceeding with self-regulation. This is the
result of countless hours of work by IPIC’s Professional Regulation Committee, Council,
other volunteers, staff, and consultants. It is also the result of consultations with
members, research, and study of the regulation of many professions.
Section VI provides some additional thoughts regarding the proposed regulatory model
and the two other models addressed in the consultation paper.
Section VII suggests additional elements regarding the implementation of the new
governance framework, including a detailed review suggesting how legislation and
regulations may be simply amended to allow for the creation of the College.
Section VIII concludes with the answers to the questions posed in the consultation paper
and Section IX provides contact information.
Throughout this document, the proposed elements reflect IPIC’s recommendations to the
government or to the eventual College. Because the College would be a separate
organization from IPIC, we cannot presume of the decisions that would ultimately be
made but we trust that due consideration will be given to the work done by IPIC, by the
Modernizing the IP Community working groups, and by others in preparing their
submissions to ISED.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
20
I.OptfortheCollege
InthissectionweexplaintherationalethatleadstoIPIC’srecommendationofcreating
theCollegeofPatentandTrademarkAgentsofCanada.Webeginbyasking:Why
modernizethegovernanceframework?Then:Whydosobyself-regulation?Andfinally:
WhycreatetheCollege?
21
I.OptfortheCollege
A.Whymodernizethegovernanceframework?
The patent and trademark agent profession currently provides valuable services to
Canadian innovators, with very few complaints. Yet, in this consultation the government
has not proposed the status quo as an option. IPIC agrees that the governance framework
should be modernized.
Much work had already been done on this topic by the profession and by CIPO, leading
to this consultation, and so we provide here only a brief reminder.
In 2003-04, Industry Canada and CIPO held a consultation on the regulation of patent and
trademark agents and decided to work on a legislative proposal for self-regulation of the
profession. The then-CEO of CIPO, David Tobin, assigned staff to work with IPIC on
developing a proposal and legislation. Unfortunately, after Mr. Tobin’s retirement, that
work was set aside by CIPO.
In 2013, the CEO of CIPO at the time, Sylvain Laporte, launched the Modernizing the IP
Community initiative. The 2014 report produced by the working groups recommended
improvements to the governance framework regarding the registers, the exams, and the
need for a code of conduct, discipline process, and mandatory continuing professional
development.
Modernizing the governance framework is not only a valid goal in itself, but it is an
important step in improving the culture of innovation in Canada.
In the course of its 2012-13 study of the intellectual property regime, the Standing
Committee on Industry, Science and Technology heard many witnesses, including CIPO,
speak about the low awareness among SMEs of the role and importance of IP.
Consequently, low awareness means that Canadian SMEs may not be protecting their IP
as much as they should and as much as their competitors in countries where a culture of
innovation may be more prevalent.
In December 2014, after studying submissions and hearing witnesses, the Standing
Committee on Finance stated in its report on budgetary priorities that the government
should work with Canadian businesses to foster a culture of innovation.
An important prerequisite in raising public awareness and increasing the use of the IP
system is to ensure that the public and the users have confidence in the regime. In this
regard the government has taken steps to modernize the Canadian IP system, most
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
22
I.OptfortheCollege
recently by adopting legislative changes to prevent inadvertent loss of IP rights and to
protect confidential communications between clients and their agents.
The next step is to ensure that entrepreneurs see that their innovation professionals, the
patent and trademark agents they call upon to help them realize their ambitions, are
regulated like the other professionals they hire (e.g. engineers, accountants, and lawyers).
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
23
I.OptfortheCollege
B.Whyself-regulation?
Forreasonsthatweprovidethroughoutthisdocument,self-regulation
(ModelThreeintheconsultationpaper)isunequivocallythebestsolutionto
modernizethegovernanceframeworkforCanadianpatentandtrademarkagents.
1.Context
In Canada, almost all licensed professions are regulated by an organization created by
provincial statute and administered by the profession. As the reader can see in our answer
to Question 12 (Section VIII of our document), there are over 300 self-regulatory bodies
in Canada. More than one million Canadians are members of self-regulated professions.
Very few professions are created by federal statutes. Of these, three are self-regulated:
actuaries, Canada Lands Surveyors, and immigration consultants. The other professions
are directly regulated by government, with some involvement by the profession: patent
and trademark agents, and bankruptcy trustees.
For example, in Québec, this translates into 385,000 professionals belonging to 53
provincial self-regulated professions, approx. 1,000 to national self-regulated professions,
and about 720 to professions regulated by government (patent and trademark agents,
bankruptcy trustees). The difference is such that the line representing the latter barely
shows in this graph:
RegulationofQuébecProfessionals
400 000
300 000
200 000
100 000
0
Government/Mixed
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
Self-regulatory
24
I.OptfortheCollege
Self-regulation is obviously a well-proven model in Canada and it is the model that
Canadians understand and expect for professionals. In Section VI, we explain further why
the fact that virtually all professions in Canada are self-regulated is in itself a reason why
patent and trademark agents should also be self-regulated.
The patent and trademark agent profession is therefore a double anomaly in Canada: it
lacks a complete regulatory system and is regulated by a government agency. However,
as mentioned above, there is already some groundwork toward self-regulation by the
formal involvement of members of the profession: IPIC is named in the Patent Rules and
in the Trademarks Regulations for its role in supplying examiners for the qualification
exams.
In this context, we can ask ourselves whether patent and trademark agents would be selfregulated if they were under provincial jurisdiction. Looking at the factors in determining
the creation of a professional order in the Québec Professional Code, and looking at the
list of self-regulatory bodies provided under Question 12, the answer is clearly yes. This
is the excerpt from the Québec Professional Code that guides the creation of new selfregulatory bodies:
Québec Professional Code Excerpt
25. To determine if a professional order should or should not be constituted or if a group
of persons should or should not be integrated into one of the orders referred to in
Division III of Chapter IV, account shall be taken particularly of the following factors:
(1) the knowledge required to engage in the activities of the persons who would
be governed by the order which it is proposed to constitute;
(2) the degree of independence enjoyed by the persons who would be members of
the order in engaging in the activities concerned, and the difficulty which persons
not having the same training and qualifications would have in assessing those
activities;
(3) the personal nature of the relationships between such persons and those
having recourse to their services, by reason of the special trust which the latter
must place in them, particularly because such persons provide them with care or
administer their property;
(4) the gravity of the prejudice which might be sustained by those who have
recourse to the services of such persons because their competence or integrity
was not supervised by the order;
(5) the confidential nature of the information which such persons are called upon
to have in practising their profession.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
25
I.OptfortheCollege
2.Recommendations
In 1995, a public administration expert, Professor Bruce Doern, stated in a report
commissioned by CIPO:
“(…) my considered view is that, in the mid-1990s, there is no convincing
rationale for the patent and trade-mark profession to be so directly
supervised by an agency of the federal government in matters of its
professional qualifications. As the federal agency involved, CIPO should focus on
its more complex mandate tasks and should not be so closely regulating one of
the client groups it must interact with in other vital public interest ways. The
patent and trademark government system is currently not a full self-regulating
model in that it involves certification and not licensing. It should become more
of a self-regulating profession to prepare itself for the new regulatory and
service provision challenges that [IPIC] faces.” 3 (emphasis added)
This statement by Professor Doern remains as current today as it was in the mid-1990s,
especially as CIPO embarks on challenging processes related to its mandate tasks such as
implementing five IP treaties.
IPIC also sought professional views on the issue of regulation of the profession including
from Donald Belfall, author of a book on the status and future of professions in Canada,
Professions in Transition, (2008).
In particular, professional regulation expert Gavin MacKenzie (who later became
Treasurer (president) of the Law Society of Upper Canada) recommended, in a 1999
report to IPIC, the creation of a self-regulatory body that he called the College of Patent
and Trademark Agents.
3.Experience
Some regulatory bodies were established before they were attributed regulatory powers
while others were created at the same time as the applicable regulation, with no prior
experience. Although the statutory responsibility for regulating patent and trademark
agents lies with CIPO, the profession has already demonstrated that it has the ability to
3
G.BruceDoern,TheRegulationofPatentandTrade-markAgentQualifications:InstitutionalIssuesand
Options,AStudyPreparedfortheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice,June1995,p.120
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
26
I.OptfortheCollege
regulate itself. In fact, the profession through IPIC has been active in various aspects of
self-regulation for the past 90 years.
For example, the profession:
• established in 1926 an organization now called the Intellectual Property Institute
of Canada with the objective to “promote and maintain high standards in the
profession”4;
• established Canadian chapters of well-respected international professional
associations (the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys
(FICPI) and the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual
Property (AIPPI)5);
• adopted a code of ethics in the 1920s, periodically updated to reflect changes in
the public’s expectations and court decisions;
• through IPIC, is named in the Patent Rules and in the Trade-marks Regulations
for its role in nominating examiners for the qualification exams and contributes
significant resources to the examination process in the form of hundreds of
volunteer hours every year;
• hired an expert in measurement and evaluation of competency to assist with the
preparation of the exams and established an Exams Standards Committee;
• developed strong knowledge in continuing professional development programs by
having to conform to the programs established by the provincial law societies and
the U.S. state bars, all with different criteria and operational processes; and
• oversees an insurance program specific to patent and trademark agents to protect
both the agents and the clients.
4.Win-win-win
Self-regulation fits perfectly in the government’s 2016 innovation agenda, in particular in
the action areas of “ease of doing business” and “grow companies and accelerate clean
growth”. It can therefore be a win-win-win decision:
The public interest and innovators will benefit because the recommendations of
the Modernizing the IP Community report can be implemented and thus provide a
modern governance framework for the work of patent and trademark agents. The
College will provide the key elements of a modern governance framework:
4
RobertMitchellandGarethMaybee,HistoryofthePatentandTrade-markProfessioninCanada,
publishedin1985bythePatentandTrademarkInstituteofCanadaandreprintedin2006bythe
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada,p.25.
5
TheacronymsforthesetwoassociationsarederivedfromtheFrenchspellingoftheirnames.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
27
I.OptfortheCollege
admission, professional requirements, code of ethics, and a complaints and
discipline process.
The government will benefit because it can retain oversight of the regulatory
system while allowing CIPO to focus on its core mandate. The Minister will be
able to monitor the regulatory activities of the College without having to devote
resources to an activity that is not usually performed by governments in Canada.
The profession will benefit because the group the most motivated to devote time
and resources to sustaining excellence of the profession will administer its
regulatory system. The profession’s body of knowledge will be used to set
standards and to judge the actions of its members in protecting the public.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
28
I.OptfortheCollege
C.WhytheCollege?
After reaching the conclusions that the governance framework should be modernized, and
that it should be administered by the profession, the next question is: By whom?
In addition to carefully considering the recommendation by Gavin MacKenzie (the
creation of the College) – which is also the suggested approach for Model 3 in the
consultation paper – IPIC considered the option that it could itself assume the regulatory
responsibilities. This approach of having an association assume both a service and a
regulatory role exists in Canada, including for the profession named under Model 3 in the
consultation paper, the Canada Lands Surveyors.
After consideration, IPIC believes that the best approach is to have a distinct organization
whose purpose will be the regulation of agents in the public interest. We therefore agree
with the government consultation paper and recommend the creation of the College.
Agents will continue to be members of IPIC on a voluntary basis, as will other people
interested in IP who are not agents (e.g. students, trainees, university and college
professors, copyright lawyers, etc.) The membership and governance of the organizations
can be summarized with this diagram:
Registered
IPIC
Members
IPICCouncil
Committees
&Staff
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
Agents
CollegeCouncil
Committees&
Staff
29
I.OptfortheCollege
D.Overview
1.Innovationagendaobjectives
The creation of the College would directly support two areas for action in the
government’s innovation agenda as illustrated below.
AModernGovernanceFramework
forCanada’sInnovationAgenda
TheCollegeofPatentandTrademarkAgentsofCanada
AdmissionProfessionalrequirementsCodeofethicsComplaintsanddiscipline
Betterprotectionofthepublicinterest
Innovatorstrustthattheiragentsareregulatedlikeotherprofessionals
Noneedforgovernmentresources
Innovationprofessionals
helpinnovatorsobtainIP
rights
GrowCompanies
AndAccelerate
CleanGrowth
CIPOfocusesonitscore
mandate
Twoofthe
sixareasfor
action
EaseofDoing
Business
MakeCanadaaGlobalInnovationLeader
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
30
I.OptfortheCollege
2.Consultationsandpresentations
Since 1999, IPIC Council and the Professional Regulation Committee have had many
discussions with members about self-regulation. Council and the committee have often
consulted members about the framework. The proposed elements of the College
presented in the following pages are the result of these consultations and extensive
research conducted by IPIC.
Recently, the College framework was presented to members on many occasions:
November 2015
English and French Webinars
April-June 2016
Meetings with members in:
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
Winnipeg
Waterloo
Toronto
Ottawa
Montréal
Québec City
June 2016
English and French webinars on the code of conduct
June 2016
English and French webinars on a governance framework
3.Roleswithinthenewgovernanceframework
Given IPIC’s 90-year history as the professional association of IP professionals in
Canada, it may be useful to outline the role it would play after the creation of the College,
and, at the same time, summarize the College’s role. The following demonstrates the
independence of the College as a regulatory entity.
College
IPIC
Membership Mandatoryforallregisteredagents Voluntary:
(onlyregisteredagents)
Registeredagents
Trainees
Lawyerswhoarenotagents
Professors
Students
Governmentemployees
IPManagers,etc.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
31
I.OptfortheCollege
College
Register/List Keepsandmaintainstheregisterof
patentagentsandlistoftrademark
agents
LiaisonwithCIPOtoensuresmooth
operationsinrelationto
register/list
Education
Setsrequirementsforentryinthe
profession
SetsrequirementsforCPD
IPIC
Offerstrainingcoursesandwebinarsto
applicants
OffersCPDopportunitiesonalltopics,
includingethics
Annualconference
Exams
Createsexamcontentandmanages exams
Codeand
Maintainscodeofethics
Briefcodeofethicsforassociation
discipline
members
Receivesandassessescomplaints
fromthepublic
Disciplinesagents
Insurance
Setsminimuminsurance
Offerserrorsandomissionsinsurance
requirements
program
Publications Newsletterandother
Bulletin
communicationsonregulatory
CIPR
topics
Othercommunications
Advocacy
AdvocacyonIPandinnovationissueswith
federalandprovincialgovernments
Courtinterventions
Public
Informspubliconimportanceof
PromotestheimportanceofIPand
awareness
hiringregisteredagentsandthe
innovationtothepublic,governments,and
roleoftheCollege
industryassociations
MediaenquiriesaboutIP
International Exchangesinformationwithother
Maintainsliaisonwithsisterorganizations
agentregulators
andpromotesCanadaasIPdestination
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
32
I.OptfortheCollege
4.Legislativeandregulatoryinstruments
We conclude this overview by a summary chart of the various instruments, including
those mentioned in the consultation paper, to create the governance framework.
Instrument
Legislation
(Newactoramend
sectionsofPatentActand
ofTrade-marksAct)
Governmentregulations
(Sectionsof
PatentRulesandofTrademarksRegulations)
Adoptedby
Contents
Parliament
AuthorizetheMinisterto
designatearegulatorybodyand
createaccountability
Otherchangesrequiredto
maintaincurrentoperationsof
system?
Requirementsregarding
reportingbyCollegetoMinister
Otherchangesrequiredto
maintaincurrentoperationsof
system
Governanceoftheorganization
(e.g.annualmeetings,board,
appointmentofcertain
committees)
Alsodisciplineprocess?
Generalrulesofconductand
ethicsforallagents
Couldincludeforexamplethe
admissionprocess(rulesfor
exams)andtheCPDand
insurancerequirements
Couldincludeforexamplethe
standardstobeabletolistafirm
ontheregister
Governor-in-Council
By-lawsoftheregulatory
Membersofthe
body
College
(Needtostudyfurtherwhat
wouldgointoby-lawsv.
internalregulationsv.
practicestandards)
Codeofethics
Membersofthe
College
Internalregulations
Membersofthe
CollegeoritsCouncil?
Practiceguidelinesand
practicestandards
Membersofthe
CollegeoritsCouncil?
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
33
II.Admission
Balanceprotectionofthepublicandaccessibility
Inthissectionweoutlinehowthefirstelementofagovernanceframework,admission
intheprofession,wouldbeadministered.
Webeginwithsomerecommendationsregardingtheactuallistsofagents.Forthis
topic,weincluderecommendationsfromtheModernizingtheIPCommunityreportand
additionalworkbyIPIContwoissues:non-residentagentsandfirmsontheregister/list.
Wethenmakerecommendationsregardingtheexamsandadditionalenhancementsto
thecurrentsystem.
34
II.Admission
A.Registerandlist
1.ModernizingtheIPCommunityrecommendations
The College would hold and maintain the register of patent agents and list of trademark
agents6. We explain the required legislative changes in Section VII of this submission.
The College should therefore consider these recommendations from the Modernizing the
IP Community report:
For both patents and trademarks, a public, comprehensive list of agents and firms
should be published with biographical information including: name, address,
phone number, email, link to agent/firm website, and year of agent registration.
The lists should be fully searchable by the public.
Agents should be capable of, and responsible for, keeping their own contact
information up-to-date.
A comprehensive agent database should be published that includes all registered
agents on the lists as well as those agents that have been temporarily suspended
or permanently removed from the lists.
The College should also consider the following when implementing these
recommendations:
•
The College would need to set requirements regarding the frequency of updating
contact information (e.g. at least once a year by a specific date) and the
consequences of not doing so.
•
It may be beneficial to specify that the agents can be capable of, and responsible
for, keeping their own contact information up-to-date either directly, or by
authorizing an intermediary, such as their firm, to provide updated contact
information.
6
Thecurrentlegislationusestheterm“register”forthelistofregisteredpatentagentsand“list”forthe
listofregisteredtrademarkagents.BecausethesetermsareusedthroughoutthePatentRulesandTrademarksRegulations,weusethosetermsinoursubmission.Thepossibilityofhavingthesametermfor
bothcouldbeconsidered;theusualtermforaprofessionis“register”.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
35
II.Admission
•
The College would need to do additional work regarding the third
recommendation above. The College would maintain a comprehensive database
but not all the information in that database would necessarily be published in the
public lists; the College would need to decide what will be included in the public
listing on its website.
•
The register/list should distinguish between agents in private practice (i.e. that
potential clients may want to contact) from those who do not serve external clients
(e.g. in corporate practice). This distinction will be required for the purpose of
public information and to establish professional requirements to remain registered
(e.g. corporate practitioners may not have liability insurance requirements, as
discussed in Section III C).
2.Coordination
After the transfer of the register and list to the College, CIPO employees must continue to
be able to confirm, when examining applications filed on behalf of an inventor/applicant,
that communications concerning the application are with a registered agent. They could
so do so by consulting the College’s website. This practice is used by officials at
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to verify that immigration consultants are
members of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Immigration Council (see the March
2014 Evaluation of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council by
Immigration and Citizenship Canada in Annex F). CIPO and the College can discuss the
best approach to meet CIPO’s needs.
3.Non-residentagents
Currently, some non-resident (foreign) agents are listed on the register/list. Under the
rules, they must appoint a resident agent as associate.
We have not determined to what extent Canada has an obligation to maintain such a list
but the USPTO rules state: “In very limited circumstances, Canadian agents or attorneys
registered or in good standing before the Canadian Intellectual Property Office may file
an application for reciprocal recognition to represent parties located in Canada.” Since
Canadian innovators benefit from this reciprocal recognition, we begin with the premise
that the status quo should be maintained in terms of recognizing non-resident agents.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
36
II.Admission
One of our sub-committees has examined the approach of a few Canadian regulators
regarding foreign professionals. Many do regulate foreign professionals, but the
circumstances are not quite the same: these regulations generally allow for some form of
permit to work in Canada on a temporary basis (e.g. engineers). This is done when the
regulator has a reciprocity agreement with a foreign regulator.
Therefore, we believe that a second aspect of the status quo is that the College would not
regulate non-resident agents. There are three reasons for this:
• Because these agents are listed by virtue of their registration in a foreign
jurisdiction, they are already regulated in that jurisdiction.
• Since non-resident agents are required to appoint an associate (resident) agent, the
public interest is protected because the resident agent would be regulated by the
College.
• It is difficult to regulate non-residents, particularly with regards to discipline.
The question that remains is where to list non-resident agents.
Possible options:
i. Non-resident agents remain on a list kept by CIPO
Because the College will not regulate non-resident agents, CIPO could maintain a
list of non-resident agents.
The disadvantage is this will require a new concept in the legislation and
regulations, that of a list of non-resident agents. This may complicate the
legislative approach.
ii. Non-resident agents are listed on the register/list held by the College but
are not regulated by the College
This approach would be simple in terms of legislation. The College would then
adopt internal rules to exclude non-resident agents from its regulatory conditions.
The disadvantage with this approach is that the public may think that if these
agents are on the register held by the College, they are regulated in the same
manner as resident agents.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
37
II.Admission
Recommendation
IPIC recommends that the implementation team and CIPO further examine the
obligations and requirements regarding non-resident agents and determine the best
approach.
4.Firmsontheregister
Should the College continue to list firms on the register/list?
Options
i. List firms
The purpose of listing firms is a practical convenience so that firms can sign the
name of the firm to documents and that the agent of record can be a firm. This
avoids problems both for agents and their clients when agents are absent or leave
a firm.
ii. Other method
The same convenience could be achieved through other means (such as the
customer number used in the U.S.).
iii. No firms
Change the system so only individuals are listed.
Recommendation
Option i: The College should continue to include firms on the register/list. In addition to
the convenience, this approach seems the easiest to implement from a legislative
standpoint given that the current legislation and regulations refer to “firms.”
However, to protect the public interest, the College should set rules to clearly define
“firms” and the conditions under which they can be listed. We discuss further the
regulation of firms under Section III D.
In addition, these rules could be written as to allow corporations and universities that
employ in-house patent or trademark agents to enjoy the same convenience, as a firm
listing on the register, for their own applications.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
38
II.Admission
B.Admission
Currently, to become a patent or trademark agent, a candidate must work at least 24
months in the field and then pass a qualification examination. These examinations, held
once a year, are managed by CIPO with IPIC supplying the majority of examiners. They
consist of four papers for the patent agent exam and two papers for the trademark agent
exam. There are no limits on the number of attempts to pass the exams.
1.ModernizingtheIPCommunityrecommendations
The College should implement this recommendation to help candidates judge their
preparedness for the exams:
Eligibility to write the substantive papers should require a “pre-screening” part of
the examination that tests the core knowledge so as to ensure that candidates have
sufficient knowledge to proceed to the substantive papers.
The College should consider the following when implementing the recommendation:
•
Should there be a separate pre-screening exam for each substantive paper? Or
should there be a single pre-screening exam that would include content from the
substantive papers?
•
The IPIC Exam Standards Committees could become College committees. They
would determine, working with an exam expert, the format and frequency of the
pre-screening exam, the concepts to be tested, and any impact on substantive
examination content or format.
•
The College would determine when candidates would be eligible to write the
screening exam, for example upon completion of the 24-month training period.
The College should examine the following recommendation with consideration as to
whether it would be in the public interest. It could analyze this recommendation by
looking at guidelines from one or more of the provincial fairness commissioners (see for
example the Fair Registration Practices Code of the Office of the Manitoba Fairness
Commissioner in Annex G).
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
39
II.Admission
To improve administrative efficiencies and promote candidate preparedness, while
ensuring qualified agents have passed current exams, limits on the carry-forward
time and/or attempts allowed to pass the exams, and increasing fees with additional
attempts, should be implemented.
The College should implement this recommendation:
The scope of the examinations should be expanded to include relevant aspects of
foreign IP law and practice, and values and ethics.
The College should consider the following when implementing the recommendation:
• Formally adding foreign law topics to the examinations will require significant
work to determine the appropriate knowledge base of “foreign IP law and
practice.” This will require careful thought as to what should be tested and how
this is communicated to candidates.
•
Consider the portion of the new content that should be added to the pre-screening
examination rather than the substantive examinations.
2.Additionalenhancements
There are no education pre-requisites to write the exams. Because increasing prerequisites can be a factor that reduces the number of new professionals, and therefore
competition, any consideration of imposing a university education pre-requisite would
require careful analysis. IPIC is not suggesting doing so at this time.
However, a clear curriculum should be written to guide the training until the exams are
passed. This curriculum could perhaps include some mandatory courses, for example on
ethical issues; it is rare for members of a profession to not attend at least one common
course.
The College should work with IPIC to monitor developments in competency based
training and education for agents in other countries and similar professions in Canada,
and ensure that training evolves as necessary.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
40
II.Admission
3.Implementationsteps
The first step will be to transfer the management of the current examinations. The
profession, through IPIC, already has experience in preparing and marking the exams.
The IPIC volunteers involved in the exams would simply become College volunteers.
The IPIC staff involved in the exams would transfer their files and knowledge to the
College staff.
The new task for the College, to be transferred from CIPO, would be the management of
the logistical aspects: registrations, fee collection, setting up of exam locations,
translation, and coordination. An employee of the College would manage the exam
process. The College could also consider outsourcing of certain logistical elements to a
company that specializes in this type of testing.
Once the management of the exams by the College is well established, the College would
work on the enhancements, starting with those recommended in the Modernizing the IP
Community report.
Initial work would include the creation of the pre-exam and determining if transition
mechanisms are required for the changes. IPIC has been working with an expert on
contract to IPIC for a number of years to develop the templates for the current exams,
train the examiners, and continuously improve the exams. IPIC also has exam standard
committees that have worked on improving the exams. This expertise would be
transferred to the College to implement the recommendations of the report.
Afterwards, a formal curriculum could be developed. IPIC already has education
committees that have created training courses for patent and trademark agents. These
courses include a patent agent training course that has two modules delivered in class and
by distance education, an on-line multi-module trademark agent training course, and
webinars to prepare for the exams. These courses include feedback by practitioners on the
exercises written by the students. IPIC also provides introductory IP courses in
partnership with McGill University.
Currently, government regulations make it difficult for an easy and efficient sharing of
information with the profession regarding the exams. In contrast, the immediacy and
availability of information and analysis to ensure education programs and examination
processes are working as intended, and to allow efficient and effective changes as needed,
is a key advantage of self-regulation.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
41
II.Admission
Under a framework managed by the profession, it would be easier to analyse trends, for
example the relationship between attendance at certain courses and success in the exams,
while always ensuring that privacy is respected. With the help of measurement and
evaluation experts, such as the one currently under contract with IPIC, the College can
always monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the whole admission process.
4.Otherpublicinterestconsiderations
An immediate positive effect of transferring responsibility for the exams from CIPO to
the College will be to free up the CIPO employees who serve the public interest in
another way (they work for the Patent Appeal Board).
Over the long term, the admission component of a professional regulatory framework
presents two significant but mutually exclusive risks: that admission requirements are too
low or that admission requirements are too high.
When admission requirements are too low, there is a risk that candidates may obtain a
licence to practice but are not ready to do so. Because there have been very few
complaints made against agents, and because neither the Modernizing the IP Community
report nor IPIC are suggesting a lowering of the qualification standards, this risk should
not be of concern.
When qualification standards are too high, entry into the profession is unduly limited,
thus limiting competition and increasing costs for clients. This can be a risk when a new
regulator is put in place, setting for the first time the requirements to entry. This will not
be the situation with the College because entry requirements have already been set by the
government. We address this issue further in response to Question 8 (see Section VIII).
A related issue is fair access to practice. As noted, it is recognized that regulated
professions in Canada have a responsibility to ensure that requirements to enter practice
are not excessive and do not present undue barriers to entry. This extends to ensuring that
individuals immigrating to Canada are treated fairly. Today, as IPIC recommended in
2009, the regulations allow immigrants who are registered in their country of origin to
write the exams after 12 months, instead of 24, of work in Canada. The College will need
to monitor this, assess policy options and deal with matters related to recognizing the
credentials obtained by individuals from other jurisdictions. The work by provincial
fairness commissioners will be useful in this regard (see Annex G).
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
42
III.ProfessionalRequirements
Tocontributetoefficientandeffectiveself-regulationin
protectingthepublic
Thissectiondiscusseskeyaspectsandelementsofhowthecollegewillmeetits
obligationsandprotectthepublic.
SectionApresentstheguidingphilosophyinthepolicydevelopmentandoperating
practicesfortheCollege,discussingmatterssuchasensuringethicalbehaviourby
practitionersandright-touchregulation.
SectionBdiscussestheprimaryelementsrelatedtocontinuingprofessional
developmenttoensurepractitionersareup-to-dateinofferingclientservices.
SectionCexplainstheobligationtoholdinsurance.
WhiletheCollege’spurposeistoregulateindividualpatentandtrademarkagents,
SectionDdiscussestheregulationoffirmsinthiscontext.
SectionEtouchesontherequirementsregardingfinancialmanagementofagent
practices.
43
III.Professionalrequirements
A.Suggestedapproachestoregulation:Theguidingphilosophyofthe
College
1.Ensuringethicalbehaviourinprotectingthepublic
The ultimate goal of regulating any profession is to create second nature thinking among
practitioners of what is proper behaviour in protecting the public. This is ethics. Selfregulation is known to be the best approach to achieving this goal. Instilling and
maintaining an ethical consciousness and ethical-based conduct will be an underlying
theme in policy considerations and program development. Various tools and processes
can be, and are, used in self-regulation models to achieve this objective (CPD, codes of
ethics, training program content, on-going communications to members, etc.). The
College will employ various programs and practices to continuously reinforce ethical
practice.
2.Right-touchregulation
The Canadian profession of patent agent and trademark agent has a reputation for
excellence. There have been very few complaints made against agents.
That said, there is always room for improvement and a well-regulated profession needs to
deal with and adjust to changing circumstances over time. It is well known that excessive
regulation in any sphere does not necessarily produce the desired effects and the hoped
for goals. The professional requirements and regulations applied by the College should
be risk-based, i.e. that the College consider the actual risk to the public interest before
implementing regulations instead of implementing a wide range of possible professional
regulations. The College should also consider whether an undue compliance burden is
placed upon agents, including in the potential pass-along cost implications to clients.
Information from different sources will be available to the College regarding a risk-based
approach. One example of such an approach used or being considered by some Canadian
self-regulatory bodies (e.g. the College of Registered Nurses of BC) is called “Righttouch regulation”; it is proposed by the UK Professional Standards Authority for Health
and Social Care. As the name of the organization implies, some of the details may be
more applicable to the health care sector than to patent and trademark agents, but the
concepts should certainly be examined by the College.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
44
III.Professionalrequirements
We summarize here the concepts of Right-touch regulation and more details are provided
in the October 2015 document Right-touch regulation Revised by the Professional
Standards Authority (see Annex E).
“Right-touch regulation is the minimum regulatory force required to achieve the
desired result.”7
The Authority explains: “Our thinking is in line with what others have called better
regulation, or common sense or rational approaches to regulation, but it is categorically
not ‘light-touch’. For us, Right-touch neatly describes the role that regulation should play.
It builds on an accurate and informed assessment and analysis of the sector and the risks
in it; it is common sense in that it describes the role regulation should play, building on
its strengths, staying true to its objectives, and working with the tools it has at its
disposal. It recognises that there is no such thing as ‘zero risk’, and that all decisions
about what and how to regulate will involve a trade-off between different risks and
competing benefits.
(…)
Through our work we have identified eight elements that sit at the heart of using the
concept of Right-touch regulation in practice. Built into these elements are commitments
to use evidence to identify and understand problems, and to draw on the roles and
responsibilities of different parts of the system to deliver the best solution. The
consequences of adopting this approach may be less regulation or more regulation, but
should certainly mean better regulation.”
These eight elements are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify the problem before the solution
Quantify and qualify the risks
Get as close to the problem as possible
Focus on the outcome
Use regulation only when necessary
Keep it simple
Check for unintended consequences
Review and respond to change
7
Right-touchregulationRevised,UKProfessionalStandardsAuthorityforHealthandSocialCare,October
2015,p.5
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
45
III.Professionalrequirements
3.Coaching
IPIC is a member of the Council on Licensure, Enforcement & Regulation (CLEAR) and
recommends that the College join this organization. CLEAR describes itself as “an
association of individuals, agencies and organizations that comprise the international
community of professional and occupational regulation. CLEAR is a dynamic forum for
improving the quality and understanding of regulation in order to enhance public
protection.” (see clearhq.org)
An important aspect of professional regulation, which we emphasize throughout this
submission, is that such regulation should focus first on instilling second nature thinking
that leads to the appropriate practitioner behaviour rather than focusing on discipline.
The need to improve the balance in the work by current regulators was a predominant
theme in CLEAR symposia held in Vancouver and Toronto and attended by IPIC
volunteers. As one of them reported: “too great a proportion of resources are being spent
on parking an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff after an accident and not sufficient
resources are being spent on putting up guard rails at the top of the cliff to prevent the
accident from occurring.”
In this regard, the College should seek opportunities to encourage or provide
coaching/mentoring to members. Already coaching is ingrained in the profession as
apprenticeship is part of the admission process. The College could examine what more
could be done for practicing members, perhaps by looking at the practices of other
regulators. Obviously, coaching is much more feasible in a self-regulatory model of
governance than in Models 1 and 2 proposed in the consultation paper.
The College should also consider offering an ethics advisory counselling service. It
would be a resource for practitioners to contact on a confidential basis for the individual
to enquire about ethics matters and obtain advice on how to deal, according to the
College’s code of ethics, with issues the individual is not sure how to handle.
4.Monitoringtrendsanddevelopments
The College staff and committees should monitor developments and trends in the
regulation of professions to always be efficient, effective, and transparent in protecting
the public interest. This can be done via conferences such as those offered by CLEAR, by
observing other Canadian regulatory bodies, by consulting experts, and by discussions
with regulators of patent and trademark agents in other countries.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
46
III.Professionalrequirements
5.Accountabilityandtransparency
The College should have an obligation to report annually to the Minister about its
activities regarding admission and discipline, and about its operations. These documents
should be available to the public as the College’s regulatory practices and processes
should be open to public scrutiny.
In addition, some members of the College’s governing Council should be appointed by
the Minister. The College should ensure that all members of the Council receive training
about the role of a regulator and that, in addition, the public representatives receive
education about the work of patent and trademark agents.
Finally, the College will be a democratic institution and therefore its Council, committees
and staff will be accountable to the members.
We provide more information about this in Section V and in the response to Questions
10, 11, and 13.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
47
III.Professionalrequirements
B.ContinuingProfessionalDevelopment
There is currently no obligation for patent and trademark agents to pursue continuing
professional development (CPD). However, many do so because they have to meet
obligations by law or engineering societies. That said, IPIC observes, from the
registration to its programs, that agents who do not have such obligations nonetheless
pursue CPD. The profession has therefore developed a culture of continuous learning. In
the public interest, the College should ensure that all agents pursue CPD.
1.ModernizingtheIPCommunityrecommendations
The College should implement these recommendations:
A continuing professional development (CPD) requirement should be implemented
as a condition to remain on the register of patent agents and the list of trademark
agents.
A single body (the CPD administrator) should be responsible for both the
administration of the CPD requirement and monitoring agent compliance.
There should be consequences to non-compliance with the CPD requirement,
culminating in suspension or removal from the register of patent agents or list of
trademark agents.
Obviously, the College would be the CPD administrator mentioned in the second
recommendation.
2.Implementationconsiderations
There are two general approaches to profession regulation CPD, for the most part being
used at this time by various provincial regulatory bodies. The first is more directed:
many reporting requirements, listings of acceptable activities, creating CPD hours
currencies for various activities (e.g., x hours credit for attending a conference, etc.) The
second relies on the professionalism of the individuals to recognize their responsibilities
and undertake CPD specific to their own practice situation, and what they identify as their
weaknesses and what they think needs to be done. IPIC recommends a mix of both
approaches in implementing CPD, as described below.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
48
III.Professionalrequirements
There are three main elements in implementing CPD requirement for professionals: the
requirements themselves, the verification as to whether those requirements are met, and
the determination of what qualifies for CPD.
IPIC has knowledge and experience with all three aspects. IPIC already offers a wide
range of accessible continuing professional development opportunities in the form of
basic to advanced webinars, and also offers a two-day conference. This activity has
resulted in IPIC acquiring significant knowledge about CPD programs because it has
researched the criteria of the law societies so that its members can meet those
requirements through IP-focussed CPD provided by IPIC. In this regard, IPIC either fills
out requests for accreditation on a per event basis or is an accredited provider for all
programs that meet the criteria. IPIC is currently an accredited provider with the Law
Society of Upper Canada, the Law Society of British Columbia, the Barreau du Québec,
and the New York State Bar. There is therefore a good knowledge base as to how the
administration of CPD should be set up that will be shared with the College to help it
create the CPD administration program. The College would focus on administration of
CPD while IPIC would continue to be a supplier of CPD opportunities.
a) Requirements
These two implementation suggestions were included in the Modernizing the IP
Community report and should be considered by the College:
•
A minimum number of hours should be established for both patent and trademark
agents, divided between professionalism topics (ethics, practice management, and
client relationships) and substantive IP topics.
•
For substantive topics relating to the field of registration (i.e. patent law/practice
for patent agents, and trademark law/practice for trademark agents), individuals
who are qualified as both a patent agent and a trademark agent will be required
to complete more than the defined minimum CPD requirement for each field.
This second recommendation should be implemented in a balanced manner, i.e. not
requiring a double number of hours.
The College should be in liaison with IPIC and other IP associations such as FICPI
Canada, AIPPI Canada, and the IP section of the CBA to ensure that CPD is available to
meet needs in areas identified by the College (e.g. ethics or certain practice standards) in
addition to those identified by IPIC itself in feedback from members.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
49
III.Professionalrequirements
b) Verification
This implementation suggestion was included in the Modernizing the IP Community
report:
• Any requirement for agents to retain attestations of participation, materials, and
other documentation to support their reported CPD hours should be defined by
the CPD administrator.
In this regard, we propose some options and a recommendation:
Options:
i. That agents report on an annual basis whether they have met their requirements
or not and list the sources of CPD that make up those hours, providing a
confirmation for each.
ii. That agents report on an annual basis whether they have met their requirements
or not and list the sources of CPD that make up those hours. Confirmations of
attendance are to be kept by agents, to be provided if asked by the College.
iii. That agents note their CPD accomplishments, and be prepared to provide them
if requested, but do not need to report them.
Recommendation:
Consistent with the approach of balancing risks and requirements, at this time, we
do not see a need for option i.
The College may consider option iii but because many agents are already in the
habit of reporting on CPD for other professional bodies (e.g. engineering and law
societies), we recommend option ii.
Also, the retention of attestation requirement should be consistent with
requirements in other professional organizations, to avoid overly burdensome
administration.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
50
III.Professionalrequirements
c) Accreditation
Should the College require that CPD activities be approved to be counted and/or should
CPD providers be accredited by the College?
We recommend that the College consider this approach:
•
No approval required for CPD activities offered/approved by professional
regulators in a related field (e.g. Canadian law societies, American bars, Colleges
of engineers) or by IP professional associations (e.g. IPIC, AIPPI, FICPI, AIPLA,
INTA).
•
Approval required for CPD activities by private providers. The College could
consider an accreditation program for such suppliers.
•
Approval of individual CPD activities submitted by a member.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
51
III.Professionalrequirements
C.Insurance
IPIC recommends that, to protect the public interest, agents should be required to carry
professional liability insurance in order to maintain their registration.
To implement this recommendation, the College will need to:
•
Set requirements on reporting (e.g. an annual declaration from the agent
confirming carriage of insurance).
•
Determine minimum requirements.
•
Determine exceptions, e.g. for agents in corporate practice.
IPIC offers and would continue to offer a professional liability insurance program to its
members. The insurer is a Lloyd’s syndicate, and the program is managed by a licensed
Ontario broker and is overseen by IPIC’s Insurance Committee.
The Committee also offers to members who have an insurance claim the service of
reviewing the case to see if the problem could be resolved.
Also, while IPIC does not know the specifics of insurance claims under its program, the
Committee keeps track of the type of problems that have resulted in claims. Based on this
information, it has offered webinars to provide tips to reduce risks.
This involvement by the profession in the insurance program therefore already helps to
protect the public by prevention and not only by remedy.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
52
III.Professionalrequirements
D.Regulationoffirms
The original question posed to IPIC’s committee was: Should the new regulator continue
to list firms on the register/list?
The Modernizing the IP Community project had discussed the question but did not
provide a recommendation.
Our committee divided the question in three issues:
•
•
•
The listing of firms on the register/list
The permissible legal/business structure of firms
Entity regulation
We have addressed the first one in Section II, under A.4. We now address the two other
issues.
1.Legal/businessstructureoffirms
To date, legal structures of firms of agents (e.g. sole ownership, partnership, corporation)
have not been directly regulated. They have been indirectly regulated by CIPO’s evolving
definitions of what it would accept as a firm on the register. Notwithstanding CIPO’s
practice notices, the absence of reference to agents in provincial legislation governing
legal structures means that there is no clear guide in this regard.
Although legal/business structure is about firms, it is not about regulating firms, but
rather regulating the conditions under which the individual professionals can practice.
In a new regulatory system, the rules about permissible legal structures should be distinct
from the rules governing the listing of firms on the register/list. Who will set these rules?
Options
i. College sets the rules
Law societies, and many other self-regulatory bodies, set rules as to the type of
business structure in which a professional can practice. These rules may not only
define the permissible structures but may put some additional conditions such as
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
53
III.Professionalrequirements
who can own the entity (e.g. whether people who are not members of that
profession can be owners) and that, for example, a corporation must be insured.
ii. Government sets the rules
There is provincial legislation regarding business structures and professionals. For
example, legislation may determine which professions can form limited liability
partnerships (“LLPs”) or that a professional who incorporates must do so in a
“professional corporation” which has different characteristics than a regular
corporation.
Depending on how this legislation is worded, the impact on agents varies. For
example, if the LLP legislation lists all professions allowed to form an LLP, and
patent and trademark agents are not included, then patent and trademark agents
cannot form an LLP. But if the corporation legislation says that these professions
(e.g. lawyers, accountants, doctors) must form professional corporations if they
incorporate, it may mean that there is no constraint on other professionals.
Agents will have to abide by the provincial laws in this area. Option ii would
entail the further step of adding to the IP laws or regulations provisions regarding
the business structures available to agents.
iii. Status Quo
While CIPO has set some definitions of what constitutes a firm for the purpose of
listing on the register, this is not set in legislation and it still leaves the option
open for an agent to practice in any type of business structure (but, depending on
the structure and CIPO’s interpretation, the firm may not be listed on the register).
Recommendation
The College should set the rules as to legal structures of firms, as do other
regulatory bodies. These rules need to balance the business needs of agents with
protection of the public.
It may be necessary to modify some provincial statutes to allow certain forms of
legal structures (e.g. LLPs). The College and IPIC could seek those changes.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
54
III.Professionalrequirements
2.Entityregulation
In the usual profession framework, individual professionals are regulated. However, there
is increasing attention to regulating firms offering the services of practitioners in addition
to individual practitioners (e.g., professional public accountants).
Law societies have, to various degrees, applied regulation to firms but many law societies
are now examining, and consulting on, “compliance-based entity regulation.” Their
purpose would be to establish a more proactive form of regulation instead of a reactive
one. For example, instead of focusing only on disciplining individuals for unethical
conduct, have an influence on the culture of firms to prevent such conduct.
Should the College regulate firms?
Options
i. Narrow regulation of firms
The College could set basic expectations/rules for the operations of firms that are
listed on the register/list (e.g. what are the obligations to allow the signature of a
firm’s name as the agent on correspondence with CIPO, rather than the name of
an individual agent).
ii. Broad regulation of firms
The College would have a broader mandate over all private practice firms with a
registered agent, whether the firm be listed or not. This could include, for
example, ethical training requirements.
A reason for doing so is that much of the behaviour of professionals can be
dictated by the (written or unwritten) practices of a firm. On the other hand, an
obvious challenge with this approach for patent and trademark agents is that in
some cases agents make up a small percentage of the professionals in a general
law firm. So how would the regulator make impositions on the firm?
iii. Status quo
Firms are not regulated by the College.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
55
III.Professionalrequirements
Recommendation
Option i: Currently the rules regarding the listing of firms on the register are not
clear and can lead to unintended consequences. The College should establish clear
rules.
However, it should not endeavour initially to further regulate entities (e.g. address
ethical behaviours of firms). As the documents and consultations by the law
societies have shown, this is a complex matter and there is not much experience in
Canada. The College should focus on establishing the proper framework for
individuals and observe the developments of this question in other professions.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
56
III.Professionalrequirements
E.Financialaspects
IPIC makes the following recommendations regarding the financial aspects of agent
practice.
1.Financialmanagement
Many professionals are subject to certain rules regarding their accounting/financial record
keeping and reporting obligations regarding trust accounts. Should there be something
similar for patent and trademark agents?
Elements and options
i. Rules
One option, because we are not aware that there is a problem, is to not set any
rules regarding financial management.
Another option is to set basic rules that could evolve if problems are identified.
These rules could have two components:
• General accounting/record keeping
• Trust accounts
Regarding trust accounts, there are a few options including requiring that all
amounts received for work that has not yet been performed (e.g. retainers) be
placed in a separate account than the regular operating funds (a trust or escrow
account) or setting a minimum amount for which these funds must be placed in a
trust account.
If trust accounts are a requirement, the rules should provide guidance as to their
management.
ii. Verification
How would the College verify that the rules are followed?
Options include:
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
57
III.Professionalrequirements
•
•
•
Periodic detailed reporting to the College
Spot audits (random or based on certain indicators)
Annual declaration
Recommendation
Although agents do handle funds other than payment of fees after the services
have been rendered, IPIC is aware of very few instances in the history of the
profession where this has been a problem. Also, funds handled by agents are
generally of smaller amounts than those by real estate agents or by some lawyers.
At this time, the conclusion is that some regulation on financial management will
be required, but that the verification should be one that assumes low risk and may
be simply an annual declaration. However, the College will have to do more work
on this topic, perhaps with expert help, to determine the actual level of risk in
comparison to other professions, the regulatory options, and the choice of
measures.
2.Indemnityfund
Some professions require their members to contribute to a fund that is used to indemnify
clients that were defrauded by the professional (i.e. for very specific circumstances).*
Should the College establish such a fund?
Options
i. No fund
Because there is no evidence in recent history of misappropriation of client funds,
there is no need to create an indemnity fund.
ii. Indemnity fund
A fund could be created to indemnify clients in case there is a bankruptcy or
misappropriation. Assuming that there would be little demand, one special levy of
all agents may be sufficient (as opposed to annual levies).
iii. Use the College’ operating reserve
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
58
III.Professionalrequirements
The financial plan for the College is to create a reserve for potential costly
discipline cases. If ever there is a case of fraud, the regulator could consider using
funds from its reserve on a case by case basis, or set a policy to do so.
Recommendation
Given that there is no historical evidence of this potential problem with IP agents,
and assuming that rules are set for the handling of trust accounts, do not create a
separate indemnity fund. (i.e. option i).
*For example, the Alberta Legal Profession Act defines the purpose of the Assurance
Fund as follows:
If a member misappropriates or wrongfully converts money or other property
entrusted to or received by a member in the member’s capacity as a barrister and
solicitor and in the course of the member’s practice as a barrister and solicitor, a
person entitled to the money or other property may submit a claim to the Society
for compensation from the Assurance Fund in respect of (a) the money, or (b) in
the case of property other than money, the value of the property.
And the Law Society of Alberta rules provide the following regarding levies:
137 (1) For the purpose of maintaining and augmenting the Assurance Fund:
(a) subject to subrule (2), an annual assessment shall be levied on all
active members of an amount fixed by the Benchers in each case by
resolution; and
(b) the Benchers may direct the levying on all active members of a special
assessment of an amount fixed by the Benchers by resolution and payable
by the time prescribed by the Benchers by resolution.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
59
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Protectingthepublic
IPICrecommendsthattheCollege,afterconsideringiffurtherrevisionsarerequired,
adopttherevisedIPICCodeofEthicsandthedisciplineprocessthatwasproposedby
themembersofIPICin2003.Bothareincludedinthissection.
60
IV.CodeandDiscipline
A.Codeofethics
1.ModernizingtheIPCommunityrecommendation
The Institute has maintained – and is the only organization to have done so – a code of
ethics for the majority of Canadian patent and trademark agents during the past 90 years.
However, because IPIC is a voluntary association and not the regulator of the profession,
its ability to enforce the code is limited and the IPIC code applies to a majority of agents
(IPIC members) but not all registered agents.
The current IPIC Code of Ethics is in force since 2001. In 2012, IPIC undertook a
revision of its code of ethics.
Accordingly, the Modernizing the IP Community report included this recommendation:
There should be a requirement for all registered agents on the lists to abide by a
code of conduct. The code should be modeled after the IPIC Draft Code of
Conduct, which is aligned with the Federation of Law Societies Model Code of
Professional Conduct.
In the IPIC by-law, the code is called Code of Ethics and we use this term in this
submission. The College may choose to use Code of Ethics or Code of Conduct when it
adopts its code.
2.TheCodeofEthics
The following revised IPIC Code of Ethics is proposed for adoption at the September
2016 IPIC Annual General Meeting (the French version is provided in Annex C). The
College implementation team should examine whether additional revisions are required
and then the College would adopt this code as the College begins its operations as the
regulator for patent and trademark agents.
IPIC may then continue to maintain a code of ethics, but likely a much simplified code
focused on the elements of the revised code that pertain to membership in the association
(and not to the practice of agents) and that are applicable to all members of IPIC.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
61
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Draft Code of Ethics
Proposed text as of August 24, 2016
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
62
IV.CodeandDiscipline
NotetotheReader
ThestartingpointofthisrevisedcodeistheIPICcodeofethicsthatwasadoptedin2001,which
itselfisanevolutionfrompreviouscodessincethe1920s,andaimedtobealignedwithmodel
codesforlawyers.Manyoftheprinciplesofcodesofconductforlawyersareequallyapplicable
topatentandtrademarkagencypractice.Moreover,manypatentandtrademarkagentsare
alsolawyers,anditisdesirablethatthecodesofethicsorconductbeasconsistentaspossible.
TherevisionsarebasedontheMarch2016ModelCodeofProfessionalConductofthe
FederationofLawSocietiesofCanada.Inmakingtherevisions,IPIC’sProfessionalRegulation
CommitteealsoexaminedRulesofProfessionalConductoftheUnitedStatesPatentand
TrademarkOffice(whicharethemselvesbasedontheAmericanBarAssociationModelRulesof
ProfessionalConduct).
IPICwishestorecognizetheoutstandingworkbytheFederationofLawSocietiesindeveloping
itsmodelcode.Whenrelevant,wechosetouseasmuchaspossiblethismodelcodeinorderto
meettheFederation’sobjectiveofeliminatinganysignificantdifferencesinrulesofconduct
acrossthecountry.
IPIC’sProfessionalRegulationCommitteeandCouncilwelcomeyourcommentsandsuggestions
[email protected].
TABLEOFCONTENTS
DefinitionsandFundamentalCanon...................................................................................................
1. Competence..................................................................................................................................
2. Confidentiality..............................................................................................................................
3. Conflicts........................................................................................................................................
4. QualityofService..........................................................................................................................
5. Fees...............................................................................................................................................
6. WithdrawalofServices.................................................................................................................
7. DutiestotheInstituteandtheProfession....................................................................................
8. CommunicationstotheInstitute,CIPOandOthers.....................................................................
9. Advertising....................................................................................................................................
10.UnauthorizedPractice...................................................................................................................
11.Discipline.......................................................................................................................................
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
63
IV.CodeandDiscipline
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
DraftCodeofEthics
(proposedtextasofAugust24,2016)
Definitions
“agent”includesanynaturalpersonwhoisaregisteredtrademarkagentand/oraregistered
patentagentandwhoisamemberoftheIntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanadaandfurther
includesapatentortrademarkagenttraineewhereappropriateinthecontextofanyparticular
RuleofthisCode;
“client”meansapersonwho:
(a)consultsanagentandonwhosebehalftheagentrendersoragreestorenderpatent
ortrademarkagentservices;or
(b)havingconsultedtheagent,reasonablyconcludesthattheagenthasagreedto
renderpatentortrademarkagentservicesonhisorherbehalf;
andincludesaclientofthefirmofwhichtheagentisapartnerorassociate,whetheror
nottheagenthandlestheclient’swork.
“CIPO”meanstheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice;
“Council”meanstheexecutivebodyoftheInstituteasmaybeelectedfromtimetotime;
“firm”meansasoleproprietor,acorporation,apartnership,alimitedliabilitypartnershipora
professionalcorporation;
“Institute”meanstheIntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada;
“memberoftheInstitute”meansanindividualwhohasbeenadmittedbytheIntellectual
PropertyInstituteofCanadaintooneofitsclassesofmembership;and
“profession”meanstheprofessionoftheagent.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
64
IV.CodeandDiscipline
FUNDAMENTALCANON
ThemostimportantattributeofamemberoftheInstituteisintegrity.Thisprincipleisimplicit
inthisCodeandineachoftheRulesandCommentariesthereunder.Overandabovethe
possibilityofformalsanctionunderanyoftherulesinthisCode,anagentmustatalltimes
conducthimselforherselfwithintegrityandcompetenceinaccordancewiththehighest
standardsoftheprofessionsoastoretainthetrust,respectandconfidenceofmembersofthe
professionandthepublic.
1.COMPETENCE
PRINCIPLE
Anagentowestheclientadutytobecompetenttoperformanyagencyservicesandmust
performallagencyservicesundertakenonaclient’sbehalftothestandardofacompetent
agent.
Rule1
1.1
Anagentmustnotundertakeorcontinueanymatterwithouthonestlyfeeling
competenttohandleit,orabletobecomecompetentwithoutunduedelay,riskor
expensetotheclientorwithoutassociatingwithanotheragentwhoiscompetentto
handlethematter.Anagentmustpromptlyadvisetheclientwheneveritisreasonably
perceivedthattheagentmaynotbecompetenttoperformaparticulartaskand
wheneverpractical,providereferencetothoseknowntotheagentaslikelytohave
suchcompetence.
1.2
Anagentmustassumecompleteprofessionalresponsibilityforallbusinessentrustedto
theagent,maintainingdirectsupervisionoverstaffandassistantssuchastrainees,
students,clerksandassistantstowhomparticulartasksandfunctionsmaybe
delegated.
1.3
Anagentmustmaintainappropriateofficeproceduresandsystemsincluding,without
limitation,systemsformeetingtherequirementsforalldeadlinesarisingfromclient
mattersandforhandlingandmaintainingclientaffairswithoutprejudicingclientaffairs.
1.4
Anagentshouldkeepabreastofdevelopmentsinthebranchesoflawwhereinthe
agent’spracticeliesbyengaginginstudyandeducation.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
65
IV.CodeandDiscipline
1.5
Anagentconductingagencypracticeotherthanforanemployermustmaintaina
professionalliabilitypolicyfromareputableinsurerforatleasttheamount
recommendedbytheInstitute.
Commentary
Asaregisteredagent,anagentisheldoutasknowledgeable,skilledandcapable.Accordingly,
theclientisentitledtoassumethattheagenthastheabilityandcapacitytodealadequately
withallagencymatterstobeundertakenontheclient’sbehalf.Competenceofanagentis
foundeduponbothethicalandapplicablelegalprinciples.Thisruleaddressestheethical
principles.Competenceinvolvesmorethananunderstandingofagencylegalprinciples:it
involvesanadequateknowledgeofthepracticeandproceduresbywhichsuchprinciplescanbe
effectivelyapplied.Toaccomplishthis,theagentshouldkeepabreastofdevelopmentsinall
areasofintellectualpropertylawandpracticeinwhichtheagentpractises.
Indecidingwhethertheagenthasemployedtherequisitedegreeofknowledgeandskillina
particularmatter,relevantfactorswillinclude:
(1)
thecomplexityandspecializednatureofthematter;
(2)
(3)
theagent’sgeneralexperience;
(4)
(5)
theagent’strainingandexperienceinthetechnicalfieldandapplicablepatentand
trademarklaw;
thepreparationandstudytheagentisabletogivethematter;and
whetheritisappropriateorfeasibletoreferthematterto,orassociateorconsultwith,
anagentofestablishedcompetenceinthefieldinquestion.
Anagentshouldensurethatallmattersrequiringanagent’sprofessionalskillandjudgmentare
dealtwithdirectlybyanagentqualifiedtodothework.
Anagentmaybeaskedforormaybeexpectedtogiveadviceinresponsetoquestionswith
respecttomattersthatdonotrelatetotheprotectionofaninventionortrademark,suchasthe
business,economic,policyorsocialcomplicationsinvolvedinthequestionorthecoursethe
clientshouldchoose.Inmanyinstances,theagent’sexperiencewillbesuchthattheagent’s
viewsonsuchmatterswillbeofrealbenefittotheclient.Theagentwhoexpressesviewson
suchmattersshould,ifnecessaryandtotheextentnecessary,pointoutanylackofexperience
orotherqualificationintheparticularfieldandshouldclearlydistinguishpatentortrademark
advicefromotheradvice.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
66
IV.CodeandDiscipline
2.CONFIDENTIALITY
PRINCIPLE
Anagenthasadutytopreservetheconfidencesandsecretsofclients.
Rule2
2.1
Anagentmustholdinstrictconfidenceallinformationconcerningthebusinessand
affairsoftheclientacquiredinthecourseoftheprofessionalrelationship,andmustnot
divulgesuchinformationunlesssuchdisclosureisexpresslyorimpliedlyauthorizedby
theclient,requiredbylaw,byorderofacourt,orotherwisepermittedorrequiredby
thisCode.
Commentary
Inordertofacilitateopencommunicationbetweenclientandagent,itisimportantthat
theclientfeelcompletelysecurethatsuchcommunicationwillbeheldinstrict
confidencebytheagent.
Thisrulemustbedistinguishedfromthestatutoryprivilegeconcerningoralor
documentarycommunicationspassingbetweentheclientandtheagent.Theethical
ruleiswiderandapplieswithoutregardtothenatureorsourceoftheinformationor
thefactthatothersmaysharetheknowledge.
2.2
Anagentmustexercisereasonablecaretoensuretheprivacyandconfidentialityofsuch
confidentialinformation.
Commentary
Generally,unlessthenatureofthematterrequiressuchdisclosure,anagentshouldnot
disclosehavingbeenretainedbyapersonaboutaparticularmatterorconsultedbya
personaboutaparticularmatter,whetherornottheagent-clientrelationshiphasbeen
establishedbetweenthem.
Anagentmusttakecaretoavoiddisclosuretooneclientofconfidentialinformation
concerningorreceivedfromanotherclientandshoulddeclineemploymentthatmight
requiresuchdisclosure.
Anagentmusttakecaretoavoidinadvertentdisclosureofconfidentialclient
informationwhenworkingonclientmattersinpublicplaces.Forexample,when
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
67
IV.CodeandDiscipline
travelling,anagentmusttakereasonableprecautionstoensurethatconfidentialclient
informationisnotseenorheardbyathirdparty.
Insomesituations,theauthorityoftheclienttodisclosemaybeinferred.Forexample,
itisimpliedthatanagentmay,unlesstheclientdirectsotherwise,disclosetheclient’s
affairstopartners,associatesadministrativestaffandotherpersonsintheagent’sfirm.
Butthisimpliedauthoritytodiscloseplacestheagentunderadutytoimpressupon
suchpersonstheimportanceofnon-disclosure(bothduringtheiremploymentand
afterwards)andrequirestheagenttotakereasonablecaretopreventtheirdisclosingor
usinganyinformationthattheagentisboundtokeepinconfidence.
2.3
Theagentmustcontinuetoholdinconfidencesuchinformationdespiteconclusionof
thematterorterminationoftheprofessionalrelationshipwiththeclient.
Commentary
Anagentowesadutyofconfidentialitytoeveryclientwithoutexceptionandwhether
ornottheclientisacontinuingorcasualclient.Thedutysurvivestheprofessional
relationshipandcontinuesindefinitelyaftertheagenthasceasedtoactfortheclient.
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
Anagentmustguardagainstparticipatinginorcommentinguponspeculation
concerningtheclient’saffairsorbusinessevenifcertainfactsarepublicknowledge.
Anagentmustnotdiscloseanyconfidentialinformationdisclosedtotheagent
concerningaclient’sbusinessoraffairsregardlessofitssource,otherthanfactsthatare
amatterofpublicrecord.
Whendisclosureisrequiredbylaworbyorderofacourt,theagentmustalwaysbe
carefulnottodivulgemoreinformationthanisrequired.
Anagentmaydiscloseconfidentialinformationtoalawyertosecurelegalorethical
adviceabouttheagent’sproposedconduct.
Ifitisallegedthatanagentortheagent’sassociatesoremployees:
(a)havecommittedacriminaloffenceinvolvingaclient’saffairs;
(b)arecivillyliablewithrespecttoamatterinvolvingaclient’saffairs;
(c)havecommittedactsofprofessionalnegligence;or
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
68
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(d)haveengagedinactsofprofessionalmisconductorconductunbecominganagent,
theagentmaydiscloseconfidentialinformationinordertodefendagainstthe
allegations,butmustnotdisclosemoreinformationthanisrequired.
2.9 Anagentalsoowesadutyofconfidentialitytoanyoneseekingadviceorassistanceona
matterinvokingtheagent’sprofessionalknowledge,althoughtheagentmaynotrender
anaccountoragreetorepresentthatperson.Anagentandclientrelationshipisoften
establishedwithoutformality.
Anagentshouldbecautiousinacceptingconfidentialinformationonaninformalor
preliminarybasis,sincepossessionoftheinformationmaypreventtheagentfrom
subsequentlyactingforanotherpartyinthesameorarelatedmatter.(seeRule3
Conflicts)
2.10 Anagentshouldavoidindiscreetconversationsandothercommunications,evenwith
theagent’sspouseorfamily,aboutaclient’saffairsandshouldshunanygossipabout
suchthingseventhoughtheclientisnotnamedorotherwiseidentified.Similarly,an
agentshouldnotrepeatanygossiporinformationabouttheclient’sbusinessoraffairs
thatisoverheardbyorrecountedtotheagent.Apartaltogetherfromethical
considerationsorquestionsofgoodtaste,indiscreetshoptalkamongagents,if
overheardbythirdpartiesabletoidentifythematterbeingdiscussed,couldresultin
prejudicetotheclient.Moreover,therespectofthelistenerforagentsandthe
professionwillprobablybelessened.Althoughtherulemaynotapplytofactsthatare
publicknowledge,anagentshouldguardagainstparticipatinginorcommentingon
speculationconcerningclients’affairsorbusiness.
2.11 Anagentmaydiscloseconfidentialinformationinordertoestablishorcollectthe
agent’sfees,butmustnotdisclosemoreinformationthanisrequired.
2.12 Anagentmaydiscloseconfidentialinformationtotheextentreasonablynecessaryto
detectandresolveconflictsofinterestarisingfromtheagent’schangeofemployment
orfromchangesinthecompositionorownershipofanagencyfirm,butonlyifthe
informationdiscloseddoesnotcompromiseprivilegeorotherwiseprejudicetheclient.
Commentary
Asamatterrelatedtoclients’interestsinmaintainingarelationshipwiththeagentof
choiceandprotectingclientconfidences,agentsindifferentfirmsmayneedtodisclose
limitedinformationtoeachothertodetectandresolveconflictsofinterest,suchas
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
69
IV.CodeandDiscipline
whenanagentisconsideringanassociationwithanotherfirm,twoormorefirmsare
consideringamerger,oranagentisconsideringthepurchaseofanagencypractice.
Inthesesituations(seeRule3.6onConflictsFromTransferBetweenFirms),Rule2.12
permitsagentsandfirmstodiscloselimitedinformation.Thistypeofdisclosurewould
onlybemadeoncesubstantivediscussionsregardingthenewrelationshiphave
occurred.
Thisexchangeofinformationbetweenthefirmsneedstobedoneinamanner
consistentwiththetransferringagent’sandnewfirm’sobligationstoprotectclient
confidentialityandprivilegedinformationandavoidanyprejudicetotheclient.It
ordinarilywouldincludenomorethanthenamesofthepersonsandentitiesinvolvedin
amatterormatters.Dependingonthecircumstances,itmayincludeabriefsummaryof
thegeneralissuesinvolved,andinformationaboutwhethertherepresentationhas
cometoanend.
Thedisclosureshouldbemadetoasfewagentsatthenewfirmaspossible,ideallyto
oneagentofthenewfirm,suchasadesignatedconflictsagent.Theinformationshould
alwaysbedisclosedonlytotheextentreasonablynecessarytodetectandresolve
conflictsofinterestthatmightarisefromthepossiblenewrelationship.
Asthedisclosureismadeonthebasisthatitissolelyfortheuseofcheckingconflicts
whereagentsaretransferringbetweenfirmsandforestablishingscreens,thedisclosure
shouldbecoupledwithanundertakingbythenewfirmtotheformerfirmthatitwill:
(a) limitaccesstothedisclosedinformation;
(b) notusetheinformationforanypurposeotherthandetectingandresolving
conflicts;and
(c) return,destroy,orstoreinasecureandconfidentialmannertheinformation
providedonceappropriateconfidentialityscreensareestablished.
Theclient’sconsenttodisclosureofsuchinformationmaybespecificallyaddressedina
retaineragreementbetweentheagentandclient.Insomecircumstances,however,
becauseofthenatureoftheretainer,thetransferringagentandthenewfirmmaybe
requiredtoobtaintheconsentofclientstosuchdisclosureorthedisclosureofany
furtherinformationabouttheclients.Thisisespeciallythecasewheredisclosurewould
compromiseprivilegeorotherwiseprejudicetheclient(e.g.,thefactthatacorporate
clientisseekingduediligenceadvicerelatingtoacorporatetakeoverthathasnotbeen
publiclyannounced).
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
70
IV.CodeandDiscipline
3.CONFLICTS
PRINCIPLE
Ineachmatter,anagent’sjudgmentandfidelitytotheclient’sinterestmustbefree
fromcompromisinginfluences.
Rule3
ConflictofInterest
3.1
Anagentmustnotactforapartywherethereisasubstantialriskthatanagent’s
loyaltytoorrepresentationofapartywouldbemateriallyandadverselyaffectedby
theagent’sowninterestortheagent’sdutiestoanotherclient,aformerclientora
thirdperson(hereinaftera“conflictofinterest”),exceptaspermittedunderthis
Code.
Commentary
Asdefinedintheserules,aconflictofinterestexistswhenthereisasubstantialriskthat
anagent’sloyaltytoorrepresentationofaclientwouldbemateriallyandadversely
affectedbytheagent’sowninterestortheagent’sdutiestoanotherclient,aformer
clientorathirdperson.Theriskmustbemorethanamerepossibility;theremustbea
genuine,seriousrisktothedutyofloyaltyortoclientrepresentationarisingfromthe
retainer.Aclient’sinterestsmaybeseriouslyprejudicedunlesstheagent’sjudgment
andfreedomofactionontheclient’sbehalfareasfreeaspossiblefromconflictsof
interest.
Aclientmustbeassuredoftheagent’sundividedloyalty,freefromanymaterial
impairmentoftheagent-clientrelationship.Therelationshipmaybeirreparably
damagedwheretheagent’srepresentationofoneclientisdirectlyadversetoanother
client’simmediatelegalinterests.Aclientmaylegitimatelyfearthattheagentwillnot
pursuetherepresentationoutofdeferencetotheotherclient,andanexistingclient
maylegitimatelyfeelbetrayedbytheagent’srepresentationofaclientwithadverse
legalinterests.Theprohibitiononactinginsuchcircumstancesexceptwiththeconsent
oftheclientsguardsagainstsuchoutcomesandprotectstheagent/clientrelationship.
Anagenthasadutyofcommitmenttotheclientwhichpreventshimorherfrom
summarilyandunexpectedlydroppingaclienttocircumventconflictofinterestrules.A
clientmaylegitimatelyfeelbetrayedifanagentceasestoactfortheclienttoavoida
conflictofinterest.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
71
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Anagentshouldexaminewhetheraconflictofinterestexistsnotonlyfromtheoutset
butthroughoutthedurationofamandatebecausenewcircumstancesorinformation
mayestablishorrevealaconflictofinterest.Accordingly,factorsfortheagent’s
considerationindeterminingwhetheraconflictofinterestexistsinclude:
(1)
theimmediacyofthelegalinterests;
(2)
whetherthelegalinterestsaredirectlyadverse;
(3)
whethertheissueissubstantiveorprocedural;
(4)
thetemporalrelationshipbetweenthematters;
(5)
thesignificanceoftheissuetotheimmediateandlong-terminterestsofthe
clientsinvolved;and
(6)
theclient’sreasonableexpectationsinretainingtheagentfortheparticular
matterorrepresentation.
ExamplesofConflictsofInterest
Thefollowingexamplesareintendedtoprovideillustrationsofcircumstancesthatmay
giverisetoconflictsofinterest.Theexamplesarenotexhaustive:
(1) Anagentactsagainstapersoninonematterwhentheagentrepresentsthat
personinsomeothermatter.
(2) Anagent,anassociate,afirmpartnerorafamilymemberhasapersonalfinancial
interestinaclient’saffairsorinamatterwhichtheagentisrequestedtoactfora
client,suchasapartnershipinterestinsomejointbusinessventurewithaclient.
Note:Anagentowningasmallnumberofsharesofapubliclytradedcorporation
wouldnotnecessarilyhaveaconflictofinterestinactingforthecorporation
becausetheholdingmayhavenoadverseinfluenceontheagent’sjudgmentor
loyaltytotheclient.
(3) Anagenthasasexualorclosepersonalrelationshipwithaclient.
Note:Sucharelationshipmayconflictwiththeagent’sdutytoprovideobjective,
disinterestedprofessionaladvicetotheclient.Therelationshipmayobscure
whethercertaininformationwasacquiredinthecourseoftheagentandclient
relationshipandmayjeopardizetheclient’srighttohaveallinformation
concerninghisorheraffairsheldinstrictconfidence.Therelationshipmayin
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
72
IV.CodeandDiscipline
somecircumstancespermitexploitationoftheclientbyhisorheragent.Ifthe
agentisamemberofafirmandconcludesthataconflictexists,theconflictisnot
imputedtotheagent’sfirm,butwouldbecuredifanotheragentinthefirmwho
isnotinvolvedinsucharelationshipwiththeclienthandledtheclient’swork.
(4)
Anagentorhisorherfirmactsforapublicorprivatecorporationandtheagent
servesasadirectorofthecorporation.
Note:Thesetworolesmayresultinaconflictofinterestorotherproblems
becausetheymay:
(a) affecttheagent’sindependentjudgmentandfiduciaryobligationsin
eitherorbothroles;
(b) obscureadvicegiveninoneroleversustheother;
(c) disqualifytheagentorfirmfromactingforthecorporation;
(d) jeopardizetheprotectionofprivilege.
(5)
(6)
(7)
Anagentfilesapatentapplicationonbehalfofoneclientandthesameagentor
anassociateorfirmpartnerfilesaprotestagainstthepatentapplication.
Anagentfilesatrademarkapplicationandthesameagentoranassociateorfirm
partnerfilesanoppositiontothetrademark.
Anagentprovidesadviceregardingtheenforceabilityofapatentthattheagent
draftedorprosecutedtoapartywhoisadversetothepatentee.
ConflictofInterestException
3.2
Anagentmustnotrepresentaclientinamatterwherethereisaconflictofinterest
unlessthereisexpressorimpliedconsentfromallclientsandtheagentreasonably
believesthatheorsheisabletorepresenteachclientwithouthavingamaterialadverse
effectupontherepresentationoforloyaltytotheotherclient.
(1)
(2)
Expressconsentmustbefullyinformedandvoluntaryafterdisclosure;
Consentmaybeinferredandneednotbeinwritingwhereallofthefollowing
apply:
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
73
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(a)
(b)
(c)
Theclientisagovernment,financialinstitution,publiclytradedor
similarlysubstantialentity;
themattersareunrelated;and
theagenthasnorelevantconfidentialinformationfromoneclientthat
mightreasonablyaffecttheother.
Commentary
DisclosureandConsent
Disclosureisanessentialrequirementtoobtainingaclient’sconsent.Whereitisnot
possibletoprovidetheclientwithadequatedisclosurebecauseoftheconfidentialityof
theinformationofanotherclient,theagentmustdeclinetoact.
Disclosuremeansfullandfairdisclosureofallinformationrelevanttoaclient’sdecision
insufficienttimefortheclienttomakeagenuineandindependentdecision,andthe
takingofreasonablestepstoensureunderstandingofthemattersdisclosed.Theagent
shouldinformtheclientoftherelevantcircumstancesandthereasonablyforeseeable
waysthattheconflictofinterestcouldadverselyaffecttheclient’sinterests.Thiswould
includetheagent’srelationstothepartiesandanyinterestinorconnectionwiththe
matter.
Whilethisruledoesnotrequirethatanagentadvisesaclienttoobtainindependent
legaladviceabouttheconflictofinterest,insomecasestheagentshouldrecommend
suchadvice,e.g.wheretheclientisvulnerableornotsophisticated.
ConsentinAdvance
Anagentmaybeabletorequestthataclientconsentinadvancetoconflictsthatmight
ariseinthefuture.Astheeffectivenessofsuchconsentisgenerallydeterminedbythe
extenttowhichtheclientreasonablyunderstandsthematerialriskthattheconsent
entails,themorecomprehensivetheexplanationofthetypesoffuturerepresentations
thatmightariseandtheactualandreasonablyforeseeableadverseconsequencesof
thoserepresentations,thegreaterthelikelihoodthattheclientwillhavetherequisite
understanding.Ageneral,open-endedconsentwillordinarilybeineffectivebecauseitis
notreasonablylikelythattheclientwillhaveunderstoodthematerialrisksinvolved.If
theclientisanexperienceduseroftheagentservicesinvolvedandisreasonably
informedregardingtheriskthataconflictmayarise,suchconsentismorelikelytobe
effective,particularlyif,forexample,theclientisindependentlyrepresentedbyother
counselingivingconsentandtheconsentislimitedtofutureconflictsunrelatedtothe
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
74
IV.CodeandDiscipline
subjectoftherepresentation.
Whilenotaprerequisitetoadvanceconsent,insomecircumstancesitmaybeadvisable
torecommendthattheclientobtainindependentlegaladvicebeforedecidingwhether
toprovideconsent.Advanceconsentmustbedocumented,forexampleinaretainer
letter.
ImpliedConsent
Insomecasesconsentmaybeimpliedratherthanexpresslygranted.Itmaybe
unreasonableforaclienttoclaimthatitexpectedthattheloyaltyoftheagentorfirm
wouldbeundividedandtheagentorfirmwouldrefrainfromactingagainsttheclientin
unrelatedmatters.Inconsideringwhethertheclient’sexpectationisreasonable,the
natureoftherelationshipbetweentheagentandtheclient,thetermsoftheretainer
andthemattersinvolvedmustbeconsidered.Governments,largecorporationsand
entitiesthatmightbeconsideredsophisticatedconsumersofagentservicesmayaccept
thatagentsmayactagainsttheminunrelatedmatterswherethereisnodangerof
misuseofconfidentialinformation.Themoresophisticatedtheclientasaconsumerof
agentservices,themorelikelythataninferenceofconsentcanbedrawn.Themere
natureoftheclientisnot,however,asufficientbasisuponwhichtoassumeimplied
consent;themattersmustbeunrelated,theagentmustnotpossessconfidential
informationfromoneclientthatcouldaffecttheotherclient,andtheremustbea
reasonablebasistoconcludethattheclienthascommonlyacceptedthatagentsmayact
againstitinsuchcircumstances.
Dispute
3.3
Anagentmustnotadviseorrepresentbothsidesofadisputeorpotentialdispute.
Commentary
Inadispute,theparties’immediatelegalinterestsareclearlyadverse.Ifanagentwere
permittedtoactforopposingpartiesinadisputeevenwithconsent,theagent’sadvice,
judgmentandloyaltytooneclientwouldbemateriallyandadverselyaffectedbythe
samedutiestotheotherclientorclients.
JointRepresentation
3.4
(1)
Beforeanagentactsinamatterortransactionformorethanoneclient,the
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
75
IV.CodeandDiscipline
agentmustadviseeachoftheclientsthat:
(a)
(b)
(c)
theagenthasbeenaskedtoactforbothorallofthem;
noinformationreceivedinconnectionwiththematterfromoneclient
canbetreatedasconfidentialsofarasanyoftheothersareconcerned,
unlesstheclientsinstructotherwise;
ifaconflictdevelopsthatcannotberesolved,theagentcannotcontinue
toactforbothorallofthemandmayhavetowithdrawcompletely.
(2)
(3)
(4)
Ifanagenthasacontinuingrelationshipwithaclientforwhomtheagentacts
regularly,beforetheagentacceptsjointemploymentforthatclientandanother
clientinamatterortransaction,theagentmustadvisetheotherclientofthe
continuingrelationshipandrecommendthattheclientobtainindependentlegal
adviceaboutthejointretainer.
WhenanagenthasadvisedtheclientsasprovidedunderRule3.4(1)and(2)and
thepartiesarecontentthattheagentactforthem,theagentmustobtaintheir
consentandconfirmsuchconsentinaseparatewrittencommunicationtoeach
client.
ExceptasprovidedinRule3.4(5),ifacontentiousissuearisesbetweenclients
whohaveconsentedtoajointretainer:
(a)
theagentmustnotadvisethemonthecontentiousissueandmust:
(i)
(ii)
refertheclientstootheragents;or
advisetheclientsoftheiroptiontosettlethecontentiousissueby
directnegotiationinwhichtheagentdoesnotparticipateand
recommendthattheclientseachobtainindependentlegaladvice.
(b)
ifthecontentiousissueisnotresolved,theagentmustwithdrawfromthe
jointrepresentation.
(5)
Subjecttothisrule,ifclientsconsenttoajointretainerandalsoagreethatifa
contentiousissuearises,theagentmaycontinuetoadviseoneofthem,the
agentmayadvisethatclientaboutthecontentiousmatterandmustreferthe
otherorotherstoanotheragent.
Commentary
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
76
IV.CodeandDiscipline
WithrespecttoRule3.4(1):
Althoughthisruledoesnotrequirethatanagentadviseclientstoobtainindependent
legaladvicebeforetheagentmayacceptajointretainer,insomecases,theagent
shouldrecommendsuchadvicetoensurethattheclients’consenttothejointretaineris
informed,genuineanduncoerced.Thisisespeciallysowhenoneoftheclientsisless
sophisticatedormorevulnerablethantheother.
WithrespecttoRule3.4(3):
Evenwhereallpartiesconcernedconsent,anagentshouldavoidactingformorethan
oneclientwhenitislikelythatacontentiousissuewillarisebetweenthemortheir
interests,rightsorobligationswilldivergeasthematterprogresses.
WithrespecttoRule3.4(4):
If,aftertheclientshaveconsentedtoajointretainer,anissuecontentiousbetween
themorsomeofthemarises,theagentisnotnecessarilyprecludedfromadvisingthem
onnon-contentiousmatters.
WithrespecttoRule3.4(5):
Thisruledoesnotrelievetheagentoftheobligationwhenthecontentiousissuearises
toobtaintheconsentoftheclientswhenthereisorislikelytobeaconflictofinterest,
oriftherepresentationonthecontentiousissuerequirestheagenttoactagainstoneof
theclients.
Whenenteringintoajointretainer,theagentshouldstipulatethat,ifacontentious
issuedevelops,theagentwillbecompelledtoceaseactingaltogetherunless,atthe
timethecontentiousissuedevelops,allpartiesconsenttotheagent’scontinuingto
representoneofthem.Consentgivenbeforethefactmaybeineffectivesincetheparty
grantingtheconsentwillnotatthattimebeinpossessionofalltherelevant
information.
Actingagainstformerclients
3.5
(1)
Unlesstheformerclientconsents,anagentmustnotactagainstaformerclient
in:
(a) thesamematter;
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
77
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(b)
(c)
anyrelatedmatter;
anyothermatteriftheagenthasrelevantconfidentialinformationarising
fromtherepresentationoftheformerclientthatmayprejudicethat
client.
(2)
Whenanagenthasactedforaformerclientandobtainedconfidential
informationrelevanttoanewmatter,anotheragent(the“otheragent”)inthe
agent’sfirmmayactinthenewmatteragainsttheformerclientif:
(a)
(b)
theformerclientconsentstotheotheragentacting;or
thefirmhas:
(i)
(ii)
takenreasonablemeasurestoensurethattherewillbeno
disclosureoftheformerclient’sconfidentialinformationbythe
agenttoanyotheragent,anyothermemberoremployeeofthe
firm,oranyotherpersonwhoseservicestheagentorthefirmhas
retainedinthenewmatter;and
advisedtheagent’sformerclient,ifrequestedbytheclient,ofthe
measurestaken.
Commentary
WithrespecttoRule3.5(1):
Thisruleprohibitsanagentfromattackingtheworkdoneduringtheretainerorfrom
underminingtheclient’spositiononamatterthatwascentraltotheretainer.Itisnot
improperforanagenttoactagainstaformerclientinafreshandindependentmatter
whollyunrelatedtoanyworktheagenthaspreviouslydoneforthatclientifpreviously
obtainedconfidentialinformationisirrelevanttothatmatter.
ConflictsArisingfromTransferbetweenFirms
3.6
(1)
Rules3.6(2)–(5)applywhenanagenttransfersfromonefirm(“formerfirm”)
toanother(“newfirm”)andeitherthetransferringagentorthenewfirmis
awareatthetimeofthetransferorlaterdiscoversthat:
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
78
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
itisreasonabletobelievethatthetransferringagenthasconfidential
informationrelevanttothenewfirm’smatterforitsclient;or
thenewfirmrepresentsaclientinamatterthatisthesameasorrelated
toamatterinwhichtheformerfirmrepresentsitsclient(“formerclient”);
theinterestsofthoseclientsinthatmatterconflict;and
thetransferringagentactuallypossessesrelevantinformationrespecting
thatmatter.
(2)
Ifthetransferringagentactuallypossessesconfidentialinformationrelevanttoa
matterrespectingtheformerclientthatmayprejudicetheformerclientif
disclosedtoamemberofthenewfirm,thenewfirmmustceaseits
representationofthatclientinthatmatterunless:
(a)
(b)
theformerclientconsentstothenewfirm’scontinuedrepresentationof
itsclient;or
thenewfirmhas:
(i)
(ii)
takenreasonablemeasurestoensurethattherewillbeno
disclosureoftheformerclient’sconfidentialinformationbythe
agenttoanyotheragent,anyothermemberoremployeeofthe
firm,oranyotherpersonwhoseservicestheagentorthefirmhas
retainedinthenewmatter;and
advisedtheagent’sformerclient,ifrequestedbytheclient,ofthe
measurestaken.
(3)
Unlesstheformerclientconsents:
(a)
(b)
atransferringagentreferredtoinRule3.6(2)mustnotparticipateinany
mannerinthenewfirm’srepresentationofitsclientinthematteror
discloseanyconfidentialinformationrespectingtheformerclientexcept
aspermittedbyRule2.12;and
membersofthenewfirmmustnotdiscussthenewfirm’srepresentation
ofitsclientortheformerfirm’srepresentationoftheformerclientinthat
matterwithatransferringagentexceptaspermittedbyRule2.12.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
79
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(4)
Anagentmustexerciseduediligenceinensuringthateachmemberand
employeeofhisorherfirmandeachotherpersonwhoseservicestheagenthas
retained:
(a)
(b)
complieswithRule3.6(1)to(4);and
doesnotdiscloseconfidentialinformationofclientsofthefirmandofany
otherfirminwhichthepersonhasworked.
Commentary
Thedutiesimposedbythisruleconcerningconfidentialinformationshouldbe
distinguishedfromthegeneralethicaldutytoholdinstrictconfidenceallinformation
concerningthebusinessandaffairsoftheclientacquiredinthecourseofthe
professionalrelationship,whichdutyapplieswithoutregardtothenatureorsourceof
theinformationortothefactthatothersmaysharetheknowledge.
WithrespecttoRule3.6(1):
Thepurposeoftheruleistodealwithactualknowledge.Imputedknowledgedoes
notgiverisetodisqualification.
Firmswithmultipleoffices:Thisruletreatsasonefirmsuchentitiesasacorporation
withseparateregionalintellectualpropertydepartmentsandaninter-provincialfirm.
Themoreautonomouseachunitorofficeis,theeasieritshouldbe,intheeventofa
conflict,forthenewfirmtoobtaintheformerclient’sconsentortoestablishthatitisin
thepublicinterestthatitcontinuetorepresenttheclientinthematter.
WithrespecttoRule3.6(2):
MatterstoConsider:Whenafirm(“newfirm”)considershiringanagentoragentin
training(“transferringagent”)fromanotherfirm(“formerfirm”),thetransferringagent
andthenewfirmneedtodetermine,beforethetransfer,whetheranyconflictsof
interestwillbecreated.Conflictscanarisewithrespecttoclientsoftheformerfirm
andwithrespecttoclientsofafirmwhichthetransferringagentworkedatsome
earliertime.
Indeterminingwhetherthetransferringagentpossessesconfidentialinformation,
boththetransferringagentandthenewfirmmustbecareful,duringanyinterview
ofapotentialtransferringagent,orotherrecruitmentprocess,toensurethatthey
donotdiscloseclientconfidences.SeeRule2.12whichprovidesthatanagentmay
discloseconfidentialinformationtotheextentthattheagentreasonablybelieves
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
80
IV.CodeandDiscipline
necessarytodetectandresolveconflictsofinterestwhereagentstransferbetween
firms.
ReasonableMeasurestoEnsureNon-DisclosureofConfidentialInformation
Itisnotpossibletoofferasetof“reasonablemeasures”thatwillbeappropriateor
adequateineverycase.Instead,thenewfirmthatseekstoimplementreasonable
measuresmustexerciseprofessionaljudgmentindeterminingwhatstepsmustbetaken
“toensurethatnodisclosurewilloccurtoanymemberofthenewfirmoftheformer
client’sconfidentialinformation”.Suchmeasuresmayincludetimelyandproperly
constructedconfidentialityscreens.
Theguidelinesthatfollowareintendedasachecklistofrelevantfactorstobe
considered.Adoptionofonlysomeoftheguidelinesmaybeadequateinsomecases,
whileadoptionofthemallmaynotbesufficientinothers.
Therearetwocircumstancesinwhichthenewfirmshouldconsidertheimplementation
ofreasonablemeasurestoensurethatnodisclosureoftheformerclient’sconfidential
informationwilloccurtoanymemberofthenewfirm:
(a) whenthetransferringagentactuallypossessesconfidentialinformation
respectingaformerclientthatmayprejudicetheformerclientifdisclosedtoa
memberofthenewfirm;and
(b) whenthenewfirmisnotsurewhetherthetransferringagentactuallypossesses
suchconfidentialinformationbutitwantstoensurenodisclosurewilloccurto
anymemberofthenewfirmoftheformerclient’sconfidentialinformationifitis
laterdeterminedthatthetransferringagentdidinfactpossesssuchconfidential
information.
Guidelines
1. Thescreenedagentshouldhavenoinvolvementinthenewfirm’srepresentation
ofitsclient.
2.
Thescreenedagentshouldnotdiscussthecurrentmatteroranyinformation
relatingtotherepresentationoftheformerclient(thetwomaybeidentical)with
anyoneelseinthenewfirm.
3.
Nomemberofthenewfirmshoulddiscussthecurrentmatterortheprevious
representationwiththescreenedagent.
4.
Thecurrentmattershouldbediscussedonlywithinthelimitedgroupthatis
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
81
IV.CodeandDiscipline
workingonthematter.
5.
Thefilesofthecurrentclient,includingcomputerfiles,shouldbephysically
segregatedfromthenewfirm’sregularfilingsystem,specificallyidentified,and
accessibleonlytothoseagentsandsupportstaffinthenewfirmwhoareworking
onthematterorwhorequireaccessforotherspecificallyidentifiedandapproved
reasons.
6.
Nomemberofthenewfirmshouldshowthescreenedagentanydocuments
relatingtothecurrentrepresentation.
7.
Themeasurestakenbythenewfirmtoscreenthetransferringagentshouldbe
statedinawrittenpolicyexplainedtoallpartnersandassociatesofthefirmand
supportstaffwithinthefirm,supportedbyanadmonitionthatviolationofthe
policywillresultinsanctions,uptoandincludingdismissal.
8.
Appropriatefirmmembersshouldprovidewrittenconfirmationsettingoutthat
theyhaveadheredtoandwillcontinuetoadheretoallelementsofthescreen.
9.
Thenewfirmshoulddocumentthemeasurestakentoscreenthetransferring
agent;thetimewhenthesemeasureswereputinplace(thesoonerthebetter);
andshouldadvisesupportstaffofthemeasurestaken.
10. Thescreenedagent’sofficeorworkstationandthatoftheagent’ssupportstaff
shouldbelocatedawayfromtheofficesorworkstationsoftheagentsand
supportstaffworkingonthematter.
11. Thescreenedagentshoulduseassociatesandsupportstaffdifferentfromthose
workingonthecurrentmatter.
12. Inthecaseoffirmswithmultipleoffices,considerationshouldbegivento
referringtheconductofthemattertoagentsinanotheroffice.
TheseGuidelinesapplywithnecessarymodificationstosituationsinwhichnon-agent
staffleaveonefirmtoworkforanotherandadeterminationismade,beforehiringthe
individual,onwhetheranyconflictsofinterestwillbecreatedandwhetherthepotential
newhireactuallypossessesrelevantconfidentialinformation.
WithrespecttoRule3.6(4)
Agentsandsupportstaff:Thisruleisintendedtoregulateagentsandagentsintraining
whotransferbetweenfirms.Italsoimposesageneraldutyonagentstoexercisedue
diligenceinthesupervisionofstafftoensurethattheycomplywiththeruleandwith
thedutynottodiscloseconfidencesofclientsoftheagents’firmandconfidencesof
clientsofotherfirmsinwhichthepersonhasworked.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
82
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Certainnon-agentstaffinafirmroutinelyhavefullaccesstoandworkextensivelyon
clientfiles.Assuch,theymaypossessconfidentialinformationabouttheclient.Ifthese
staffmovefromonefirmtoanotherandthenewfirmactsforaclientopposedin
interesttotheclientonwhosefilesthestaffworked,unlessmeasuresaretakento
screenthestaff,itisreasonabletoconcludethatconfidentialinformationmaybe
shared.Itistheresponsibilityoftheagent/firmtoensurethatstaffwhomayhave
confidentialinformationthatifdisclosed,mayprejudicetheinterestsoftheclientofthe
formerfirm,havenoinvolvementwithandnoaccesstoinformationrelatingtothe
relevantclientofthenewfirm.
BusinessTransactionswithClients
3.7
(1)
SubjecttoRules3.7(2)and3.7(3)below,theagentmustnotenterintoa
businesstransactionwithaclient,orknowinglygivetooracquirefromthe
clientanownership,securityorothermonetaryinterestinanintellectual
propertyrightrelatedtotheagent’sprofessionaladvice,unless:
(a)
thetransactionisfairandreasonable,anditstermsarefullydisclosedto
theclientinwritinginamannerthatisreasonablyunderstoodbythe
client;
(b)
theclienthasobtainedindependentlegaladviceaboutthetransaction
orhasexpresslywaivedtherighttoindependentlegaladvice,theonus
beingontheagenttoprovethattheclient’sinterestswereprotectedby
suchindependentlegaladvice;and
(c)
theclientconsentsinwritingtothetransaction.
(2)
Whereanagenthasbeenretainedtoprepareortoprovideservicesrelatingtoa
newpatentapplicationandtheagentconceivesanimprovementor
modificationtoaninventionoraportionofaninventiontobeclaimedinthe
applicationsothattheagentreasonablybelieveshimselforherselftobeacoinventorandproposestolisthimselforherselfasaco-inventor,theagentmust
advisetheclienttoobtainindependentprofessionaladviceasto:
(a) whetherornotnamingtheagentasaco-inventorisappropriateand
justified;and
(b) whetheranewagentshouldberetainedtoprosecutetheapplication.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
83
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(3)
Whenanagenthasbeenretainedtoprovideservicesrelatingtoanew
trademarkapplicationandtheagentisresponsibleorcontributessubstantially
tothecreationofatrademark,theagentmustadvisetheclienttoobtain
independentprofessionaladviceasto:
(a)
(b)
whetherornottheagentisentitledtoownershiporpartialownershipof
rightsinsuchtrademark;and
whetheranewagentshouldberetainedtoprosecutetheapplication.
(4)
Whenaclientintendstopayforagencyservicesbytransferringtotheagent,a
share,participationorotherinterestinpropertyorinanenterpriseotherthana
non-materialinterestinapubliclytradedenterprise,theagentmust
recommendbutneednotrequirethattheclientreceiveindependentlegal
advicebeforeacceptingaretainer.
Commentary
WithrespecttoRule3.7(1)
Theagentcannotactwherethebusinesstransactionisoneinwhichthereisa
substantialriskthattheagent’sloyaltytoorrepresentationoftheclientwouldbe
materiallyandadverselyaffectedbytheagent’sowninterest,unlesstheclient
consentsandtheagentreasonablybelievesthatheorsheisabletoactfortheclient
withouthavingamaterialadverseeffectonloyaltyortherepresentation.Ifthe
agentchoosesnottodisclosetheconflictinginterest(i.e.theagent’sowninterest)or
cannotdosowithoutbreachingconfidence,theagentmustdeclinetheretainer.
Anagentshouldnotuncriticallyacceptaclient’sdecisiontohavetheagentact.Itshould
beborneinmindthat,iftheagentacceptstheretainer,theagent’sfirstdutywillbeto
theclient.Iftheagenthasanymisgivingsaboutbeingabletoplacetheclient’sinterests
first,theretainershouldbedeclined.
WithrespecttoRule3.7(4)
Theremunerationpaidtoanagentbyaclientforagencyworkundertakenbytheagent
fortheclientdoesnotgiverisetoaconflictinginterest.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
84
IV.CodeandDiscipline
4.QUALITYOFSERVICE
PRINCIPLE
Anagentmustbebothhonestandcandidwhenadvisingclientsandmustinformtheclientof
allinformationknowntotheagentthatmayaffecttheinterestsoftheclientinthematter.
Rule4
4.1 Theagentmustgivetheclientcompetentadviceandservicebasedonasufficient
knowledgeoftherelevantfacts,anadequateconsiderationoftheapplicablelaw,and
theagent’sownexperienceandexpertise.
4.2
Theagent’sadvicemustbeopenandundisguised,andmustclearlydisclosewhatthe
agenthonestlythinksaboutthemeritsandprobableresults.
Commentary
Occasionally,anagentmustbefirmwithaclient.Firmness,withoutrudeness,isnota
violationoftherule.Incommunicatingwiththeclient,theagentmaydisagreewiththe
client’sperspective,ormayhaveconcernsabouttheclient’spositiononamatter,and
maygiveadvicethatwillnotpleasetheclient.Thismaylegitimatelyrequirefirmand
animateddiscussionwiththeclient.Theagentmustnotkeeptheclientinthedark
aboutmattersheorsheknowstoberelevanttotheretainer.
4.3
Ifitshouldbecomeapparenttotheagentthattheclienthasmisunderstoodor
misconceivedthepositionorwhatisreallyinvolved,theagentmustusereasonable
effortstoexplaintotheclient,theagent’sadviceandrecommendations.
Commentary
Anagenthasadutytocommunicateeffectivelywiththeclient.Whatiseffectivewill
varydependingonthenatureoftheretainer,theneedsandsophisticationoftheclient
andtheneedfortheclienttomakefullyinformeddecisionsandprovideinstructions.
4.4
Anagentmustreasonablypromptlyactontheclient’sinstructionsandmustreplytoall
clientinquiries.
4.5
Anagentmusttakereasonablestepstoadvisetheclientofthecostsofobtainingor
seekinganyintellectualpropertyprotectioninCanadaorelsewhererecommendedby
theagent.
Commentary
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
85
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Anagentshouldprovidetotheclientinwriting,beforeorwithinareasonabletimeafter
commencingarepresentation,asmuchinformationregardingfeesanddisbursements
asisreasonableandpracticalinthecircumstances,includingthebasisonwhichfeeswill
bedetermined.Anagentshouldconfirmwiththeclientinwritingthesubstanceofall
feediscussionsthatoccurasamatterprogresses,andanagentmayreviseaninitial
estimateoffeesanddisbursements.
4.6
Anagentmustcommunicateinatimelyandeffectivemanneratallstagesoftheclient’s
matterortransaction.
Commentary
Therequirementofconscientious,diligentandefficientservicemeansthatanagent
shouldmakeeveryefforttoprovidetimelyservicetotheclient.Anagentshouldmeet
deadlines,unlesstheagentisabletoofferareasonableexplanationandensurethatno
prejudicetotheclientwillresult.Whetherornotaspecificdeadlineapplies,anagent
shouldbepromptinprosecutingamatter,respondingtocommunicationsandreporting
developmentstotheclient.Intheabsenceofdevelopments,contactwiththeclient
shouldbemaintainedtotheextenttheclientreasonablyexpects.
4.7
4.8
Anagentshouldnotundertaketoactforaclientifheorsheisnotcomfortable,for
justifiablereasons,withundertakingtherequestedtaskorjobforthatparticularclient
orheorshedoesnotagreewiththeinstructionsfromtheclienttosuchanextentthat
theinstructionswillimpairtheagent’sabilitytoperformhisorherservicesin
accordancewiththisCode.
Anagentmustreasonablypromptlyinformtheclientofanymaterialerrororomission
withrespecttotheclient’smatter.
Commentary
When,inconnectionwithamatterforwhichanagentisresponsible,anagentdiscovers
anerrororomissionthatisormaybedamagingtotheclientandthatcannotbe
rectifiedreadily,theagentmust:
(a)promptlyinformtheclientoftheerrororomissionwithoutadmittinglegal
liability;
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
86
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(b)recommendthattheclientobtainindependentadviceconcerningthe
matter;and
(c)advisetheclientofthepossibilitythat,inthecircumstances,theagentmay
nolongerbeabletoactfortheclient.
5.FEES
PRINCIPLE
Anagentowesadutyoffairnessandreasonablenessinhisorherfinancialdealingswiththe
client.
Rule5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Anagentmustnotchargeoracceptanyfeeordisbursement,includinginterestthatis
notfullyandtimelydisclosed,fairandreasonable.
SubjecttoRule5.1(above),anagentmayenterintoawrittenagreementthatprovides
thattheagent’sfeeiscontingent,inwholeorinpart,ontheoutcomeofthematterfor
whichtheagent’sservicesaretobeprovided.
Anagentmustnotappropriateanyfundsunderanagent’scontrolfororonaccountof
feeswithouttheauthorityoftheclient,saveaspermittedbythisRule.Moneyheldby
anagenttothecreditofaclientmaynotbeappliedtofeesincurredbytheclientunless
anaccounthasbeenrenderedtotheclient.
Anagentmustnotpermitanon-agenttofixanyfeetobechargedtoaclient,except
wheresuchpersonusesafeeschedule,providedthatanagenthassetthefeeschedule
andisresponsibleforsendingtheaccounttotheclient.
Inastatementofaccountdeliveredtoaclient,anagentmustclearlyandseparately
detailtheamountschargedasfeesanddisbursements,andmaynotshowasa
disbursementtoathirdpartyanysumwhichisnotpaidtoathirdparty.
Iftheclientconsents,feesforanymattermaybedividedwithanotheragentoralawyer
whoisnotapartnerorassociateinthesamefirmastheagent,providedthefeesare
dividedinproportiontotheworkdoneandresponsibilitiesassumed.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
87
IV.CodeandDiscipline
5.7
5.8
Ifanagentrefersamattertoanotheragentorprofessionalbecauseoftheexpertiseand
abilityoftheotheragentorprofessionaltohandlethematter,andthereferralwasnot
madebecauseofaconflictofinterest,thereferringagentmayaccept,andtheother
agentmaypay,areferralfeeprovidedthat:
(a)thefeeisreasonableanddoesnotincreasethetotalamountofthefeecharged
totheclient;and
(b)theclientisinformedandconsents.
Ifanagentrequirespaymentpriortocommencingtheclient’swork,theagentmust
confirminwritingwiththeclienttheamountandpurposeofthepayment,andthe
consequencesofdelayineffectingsuchpaymentanddelayinthecommencementof
thework,includinganypossiblelossofrights.
Commentary
Factorswhichmaydeterminethattheamountofanaccountisafairandreasonablefeeina
givencaseinclude,butarenotlimitedto,thefollowing:
(a) thetimeandeffortrequiredandexpended;
(b) thenatureofthematter,includingitsdifficultyandurgency,itsimportancetothe
client,itsmonetaryvalue,andotherspecialcircumstances,suchaspostponementof
paymentanduncertaintyofreward;
(c) whetherspecialskillorservicehasbeenrequiredandprovided;
(d) theresultsobtained;
(e) thecustomarychargesofotheragentsofequalstandinginthelocalityinsimilar
mattersandcircumstances;
(f) thelikelihood,ifmadeknowntotheclient,thatacceptanceoftheretainerwillresult
inanagent’sinabilitytoacceptotherwork;
(g) anyrelevantagreementbetweentheagentandtheclient;
(h) theexperienceandabilityoftheagent;
(i) anyestimateorrangeoffeesgivenbytheagent;
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
88
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(j) whetherthefeeiscontingentontheoutcomeofthematter;
(k) theclient’spriorconsenttothefee;and
(l)thedirectcostsincurredbytheagentinprovidingtheservices.
Anagentshouldprovidetotheclientinwriting,beforeorwithinareasonabletimeafter
commencingarepresentation,asmuchinformationregardingfeesanddisbursements,and
interest,asisreasonableandpracticalinthecircumstances,includingthebasisonwhichfees
willbedetermined.
Anagentshouldbereadytoexplainthebasisoffeesanddisbursementschargedtotheclient.
Whensomethingunusualorunforeseenoccursthatmaysubstantiallyaffecttheamountofafee
ordisbursement,theagentshouldgivetheclientapromptexplanation.
Regardingcontingencyfees(seej)aboveandRule5.2),althoughanagentisgenerallypermitted
toterminatetheprofessionalrelationshipwithaclientandwithdrawservicespursuanttothese
rules(Rule6,nextsection)specialcircumstancesapplywhentheretainerispursuanttoa
contingencyagreement.Insuchcircumstances,theagenthasimpliedlyundertakentheriskof
notbeingpaidintheeventtheretainerisnotsuccessful.Accordingly,anagentcannotwithdraw
fromrepresentationforreasonssetoutinRule6.2(a)inrelationtofeesunlessthewritten
contingencycontractspecificallyprovidesthattheagenthastherighttodosoandsetsoutthe
circumstancesunderwhichthismayoccur.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
89
IV.CodeandDiscipline
6.WITHDRAWALOFSERVICES
PRINCIPLE
Anagentmustnotwithdrawfromrepresentationofaclientexceptforgoodcauseandon
reasonablenoticetotheclient.
Rule6
6.1
Anagentmustwithdrawwhen:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
6.2
6.3
theclientpersistsininstructingtheagenttoactcontrarytoprofessionalethics;
theclientpersistsininstructionsthattheagentknowswillresultintheagent
assistingtheclienttocommitacrimeorfraud;
theagentisunabletoactcompetentlyorwithreasonablepromptness;or
theagent’scontinuedservicetotheclientwouldviolatetheagent’sobligations
withrespecttoconflictofinterest.
Anagentmaywithdrawwhenjustifiedbythecircumstances.Circumstancesthatmay
justify,butnotrequire,withdrawalincludethefollowing:
(a) theclientfailsafterreasonablenoticetoprovidefundsonaccountoffeesor
disbursementsinaccordancewiththeagent’sreasonablerequest;
(b) theclient’sconductinthematterisdishonourableormotivatedprimarilyby
malice;
(c) theclientispersistentlyunreasonableoruncooperative,andmakesit
unreasonablydifficultfortheagenttoperformserviceseffectively;
(d) theagentisunabletolocatetheclientortoobtainproperinstructions;
(e) thereisaseriouslossofconfidencebetweenagentandclient;or
(f) theagentisunabletocontinuewiththeagent’spracticeorretiresfromsuch
practice.
Anagentmaywithdrawiftheclientconsents.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
90
IV.CodeandDiscipline
6.4
6.5
Ifanagentwithdrawsorisdischargedfromamatter,theagentmustendeavourto
avoidforeseeableprejudicetotheclientandmustalsocooperatewithasuccessor
agentifoneisappointed.
Ifanagentwithdrawsorisdischargedfromamatterandisinreceiptofanofficial
communicationonthemattertowhicharesponsemustbefiledtoavoidabandonment,
theagentmustendeavourtoreporttheofficialcommunicationinatimelymannerto
theformerclientinordertoavoidprejudicetotheformerclientandtopermitthe
formerclienttotakeappropriatestepstosafeguardhisorherrightsinthematter.
6.6
Uponwithdrawalordismissal,anagentmustpromptlyrenderafinalaccountandmust
accounttotheclientformoneyandpropertyreceivedfromtheclient.
6.7
Beforeagreeingtorepresentaclient,asuccessoragentmustbesatisfiedthatthe
formeragenthaswithdrawnorhasbeendischargedbytheclientinthatmatter.
Commentary
Anessentialelementofreasonablenoticeisnotificationtotheclient,unlesstheclientcannot
belocatedafterreasonableefforts.Nohardandfastrulescanbelaiddownastowhat
constitutesreasonablenoticebeforewithdrawal,andhowquicklyanagentmayceaseacting
afternotificationwilldependonallrelevantcircumstances.Thegoverningprincipleisthatthe
agentshouldprotecttheclient’sintereststothebestoftheagent’sabilityandshouldnotdesert
theclientatacriticalstageofamatteroratatimewhenwithdrawalwouldputtheclientina
positionofdisadvantage.Asageneralrule,theclientshouldbegivensufficienttimetoretain
andinstructareplacementagent,includinglodginganappointmentofagentintherelevant
CIPOOffice.Everyeffortshouldbemadetoensurethatwithdrawaloccursatanappropriate
timeintheprosecutionofanapplicationinkeepingwiththeagent’sobligations.Therelevant
CIPOoffice,opposingparties,foreignagents,andothersdirectlyaffectedshouldalsobenotified
ofthewithdrawal.
Unlessthefirstclientconsents,anagentmustnotsummarilyandunexpectedlywithdrawhisor
herservicesfromthefirstclientinordertoavoidaconflictarisingfromacceptinganewsecond
client.Notethatdisclosureisanessentialrequirementtoobtainingthefirstclient’sconsent.
Whereitisnotpossibletoprovidethefirstclientwithadequatedisclosurebecauseof
confidentialityoftheinformationofthesecondclient,theagentmustdeclinetoprovide
servicestothesecondclient.
Whenanagencyfirmisdissolvedoranagentleavesanagencyfirmtopractiseelsewhere,it
usuallyresultsintheterminationoftheagent-clientrelationshipasbetweenaparticularclient
andoneormoreoftheagentsinvolved.Insuchcases,mostclientsprefertoretaintheservices
oftheagentwhomtheyregardedasbeinginchargeoftheirbusinessbeforethechange.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
91
IV.CodeandDiscipline
However,thefinaldecisionrestswiththeclient,andtheagentswhoarenolongerretainedby
thatclientshouldactinaccordancewiththeprinciplessetoutinthisrule,and,inparticular,
shouldtrytominimizeexpenseandavoidprejudicetotheclient.Theclient’sinterestsare
paramountand,accordingly,thedecisionwhethertheagentwillcontinuetorepresentagiven
clientmustbemadebytheclientintheabsenceofundueinfluenceorharassmentbyeitherthe
agentortheagencyfirm.Thatmayrequireeitherorboththedepartingagentandtheagency
firmtonotifyclientsinwritingthattheagentisleavingandadvisetheclientoftheoptions
available:tohavethedepartingagentcontinuetoact,havetheagencyfirmcontinuetoact,or
retainanewagentoragencyfirm.
Ondischargeorwithdrawal,anagentmust:
(a) notifytheclientinwriting,stating:
(i)
thefactthattheagenthaswithdrawn;
(ii)
thereasons,ifany,forthewithdrawal;and
(iii) inthecaseofahearing,thattheclientshouldexpectthatthehearingwill
proceedonthedatescheduledandthattheclientshouldretainanew
agentpromptly;
(b) delivertoortotheorderoftheclientallpapersandpropertytowhichtheclient
isentitled;
(c) subjecttoanyapplicabletrustconditions,givetheclientallrelevantinformation
inconnectionwiththecaseormatter;
(d) accountforallfundsoftheclientthenheldorpreviouslydealtwith,includingthe
refundingofanyremunerationnotearnedduringtherepresentation;
(e) promptlyrenderanaccountforoutstandingfeesanddisbursements;
(f) co-operatewiththesuccessoragentinthetransferofthefilesoastominimize
expenseandavoidprejudicetotheclient;and
(g) complywiththeapplicablerulesoftheCIPOofficeinvolved.
Iftheagentwhoisdischargedorwithdrawsisamemberofafirm,theclientshouldbenotified
thattheagentandthefirmarenolongeractingfortheclient.
Theobligationtodeliverpapersandpropertyissubjecttoanagreementbetweentheagentand
theclient.Intheeventofconflictingclaimstosuchpapersorproperty,theagentshouldmake
everyefforttohavetheclaimantssettlethedispute.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
92
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Co-operationwiththesuccessoragentwillnormallyincludeprovidingallfilesforapplications
andpatents/registeredtrademarksbutconfidentialinformationnotclearlyrelatedtothe
mattershouldnotbedivulgedwithoutthewrittenconsentoftheclient.
Anagentactingforseveralclientsinacaseormatterwhoceasestoactforoneormoreofthem
shouldco-operatewiththesuccessoragentoragentstotheextentrequiredbytheserulesand
shouldseektoavoidanyunseemlyrivalry,whetherrealorapparent.
Itisquiteproperforthesuccessoragenttourgetheclienttosettleortakereasonablesteps
towardssettlingorsecuringanyoutstandingaccountoftheformeragent,especiallyifthelatter
withdrewforgoodcauseorwascapriciouslydischarged.But,ifamatterisinprogressor
imminent,oriftheclientwouldotherwisebeprejudiced,theexistenceofanoutstanding
accountshouldnotbeallowedtointerferewiththesuccessoragentactingfortheclient.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
93
IV.CodeandDiscipline
7.DUTIESTOTHEINSTITUTEANDTHEPROFESSION
PRINCIPLE
Anagentmustassistinmaintainingthestandardsoftheprofessionindealingswiththe
Instituteandtheprofessiongenerally.Anagent’sconducttowardotheragentsmustbe
characterizedbycourtesyandgoodfaith.
Rule7
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
Anagentmustconducthimselforherselfinaprofessionalmanner.
Anagentmustrefrainfromconductthatbringsdiscredittotheprofession.
AmemberoftheInstitutemustrespondpromptlyandinacompleteandappropriate
mannertoanycommunicationfromtheInstituterelatingtothemember’sconduct.
Anagenthasaprofessionaldutytomeetfinancialobligationsinrelationtotheagent’s
practice.
AnagentmustreporttotheInstituteanyconductofwhichtheagenthaspersonal
knowledgeandwhichintheagent’sreasonableopinion,actingingoodfaith,raisesa
seriousquestionofwhetheranotheragentisinbreachofthisCode.
Anagentmustencourageaclientwhohasaclaimorcomplaintagainstanapparently
dishonestagenttoreportthefactstotheInstituteassoonasreasonablypracticable.
Anagenthascompleteprofessionalresponsibilityforallbusinessentrustedtohimor
herandmustdirectlysupervisestaffandassistantstowhomtheagentdelegates
particulartasksandfunctions.
Anagentactingasasupervisortoanagenttraineemustprovidetheagenttraineewith
meaningfultrainingandexposuretoandinvolvementinworkthatwillprovidethe
agenttraineewithknowledgeandexperienceofthepracticalaspectsofpatentagency
ortrade-markagency,togetherwithanappreciationofthetraditionsandethicsofthe
profession.
Inconnectionwithanagent’spractice,anagentmustnotdiscriminateagainstany
person.
Inconnectionwithanagent’spractice,anagentmustnotsexuallyharassorengagein
anyotherformofharassmentofanyperson.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
94
IV.CodeandDiscipline
7.11
(a)Whenanagent(“transferringagent”)transfersfromafirm(“formerfirm”)toa
newfirm,neithertheagentnortheformerfirmmustexerciseorattemptto
exerciseundueinfluenceorharassmentuponclientsoftheformerfirmwhose
workwasdonebythetransferringagenttoinfluencethedecisionoftheclient
astowhowillrepresenttheclient.
(b)
Whileanagentisemployed,theagentmustnotsolicitbusinessfromthe
agent’semployer’sclientsorprospectiveclientsonhisorheraccount,without
theknowledgeoftheagent’semployer.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
95
IV.CodeandDiscipline
8.COMMUNICATIONSTOTHEINSTITUTE,CIPOANDOTHERS
PRINCIPLE
Anagent’sconducttowardotheragentsmustbecharacterizedbycourtesyandgoodfaith.
Rule8
8.1
(1)
Anagentmustbecourteousandcivilandactingoodfaithwithallpersonswith
whomtheagenthasdealingsinthecourseofhisorherpractise.Forfurther
certainty,anagentmustbecourteousandcivilandactingoodfaithwithCIPO.
(2)
Allcorrespondenceandremarksbyanagentaddressedtoorconcerning
anotheragent,whetherinsideoroutsideoftheagent’sfirmorconcerning
anotherfirm,CIPOortheInstitute,mustbefair,accurateandcourteous.
(3)
Anagentmustavoidsharppracticeandmustnottakeadvantageoforact
withoutfairwarninguponslips,irregularitiesormistakesonthepartofother
agentsnotgoingtothemeritsorinvolvingthesacrificeofaclient’srights.
(4)
Anagentshouldavoidill-consideredoruninformedcriticismofthecompetence,
conduct,adviceorchargesofotheragents,butshouldbepreparedwhen
requestedtoadviseandrepresentaclientinvolvinganotheragent.
(5)
Anagentshouldagreetoreasonablerequestsconcerninghearingdates,
adjournments,thewaiverofproceduralformalitiesandsimilarmattersthatdo
notprejudicetherightsoftheclientorunlesstodosowouldbecontrarytothe
client’sinstructions.
Commentary
Thepublicinterestdemandsthatmattersentrustedtoanagentbedealtwitheffectively
andexpeditiously,andfairandcourteousdealingonthepartofeachagentengagedina
matterwillcontributemateriallytothisend.Theagentwhobehavesotherwisedoesa
disservicetotheclientandneglectoftherulewillimpairtheabilityofagentstoperform
theirfunctionsproperly.
Anyillfeelingthatmayexistorbeengenderedbetweenclients,particularlyduring
oppositionproceedings,shouldneverbeallowedtoinfluenceagentsintheirconduct
anddemeanourtowardeachotherortheparties.Thepresenceofpersonalanimosity
betweenagentsinvolvedinamattermaycausetheirjudgmenttobecloudedby
emotionalfactorsandhindertheproperresolutionofthematter.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
96
IV.CodeandDiscipline
8.2
(1)
(2)
Anagentmustnotinthecourseofprofessionalpractisesendcorrespondence
orotherwisecommunicatetoaclient,anotheragent,CIPOoranyotherperson
inamannerthatisabusive,offensive,orotherwiseinconsistentwiththeproper
toneofaprofessionalcommunicationfromanagent.
Anagentmustanswerwithreasonablepromptnessallprofessionallettersand
communicationsfromotheragentsandfromCIPOwhichrequireananswerand
anagentmustbepunctualinfulfillingallcommitments.
(3)
SubjecttoRule8.2(4),ifapersonisrepresentedbyanagentorlawyerinrespect
ofamatter,anotheragentmustnot,exceptthroughorwiththeconsentofthe
person’sagentorlawyer:
(a)
(b)
(4)
(5)
approach,communicateordealwiththepersononthematter;or
attempttonegotiateorcompromisethematterdirectlywiththeperson.
Anagentwhoisnototherwiseinterestedinamattermaygiveasecondopinion
toapersonwhoisrepresentedbyanagentwithrespecttothatmatter.
Anagentretainedtoactonamatterinvolvingacorporateorotherorganization
representedbyanagentorlawyermustnotapproachanofficeror
employeeoftheorganization:
(a)
(b)
(c)
whohastheauthoritytobindthecorporation;
whosupervises,directsorregularlyconsultswiththeorganization’s
agent;or
whoseowninterestsaredirectlyatstakeintherepresentation,
inrespectofthatmatter,unlesstheagentorlawyerrepresentingthe
organizationconsentsorthecontactisotherwiseauthorizedorrequiredbylaw.
Forpurposesofthisrule,“otherorganizations”includepartnerships,
associations,unions,unincorporatedgroups,governmentdepartmentsand
agencies,tribunals,regulatorybodiesandsoleproprietorships.
Commentary
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
97
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Rule8.2(3)appliestocommunicationswithanyperson,whetherornotapartytoa
formaladjudicativeproceeding,contractornegotiation,whoisrepresentedbyanagent
concerningthemattertowhichthecommunicationrelates.Anagentmaycommunicate
witharepresentedpersonoutsidetherepresentation.Rule8.2(3)doesnotprevent
partiestoamatterfromcommunicatingdirectlywitheachother.
Theprohibitiononcommunicationswitharepresentedpersonappliesonlywherethe
agentknowsorshouldknowbasedonthecircumstancesthatthepersonisrepresented
inthemattertobediscussed.
Rule8.2(4)dealswithcircumstancesinwhichaclientmaywishtoobtainasecond
opinionfromanotheragent.Inprovidingasecondopinion,inordertoprovide
competentservicestheagentmayrequirefactsthatcanbeobtainedonlythrough
consultationwiththefirstagentinvolved.Theagentshouldadvisetheclientaccordingly
andifnecessaryconsultthefirstagent,unlesstheclientinstructsotherwise.
Rule8.2(5)prohibitsanagentrepresentinganotherpersonorentityfrom
communicatingaboutthematterinquestionwithpersonslikelyinvolvedinthe
decision-makingprocessforacorporationorotherorganization.Iftheorganizationor
corporationisrepresentedbyanagent,theconsentofthatagenttothecommunication
willbesufficientforthepurposesofthisrule.Anagentmaycommunicatewith
employeesofthecorporationororganizationconcerningmattersoutsideofthe
representation.
8.3
Whenanagentdealsonaclient’sbehalfwithanunrepresentedperson,theagentmust:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
advisetheunrepresentedpersontoobtainindependentrepresentation;
takecaretoseethattheunrepresentedpersonisnotproceedingunderthe
impressionthathisorherinterestswillbeprotectedbytheagent;
makeitcleartotheunrepresentedpersonthattheagentisactingexclusivelyin
theinterestsoftheclient;and
extendthesamecourtesyandgoodfaithtotheunrepresentedpersonasis
extendedtootheragentsoragenttrainees.
Commentary
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
98
IV.CodeandDiscipline
8.4
Ifanunrepresentedpersonrequeststheagenttoadviseoractinthematter,theagent
shouldbegovernedbytheconsiderationsoutlinedintheConflictsRuleaboutjoint
retainers.
Anagentwhoreceivesadocumentrelatingtotherepresentationoftheagent’sclient
andknowsorreasonablyshouldknowthatthedocumentwasinadvertentlysentmust
promptlynotifythesender.Forpurposesofthisrule,“document”includesemailor
otherelectronicmodesoftransmissionsubjecttobeingreadorputintoreadableform.
Commentary
Agentssometimesreceivedocumentsthatweremistakenlysentbyopposingpartiesor
theiragents.Ifanagentknowsorreasonablyshouldknowthatsuchadocumentwas
sentinadvertently,thenthisrulerequirestheagenttonotifythesenderpromptlyin
ordertopermitthatpersontotakeprotectivemeasures.
Someagentsmaychoosetoreturnadocumentunreadforexample,whentheagent
learnsbeforereceivingthedocumentthatitwasinadvertentlysenttothewrong
address.Unlesstheagentisrequiredbyapplicablelawtodoso,thedecisionto
voluntarilyreturnsuchadocumentisamatterofprofessionaljudgmentordinarily
reservedtotheagent.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
99
IV.CodeandDiscipline
9.ADVERTISING
PRINCIPLE
Anagentmayadvertiseserviceandfees,orotherwisesolicitwork,providedthatthe
advertisementis:
(1) neitherfalseormisleading,confusing,ordeceptive,norlikelytomislead,confuse
ordeceive;
(2) ingoodtaste,
(3) notlikelytobringtheprofessionintodisrepute,and
(4) demonstrablytrue,accurateandverifiable.
Rule9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
Anagentmustnotuseanydescriptionthatfalselysuggeststhattheagentoranother
personinhisorherfirmhasacademicorprofessionalqualificationsthatsuchagentor
persondoesnotpossess.
Commentary
Clientsoftenseekanagentwithcertainbackgroundorskills.Suchclientsshouldnotbe
misledbyanagentholdingouthimselforherselforothermembersofhisorherfirmas
havingskillsthattheydonotpossess.
TheAgent’sadvertisementsmaybedesignedtoprovideinformationtoassista
potentialclienttochooseanagentwhohastheappropriateskillsandknowledgeforthe
client’sparticularmatter.Theagentmayindicatethathisorherpracticeisrestrictedto
aparticulararea,ormayindicatethattheagentpracticesinacertainareaifsuchisthe
case.Inallcases,therepresentationsmademustbeaccurate(thatis,demonstrably
true)andmustnotbemisleading.
Theagentmustnotindicatebywayofadvertisement,letterhead,orotherwise,thathe
orshehasaprofessionalofficeatanamedlocationwheninfactsuchisnotthecase.
Anagentmayadvertisefeeschargedfortheirservicesprovidedthat:
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
100
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(a)
(b)
(c)
theadvertisingisreasonablypreciseastotheservicesofferedforeachfee
quoted;
theadvertisingstateswhetherotheramounts,suchasdisbursementsandtaxes,
willbechargedinadditiontothefee;and
theagentstrictlyadherestotheadvertisedfeeineveryapplicablesense.
Commentary
Theuseofphrasessuchas“JohnDoeandAssociates”,or“JohnDoeandCompany”and“John
DoeandPartners”isimproperunlessthereareinfact,respectively,twoormoreotheragents
associatedwithJohnDoeinpracticeortwoormorepartnersofJohnDoe.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
101
IV.CodeandDiscipline
10.UNAUTHORIZEDPRACTICE
PRINCIPLE
Anagentowesadutytoassistinpreventingtheunauthorizedpracticeofpersonsorentities
aspatentagentsortrademarkagents.
Rule10
10.1
10.2
10.3
Anagentshouldnot,withouttheexpressapprovaloftheInstitutethroughCouncil,
retain,occupyofficespacewith,usetheservicesof,partnerorassociatewith,or
employinanycapacityhavingtodowiththepracticeofpatentortrademarkagencyor
both,anagentwhoisundersuspensionasaresultofdisciplinaryproceedings,ora
personwhohasbeenstruckfromtheRegisterorhasbeenpermittedtoresignwhile
facingdisciplinaryproceedingsandhasnotbeenreinstated.
Anagentmustnotaidorassistapersonwhoispracticingasapatentagentor
trademarkagentinanunauthorizedmanner.
Anagentwhoisundersuspensionasaresultofdisciplinaryproceedings,oraperson
whohasbeenstruckfromtheRegisterorhasbeenpermittedtoresignwhilefacing
disciplinaryproceedingsandhasnotbeenreinstated,shallnot:
(a)
(b)
practiceasapatentortrademarkagent,asapplicable,or
representorholdhimselforherselfoutasapersonentitledtopracticeasa
patentortrade-markagent,asapplicable.
10.4 AmemberoftheInstitutewhoisnotanagentmustnotholdhimorherselfoutasan
agent,whetherbyadvertisingmembershipintheInstituteorotherwise.
Commentary
Itisintheinterestofthepublicandtheprofessionthatpersonswhoarenotproperlyqualified,
andwhoareimmunefromcontrolormanagementordiscipline,notbepermittedtooffer
patentandtrademarkagencyservicestomembersofthepublic.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
102
IV.CodeandDiscipline
11.DISCIPLINE
EthicsSub-committee
11.1
Councilshallappointfromamongstitsmembersasub-committeetobeknownasthe
EthicsSub-CommitteetowhichSub-Committeeshallbereferredallapparentbreaches
oftheCodeofEthicswhichshallcometotheattentionofCouncil.
ItshallbethedutyoftheEthicsSub-Committeetoinvestigateeachapparentbreachof
theCodeofEthicswhichisreferredtoitandtoreportbacktoCouncil:
(a) whether,followingappropriateinvestigation,itappearsthatsuchapparent
breachoftheCodeofEthicshasinfactoccurred,and
(b) thestepswhichitrecommendstoCouncilfordealingwithsuchapparent
breach.
UponreceiptofthereportoftheEthicsSub-Committee,Councilshalldecidewhetheror
notsuchbreachwarrantsdisciplinaryaction.
DisciplinaryActionbyCouncil
11.2
DisciplinaryactionshallbeinitiatedbyservinguponthememberoftheInstitute
concernedastatementinwritingoftheactsoromissionswhichitisallegedconstitutea
breachoftheCodeofEthicsandthesectionorsectionsoftheCodeofEthicswhichare
allegedtohavebeenbreached.
ThememberoftheInstituteshallhavetherighttosubmitananswerinwritingto
Councilwithinatimetobestatedinthestatementreferredtoinparagraph1orsuch
furthertimeasthememberoftheInstitutemayrequestandCouncilpermitasbeing
reasonablynecessaryforthepreparationofhisorheranswer.
Intheeventthatnosuchwrittenanswerisreceivedorthatsuchwrittenanswerdoes
notintheopinionofCouncilsatisfactorilydisposeofthematter,Councilmaysummon
themembertoappearbeforeaspecialmeetingofCouncileitherinpersonor,ifsuch
membersodesires,byrepresentativetoexplainthemember’sconduct.
SubsequenttosuchappearanceofthememberoftheInstitutebeforeCouncilorin
defaultofsuchappearance,Councilmay,bytheaffirmativevoteofatleastsixmembers
ofCouncilformingamajorityofCouncil,disciplinesuchmemberoftheInstituteby:
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
103
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(a)
(b)
(c)
admonishmentorreprimanddeliveredorallyinthepresenceofthe
memberorinwriting,
suspensionforsuchperiodandonsuchtermsasCouncildeems
appropriate,suchsuspensionandthetermsofconditionthereoftobe
notifiedtothememberbynoticeinwriting,or
expulsionfromtheInstitute,suchexpulsionandthereasonsthereforto
benotifiedtothememberbynoticeinwritingtogetherwiththereasons
forsuchexpulsion.
Noticeofsuchadmonishment,reprimand,suspensionorexpulsionandthereasons
thereformay,atthediscretionofCouncil,bepublishedandCouncilmay,initsdiscretion,
withholdthenameofthememberconcernedfromtheNotice,provided,however,(i)
thatsuchNoticeshallnotbepublishedunlessthemembershallhavebeenadvisedatthe
timethatthememberisdisciplinedthattherewillbepublication,(ii)thatthereshallbe
nopublicationuntilthetimeforappealasprovidedintheBy-lawshasexpiredand,(iii)
that,intheeventofanappeal,thereshallbenopublicationotherthaninanoticeof
meetinguntiltheappealhasbeendetermined.
Miscellaneous
11.3
Inthecaseofanon-residentmemberoftheInstitute,ifthereisanyconflictbetween
thestandardsofconductsetforthinthisCodeandthestandardofprofessionalconduct
obtainingamongreputablepatentandtrademarkagentsinthemember’sowncountry,
compliancebythememberwiththestandardsobtaininginthemember’sowncountry
butnotwiththestandardsprescribedhereinshallnotbedeemedtobeunprofessional
conductunless,afterdueinvestigation,Councilbyamajorityvoteatameetingduly
calledforthepurpose,findsthattheconductofthememberreflectsdiscreditonthe
Instituteoritsmembers.
AnymemberoftheInstitutemayaskCouncilforarulingastowhetheranypublication
whichthemember’sfirmuses,publishesorproposestouseorpublishoranyconductin
whichthememberorthemember’sfirmengagesorproposestoengagecomplieswith
thisCode,andCouncilmayrulethereon.
Councilmay,fromtimetotimeissuememorandaonpractisingethicswhichshallbe
publishedintheCanadianIntellectualPropertyRevieworotherpublicationofthe
Institutefortheguidanceofthemembers.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
104
IV.CodeandDiscipline
B.Complaintsanddiscipline
1.ModernizingtheIPCommunityrecommendation
The Modernizing the IP Community report included this recommendation:
A mixed model values and ethics framework should be created, comprising
members of CIPO and the IP profession, as appropriate, tasked with the following
functions in the disciplinary process:
Complaint receipt function
Review function
Investigative function
Tribunal (with an additional member from the public)
IPIC agrees that a regulator would be tasked with these four functions, but disagrees with
the notion of a “mixed model” comprising members of CIPO and the profession. We
explain our reasoning in the answer to Question 6 (see Section VIII).
2.Overviewofthedisciplineprocess
A comprehensive discipline process for a self-regulatory body, based on the discipline
process of another national profession (the actuaries), was approved by the members of
IPIC at the 2003 Annual General Meeting.
The College implementation team should determine if the discipline process requires an
update. In this regard, it would be useful to consult the Canadian Institute of Actuaries to
learn from their experience and changes to their process since 2003. IPIC’s Professional
Regulation Committee noted the following:
Discipline Committee
Who will appoint the member of the public? The current draft says it would be the
Attorney General of Canada but, if an appointment made by government is
desired, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development seems
more appropriate to make such an appointment. However, it is often the case for
regulators that the public representative on the discipline committee is one of the
public representatives on the governing Council.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
105
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Disciplinary Tribunal Panel
This term used in the draft process is misleading and refers to the pool of people
from whom the Discipline Committee can draw a Tribunal. It should probably be
changed.
Investigation Team
The draft process is not explicit as to who would form the investigation teams. It
is not uncommon for professional regulators to have staff with specific
responsibility for complaint investigation but it is not envisioned that there will be
a volume of complaints warranting this overhead expenses. Depending on the
nature of the alleged offense, the investigators could be members of the College or
external investigators on contract.
Appeals
If the College’s Discipline Tribunal would not be automatically recognized as a
tribunal of federal jurisdiction, a legislative provision may be required to ensure
that appeals can be heard by the Federal Court.
After review, the discipline process would be formally adopted by the College in the form
of by-laws or other regulation and a clear complaints mechanism would be created and
posted on the College website.
An overview of the discipline process is provided on the next page.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
106
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Complaint
Executive
Director
Discipline
Committee
Dismiss
Other
regulator
End
Decide
Pursue
Investigation
team
Discipline
Committee
Discipline
committee
mediates
Succesful
Decide
Sanction
Not
succesful
End
Dismiss
Discipline
Tribunal
Not
accepted
Accepted
End
Hearing
Dismiss
Decision
Sanction
End
Accepted
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
Federal
Not
Court
accepted
107
IV.CodeandDiscipline
3.Thedisciplineprocess
ImportantNote:
Thefollowingdisciplineby-lawswerepreparedinthecontextoftheinitialworkforthe
CollegeofPatentAgentsandTrade-markAgents.Theseby-lawswerepresentedtothe
members of IPIC in 2003. At the Annual General Meeting of that year, the members
votedinfavourofhavingtheCollege,uponitscreation,adopttheseby-laws.
Whatfollowsisthetextthatwasadoptedin2003.Itmayneedtobeupdatedandwould
certainlyneedtobeadaptedaccordingtothenatureoftheregulatorybody.
TheFrenchversionofthisdisciplineprocessisprovidedinAnnexD.
DisciplineBy-lawsoftheCollege
(AsProposedbytheIntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada8)
Interpretation
By-law1
1. IntheseBy-laws,
(1)
“agent”includesaregisteredtrade-markagent,aregisteredpatentagent
and a member of the College and further includes a patent or trade-mark
agenttraineewhereappropriateinthecontextoftheseby-laws;
(2)
“bilateral organization” means a provincial law society, the Barreau du
Quebec, or any association governing barristers and solicitors in the
territoriesofCanada;
(3)
“By-laws”meanstheby-lawsoftheCollegeasineffectfromtimetotime;
8
Theby-lawsoftheCanadianInstituteofActuarieswereused,withtheInstitute’sassistance,asabasis
forthissetofby-laws.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
108
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
“client”meansanynaturalpersonorlegalentitythattakesadviceorasks
services of the agent or who seeks such services directly or indirectly on
behalfofothers;
“CodeofEthics”meansthecodeadoptedbytheCollegeasineffectfrom
timetotime;
“Council”meansthegoverningbodyoftheCollege;
“Courts” shall mean the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of
AppealandtheSupremeCourtofCanada;
“ExecutiveDirector”meanstheExecutiveDirectoroftheCollege;
“InvestigationTeam”meansateamappointedpursuanttoSection4(7)of
theBy-laws;
“Member of the College” or “Member” means an individual who has been
admittedbytheCollegeintooneofitsclassesofmembership;
“Offence”meansabreachoftheCodeofEthicsorBy-laws;
“Respondent”meansamemberagainstwhomacomplainthasbeenlaidora
chargehasbeenfiled;
AppointmentofCommitteesandPanels
By-law2
(1)
The Council shall appoint a Discipline Committee for purposes of By-law 3.
ThemembersoftheDisciplineCommitteeshallincludeonememberofthe
public,appointedbytheAttorneyGeneralofCanada.
(2)
The Council shall annually appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal Panel which shall
consist of at least 15 Members of the College, who have agreed in general
terms to make themselves available for appointment to a Disciplinary
Tribunal.NoneofthePresident,President-ElectorImmediatePast-President
oramemberofCouncilshallbemembersoftheDisciplinaryTribunalPanel.
CouncilshallalsoannuallyappointtwomembersoftheDisciplinaryTribunal
PaneltoactasChairpersonandVice-ChairpersonoftheDisciplinaryTribunal
Panel.
(3)
Councilmayappointtaskforcestoconsiderissuesofdiscipline.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
109
IV.CodeandDiscipline
DisciplineofMembers
By-law3
JurisdictionoftheDisciplineCommittee
(1) The Discipline Committee of the College is constituted to handle all
disciplinary matters concerning the Members of the College and to provide
them with counseling and education regarding disciplinary matters. The
DisciplineCommitteeshalldealwith:
(a) everycomplaintallegingthataMemberoftheCollegehascommitted
anOffence;
(b) everyinquiryregardingtheconductofanyMemberoftheCollege.
CompositionandQuorum
(2)
The Discipline Committee shall consist of at least 10 members, including a
chairperson. Five members shall constitute a quorum except that seven
membersshallconstituteaquorumfortheconductofavotetofileacharge
againstamember.
(3)
The Executive Director of the College shall ensure that records of the
DisciplineCommitteearekept.
ImmediatePastPresidentEx-Officio
(4)
No member of Council shall sit as a member of the Discipline Committee
except the Immediate Past President who shall sit as an ex-officio member
andshallbeentitledtovote.TheImmediatePastPresidentshallnotactas
ChairpersonoftheDisciplineCommittee.
ConflictofInterest
(5)
Members of the Discipline Committee must refuse to participate in any
matter in which they consider themselves to be in a position of conflict of
interest. If the Chairperson is in such a conflict, a Chairperson shall be
appointedbytheothermembersoftheDisciplineofCommittee.
Meetings
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
110
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(6)
Members of the Discipline Committee shall hold meetings quarterly; and
mayholdmeetingsmoreoftenasrequired.EverydecisionoftheDiscipline
Committee shall be taken by a majority of the members present at the
meeting. In the event of a tie, the motion is considered to be defeated.
MeetingsoftheDisciplineCommitteemayonlybeattendedbymembersof
theDisciplineCommitteeandbyanyotherpersoninvitedtoattendbythe
ChairpersonoftheDisciplineCommittee.
ConfidentialityofDeliberations
(7)
Except as provided in the By-laws, the deliberations of the Discipline
Committee and any of the Investigation Teams, including records and
minutes,areconfidentialunlesstheDisciplineCommitteeotherwisedecides
inrelationtoaparticularmatter.
(8)
AllpersonspresentatameetingoftheDisciplineCommitteeshallbebound
to uphold the confidentiality of the deliberations and of any information
obtained in connection with such meeting, whether verbal or in written
form,andwhetherobtainedbefore,duringoraftersuchameeting.
MakingaComplaint
By-law4
(1)
AcomplaintmaybemadebyanypersonorMember.Everycomplaintshall
bereceivedbytheExecutiveDirectoroftheCollege.
Jurisdiction
(2)
The Discipline Committee shall determine whether it has jurisdiction,
pursuanttoBy-law15tohandlethecomplaintorinformationreceived.Ifthe
Discipline Committee decides that the matter should be handled by a
bilateralorganization,theExecutiveDirectorshallforwardthecomplaintor
information to that organization. Should that organization refuse to handle
the matter, the Committee shall retain jurisdiction to handle the complaint
orinformationreceivedinaccordancewiththeBy-laws.
ConfidentialityAgreement
(3)
Once a complaint has been received, the Executive Director shall promptly
request that the complainant agree in writing to keep confidential any
informationprovidedtothecomplainantonaconfidentialbasisconcerning
the clients or confidential details of the practice of the member of the
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
111
IV.CodeandDiscipline
College or decision of the Discipline Committee to privately admonish a
MemberoftheCollegepursuanttoBy-law8(6).Ifthecomplainantrefuses
or fails to provide such written agreement, the Discipline Committee shall
provideonlysuchinformationasispermittedundertheseby-laws.
InformationfromComplainant
(4)
Before deciding whether an Offence may have been committed by a
Member of the College, the Discipline Committee may obtain additional
informationregardingthecomplaintfromthecomplainant.
ResponsebyMember
(5)
Before deciding whether an Offence may have been committed by a
MemberoftheCollege,theDisciplineCommitteeshalldeliveracopyofthe
complaint to the Member of the College, as well as any additional
information obtained pursuant to By-law 5(3). Within 30 days of such
delivery or such greater period as the Discipline Committee may consider
appropriateinthecircumstances,theMemberoftheCollegemayprovidea
written response thereto or any other written explanation that may be
warrantedinthecircumstances.
DismissalofComplaint
(6)
Where, on the basis of all of the information obtained, the Discipline
CommitteeisoftheopinionthatanOffencehasnotbeencommittedbythe
Member of the College, it shall dismiss the complaint and shall notify in
writingtheMember,thecomplainant,withinareasonableperiodoftimeof
itsdecision.ItshallforwardacopyofthecomplaintlaidtotheMember.
ReferralofComplainttoInvestigationTeam
(7)
Where, on the basis of all of the information obtained, the Discipline
Committee is of the opinion that an Offence has been committed by the
MemberoftheCollege; itshall referthecomplainttoanInvestigationTeam.
ItshallnotifytheRespondentandthecomplainantwithin30daysofmaking
itsdecision.
OngoingJurisdictionoftheCollege
(8)
AnyMemberoftheCollege,whobecomesdisqualifiedfrombeingaMember
orvoluntarilyceasestobeaMember,shallremainsubjecttothedisciplinary
jurisdictionoftheDisciplineCommitteefortheactsoromissionscommitted
whilebeingaMemberoftheCollege.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
112
IV.CodeandDiscipline
TheInvestigationTeam
By-law5
AppointingofInvestigationTeam
(1)
WhentheDisciplineCommitteerefersacomplainttoanInvestigationTeam
under By-law 4(7), it shall appoint the Investigation Team to carry out an
investigation. Such Investigation Team shall consist of no more than three
persons. No member of Council and no Member of the College with a
conflictofinterestshallactasamemberoftheInvestigationTeam.
ReportandResponsefromRespondentMember
(2)
An Investigation Team shall conduct its investigation within 3 months of
being appointed. The Investigation Team shall prepare a report containing
thefindingsofitsinvestigationwithinfourmonthsofitsappointment.The
reportshallbetransmittedtotheDisciplineCommittee.OncetheDiscipline
Committee has accepted the report, it shall deliver the report to the
Respondent.Within30daysofsuchdelivery,orsuchgreaterperiodasthe
DisciplineCommitteemayconsiderappropriateinthecircumstances,the
RespondentmaysubmittotheExecutiveDirectorawrittenresponsetothe
reportoftheInvestigationTeamoranyotherwrittenexplanationwhichmay
bewarrantedinthecircumstances.
InterviewsbytheTeam
(3)
Inpreparingitsreport,anInvestigationTeammaycarryoutsuchinquiriesas
itdeemsproperunderthecircumstances.ItshallinterviewtheRespondent
andthecomplainant;andmayinterviewanyotherMemberoftheCollegeor
person who may have relevant information. Any person being interviewed
by an Investigation Team, including the Respondent may be assisted or
representedbylegalcounsel.
ProductionofDocuments
(4)
In the course of its investigation, an Investigation Team may require the
productionofanybooks,documents,recordorotherpapersrelevanttoan
investigationandwhichmaybeinthepossessionorcontrolofanyMember
oftheCollege,includingtheRespondent.
Co-operationwithInvestigation
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
113
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(5)
ItshallbeanOffenceforaMemberoftheCollegeto:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
hinderinanywaytheworkofanInvestigationTeamoranyoneofits
members in the performance of its duties as carried out according to
theBy-laws;
fail to respond within 30 days to an inquiry from the Investigation
Team;
mislead an Investigation Team or any one of its members by
concealmentorbyfalsedeclarations;
refusetoproduceanyinformationordocumentrelatingtoaninquiry;
or
refusetoletacopybemadeofanyrelevantdocument.
DecisionsoftheDisciplineCommittee
By-law6
DecisionsoftheCommittee
(1)
After reviewing the report of an Investigation Team and the response
providedbytheRespondent,ifany,theDisciplineCommitteeshall:
(a) dismissthecomplaint;
(b) mediatethedisputebetweentheMemberandthecomplainant,where
intheopinionoftheDisciplineCommittee,thedisputedoesnotrequire
ahearingbeforetheDisciplineTribunal;
(c) proceedwithprivateadmonishmentproceedings;
(d) sanctiontheMemberoftheCollegepursuanttoBy-law9;or
(e) refer the complaint to the Discipline Tribunal where in the opinion of
theDisciplineCommittee,thecomplaintisofaseveritythatrequiresa
hearingbeforetheDisciplineTribunalpursuanttoBy-law10.
DismissalofComplaint
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
114
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(2)
If the Discipline Committee dismisses a complaint, it shall notify the
Respondentandthecomplainantwithin30daysofthedismissal.Thenotice
shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the dismissal. The
complainant shall have a right of appeal to the Disciplinary Tribunal. The
complainant must file its request for a hearing before the Disciplinary
Tribunalwithin60daysofdeliveryofthenoticeofthedismissal.
DismissalandLetterofAdvice
(3)
If the Discipline Committee dismisses a complaint, it may send to the
Respondent a letter of advice, which may include any education or
counseling materials as the Discipline Committee may consider appropriate
in the circumstances. The Discipline Committee shall disclose the letter of
adviceonlytotheRespondentandshallnotkeeparecordthereof.
ChargeAgainstMember
(4)
If the Discipline Committee finds that a complaint is justified and that the
provisionsofBy-law6(1)(b)or6(1)(c)arenotappropriate,itmustthenfilea
charge against the Respondent and refer it to a Disciplinary Tribunal for
hearing. The Discipline Committee shall notify the Respondent and the
complainantwithin30daysofitsdecision.
Mediation
By-law7
AppointaMediator
(1)
IftheDisciplineCommitteefinds,havingregardtotherelativegravityof
thematterandtheinterestsofthepublicandtheCollege,thatthecomplaint
is justified but that it may be resolved through mediation between the
MemberoftheCollegeandthecomplainant,theDisciplineCommitteeshall
appointamediator.ThemediatorshallbeaMemberoftheCollegeorsuch
otherpersonastheRespondentandcomplainantagreetoandtheDiscipline
Committeeapproves.
ResolutionbyMediator
(2)
ThemediatorshallmeetwithboththecomplainantandtheRespondent.
If a resolution is arrived at, the mediator shall record the resolution in
writing. Once the Discipline Committee accepts the resolution, it shall be
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
115
IV.CodeandDiscipline
delivered to the Respondent and to the complainant within 30 days of the
acceptance.
FailuretoResolveComplaint
(3)
Wherethemediatorcannotresolvetheissuesbetweenthecomplainant
and the Respondent, the matter shall be referred back to the Discipline
CommitteefordispositionpursuanttoBy-law6(1)(c),(d),or(e).
AdmonishmentoftheMember
By-law8
RefertoPrivateAdmonishment
(1)
IftheDisciplineCommitteefinds,havingregardtotheseverityofthematter
andtheinterestsofthepublicandtheCollege,thatthecomplaintisjustified,
butthatproceedingspursuanttoBy-laws6(1)(d)or(e)arenotappropriate,
it shall file a charge and refer it to three members of the Discipline
Committee, chosen by the Chairperson of the Discipline Committee for
privateadmonishmentproceedings.Thethreemembersshallnothavebeen
membersoftheInvestigationTeam.
(2)
The Discipline Committee shall deliver the charge and a written notice of
privateadmonishmentproceedingstotheRespondentwithin30daysofits
decisiontofileacharge.
MemberattendstoDiscussCharge
(3)
Within 60 days of such delivery, or such greater period as the Discipline
Committeemayconsiderappropriateinthecircumstances,theRespondent
shall personally attend an informal meeting the representatives of the
DisciplineCommitteeinordertodiscussthecharge.
(4)
If the Respondent refuses orfails to attend such informal meeting,without
reasonable excuse, the Discipline Committee may refer the charge against
theRespondenttoaDisciplinaryTribunalforahearing,andshallnotifythe
Respondentandthecomplainantinwritingwithin30daysofsuchdecision.
(5)
At the informal meeting, the Respondent shall have an opportunity to
respondtothecharge.TheRespondentmayberepresentedbycounselat
themeeting.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
116
IV.CodeandDiscipline
ChargemaybeDismissedorPrivateAdmonishmentgiven
(6)
After considering the response provided by the Respondent, the
representativesoftheDisciplineCommitteeshalldecidewhethertodismiss
thechargeortoissueaprivateadmonishment.Theyshallforthwithinform
theRespondentofthedecisiontodismissthechargeorshallgivetheprivate
admonishmentinperson.Within15daysoftheirdecision,theyshalldeliver
aconfirmationtotheRespondentandanoticetothecomplainant,subjectto
By-law 4(2) in writing of the decision to dismiss the charge or to issue a
private admonishment. The notice shall be in writing and shall state the
reasonsforthedismissal.Inthecaseofadismissal,thecomplainantshall
havearightofappealtotheDisciplinaryTribunal.Thecomplainantmustfile
its request for a hearing before the Disciplinary Tribunal within 60 days of
deliveryofthenoticeofthedismissal.
(7)
Thewrittenconfirmationofaprivateadmonishmentshallcontainasummary
ofthefacts,thechargefiledagainsttheRespondent,reasonsforthedecision
and a copy of any written response and documents provided by the
Respondent at the informal meeting. The written confirmation shall be
signedbyallthreerepresentativesoftheDisciplineCommittee.
PrivateAdmonishmentConfidentialforFiveYears
(8)
The Discipline Committee shall ensure that a copy of the written
confirmationoftheprivateadmonishmentiskeptinaconfidentialfilefora
period of five years from the date it is signed, after which time it shall be
destroyed.Aprivateadmonishmentshallnotbedisclosedotherthanto:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Thecomplainant,subjecttoBy-law4(3);
The Discipline Committee members to the extent necessary for the
performanceoftheirduties;or
Disciplinary Tribunal in a subsequent hearing against the Respondent
providedtheallegedOffencebeingconsideredbytheTribunalissimilar
in nature to the matter that was the subject of the private
admonishment.
ChargeandRecommendationofSanction
By-law9
PowersoftheCommittee
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
117
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(1)
IftheDisciplineCommitteefinds,havingregardtotherelativegravityof
thematterandtheinterestsofthepublicandtheCollege,thatthecomplaint
is justified and that proceedings pursuant to By-laws 7 or 10 are not
appropriate, it shall file a charge and make a recommendation of one or
moreofthefollowingsanctions:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
completion of one or more courses of instruction prescribed by the
DisciplineCommittee;
aperiodicauditofthebooksandrecordsoftheRespondent;
a periodic review of the Respondent’s correspondence and work
product;
payment of the legal fees and expenses incurred by the Discipline
Committee;
such corrective or remedial action as the Discipline Committee
considersappropriate.
MembercanAdmittoGuilt
(2)
The Discipline Committee shall deliver the charge and its
recommendation of sanction to the Respondent. Within 30 days of such
delivery,orsuchgreaterperiodastheCommitteemayconsiderappropriate
inthecircumstances,theRespondent,shallinwritingeitheradmitguiltand
accepttherecommendationofsanctionordeclinetodoso.
(3)
Ifanadmissionofguiltisenteredandtherecommendationofsanctionis
accepted, both in writing by the Respondent, the Respondent shall comply
withtheconditionsthereof,andthecomplainantshallbeinformedwithina
reasonable period of time in writing of the admission of guilt and the
acceptedrecommendationofsanction.
ReferraltoTribunalforHearing
(4)
IftheRespondentfailstocomplywiththerecommendationofsanctionor
its terms and conditions, or if the Respondent declines to accept the
recommendationofsanctionwithinthe30daysreferredtoinsubsection(2)
above, the Discipline Committee must then refer the charge against the
Respondent to a Disciplinary Tribunal for a hearing and shall notify the
Respondent within a reasonable period of time in writing of this decision.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
118
IV.CodeandDiscipline
The Discipline Committee shall notify the complainant in writing of this
decisionwithin30daysofthedecision.
DisciplinaryTribunal:HearingofaCharge
By-law10
AppointmentofTribunal
•
TheChairpersonoftheTribunalPanelshallappointaDisciplinaryTribunal
tohearachargefiledagainstaMemberoftheCollege.IftheChairpersonis
in a conflict of interest or is otherwise unable to appoint a Disciplinary
Tribunal, the Vice-Chairperson shall appoint the Disciplinary Tribunal in
accordance with this by-law. A Disciplinary Tribunal shall consist of three
members,twoofwhomshallbemembersoftheTribunalPanel.Thethird
member,whoshallbearetiredjudgeorothermemberofthepublic,shallbe
theChairpersonoftheDisciplinaryTribunal.
MemberofTribunal
•
In the event that two members of a Disciplinary Tribunal cannot be
appointed from a Tribunal Panel, the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson
may appoint a Member of the College to sit as a member of a Disciplinary
Tribunal.NoneofthePresident,theImmediatePastPresident,themembers
of Council, the members of the Discipline Committee and the members of
the Investigation Team that investigated the complaint laid against the
Respondent,theChairpersonoftheTribunalortheVice-Chairpersonofthe
TribunalPanelshallbeeligibletositasamemberofaDisciplinaryTribunal.
Mediation
(3) The Discipline Committee and the Respondent may retain the services of a
mediatorpriortothescheduledhearingandonmutuallyagreedtermsand
conditions.Themediatorshallbeanimpartialpersonwhoseroleistoassist
the parties to communicate in good faith with each other and, where
appropriate,toassistandencouragethepartiestoagree on a statement
of facts, a recommended penalty and any other submissions and materials
that may subsequently be presented to the Disciplinary Tribunal for its
consideration.
PartiestotheHearing
(4)
TheRespondentshallbeapartytothehearing.TheDisciplineCommittee
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
119
IV.CodeandDiscipline
shallbeapartytothehearingandshallconducttheprosecutionbeforethe
DisciplinaryTribunal.Thecomplainantmaybesubpoenaedtogiveevidence
at the hearing, in accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure
referredtoinBy-law10(11)below.
RighttoCounsel
(5) ApartyappearingbeforeaDisciplinaryTribunalhastherighttobe
assistedorrepresentedbylegalcounsel.
NoticeofHearing
(6) TheExecutiveDirectorshallgivepriornoticeofatleast15daysofthedate,
timeandplaceofanyhearingofaDisciplinaryTribunaltothepartiesandto
theirlegalcounsel,ifknown,unlessahearingdateissetduringahearing,all
parties being present. Approximately 15 days before the date of the
commencement of the hearing before the Disciplinary Tribunal, the
Executive Director shall publish a notice available to the public and the
membershipinsuchmannerastheExecutiveDirectormaydetermine.Such
notice available to the public and the membership shall include the date,
timeandplaceofthehearingoftheDisciplinaryTribunalandasummaryof
thecharge,butshallnotdisclosethenameoftheMemberoftheCollege.
AbsenceofRespondent
(7) A Disciplinary Tribunal may conduct a hearing in the absence of the
RespondentifsaidRespondentdoesnotappearonthedateandatthetime
and
placesetoutinthenotice.
Hearingshallbepublic
(8) Exceptasprovidedherein,everyhearingbeforeaDisciplinaryTribunalshall
bepublic.Nevertheless,ofitsowninitiativeoruponrequest,theDisciplinary
Tribunalmay,atitsdiscretion,orderthatahearingbeheldincameraorban
the publication or release of any information or document it indicates to
preserve the client’s privilege, professional secrecy or to protect a person’s
privacyorreputation,orintheinterestofpublicorder.
Incamerahearing
(9) Whereanincamerahearingisordered,allthosepresentatthe
hearing
shallbepersonallyboundtosecrecy,subjecttotherightofthemembersof
the Discipline Committee and members of the Disciplinary Tribunal, as
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
120
IV.CodeandDiscipline
described below, to be informed about the proceedings to the extent
necessaryfortheperformanceoftheirduties.
Parties,legalcounselandwitnesses
(10) A Disciplinary Tribunal shall hear the parties, their legal counsel and their
witnesses, may inquire into the relevant facts and may call any person to
testifyonsuchfacts.Thewitnessesmaybeexaminedorcross-examinedby
theparties.AMemberoftheCollegetestifyingbeforeaDisciplinaryTribunal
shallbeboundtoanswerallquestions.Theevidencegivenbysuchwitnesses
isprivilegedandcannotbeusedagainstthatindividualbeforeanycourtof
justice.
Procedureandpractice
(11) ThepracticeandprocedurebeforeaDisciplinaryTribunalshallbegoverned
by the Rules of Practice and Procedure of a Disciplinary Tribunal of the
CollegeasmaybeadoptedbytheCollegefromtimetotime.ADisciplinary
Tribunalmayadoptrulesofprocedureorpractice,notinconflictwiththese
By-lawsortheRulesofPracticeandProcedureofaDisciplinaryTribunal,for
theconductofahearingandasnecessarytocarryoutitsduties.
SuspensionduringInquiry
(12) The Discipline Committee may request a Disciplinary Tribunal to order that
theRespondentbesuspendedforthedurationoftheinquiry.
DeathorincapacityofmemberofTribunal
(13) IfamemberofaDisciplinaryTribunaldiesbeforeadecisionisrenderedor,
foranyreason,isunabletofulfillsuchmember’sdutiesatanystageofthe
process, after the expiry of 10 days of the parties being informed of the
death or incapacity of the member of the Disciplinary Tribunal by the
ExecutiveDirector,theremainingmembersoftheDisciplinaryTribunalshall
proceedtohearthechargeandrenderitsdecision,unlesswithinthe10day
period a party has made a request that a new member be appointed in
accordance with By-law 10(1). If such a request is made, the newly
constituted Disciplinary Tribunal shall proceed in the manner agreed to by
the parties, or failing agreement, in the manner determined by the
DisciplinaryTribunal.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
121
IV.CodeandDiscipline
DisciplinaryTribunal:Decisions
By-law11
Decision
(1) After a Disciplinary Tribunal has heard the parties, their evidence and all
otherrelevantevidence,itmustthenrenderitsdecisionwithin90daysfrom
thedateoftheendofthehearing.
Powers
(2) A Disciplinary Tribunal shall decide, to the exclusion of any other court or
tribunal,inthefirstinstance,whetherornottheRespondentisguiltyofan
Offence.
Recordofhearing
(3) The Executive Director shall ensure that the record of the hearing and the
decisionofaDisciplinaryTribunalisplacedinaspecialfile.Thisrecordshall
constituteprimafacieproofofitscontents.
Decisioninwriting
(4) A Disciplinary Tribunal shall record its decision in writing with reasons, and
dissentingopinions,ifany.Thedecisionshallbesignedbyallmembersofthe
DisciplinaryTribunal.IftheDisciplinaryTribunaldecidesthatthepublication
orreleaseofcertaininformationordocumentsisbanned,itswrittendecision
shallincludethisfact,andthereasonsforthisdecision.
Decisionsenttoparties
(5)
A Disciplinary Tribunal shall send its decision to all parties, within 10 days
after the said decision has been rendered. The Discipline Committee shall
notify the complainant within a reasonable period of time in writing of the
decisionrenderedbytheDisciplinaryTribunal.
Hearingonpenalty
(6) IntheeventthattheRespondenthasbeenfoundguilty,thepartiesmaythen
be heard by the Disciplinary Tribunal with respect to the penalty within 30
days after its decision as to whether or not the Respondent is guilty of an
Offencehasbeenrendered.TheDisciplinaryTribunalshallrenderadecision
withrespecttothepenaltywithin15daysfromthedateoftheendofthis
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
122
IV.CodeandDiscipline
hearing.
Costs
(7) ADisciplinaryTribunalshallhavethepowertoorderanyofthepartiestopay
all or part of the fees and expenses of legal counsel of the other party
incurredtocommenceandcompletetheproceedings.
Decisiononpenalty
(8)
TheDisciplinaryTribunalshallsenditsdecisionwithrespecttothepenaltyto
all parties, within 10 days after the said decision has been rendered. The
DisciplineCommitteeshallnotifythecomplainantwithinareasonableperiod
oftimeinwritingofthedecisionwithrespecttothepenaltyrenderedbythe
DisciplinaryTribunal.
DisciplinaryTribunal:Penalties
By-law12
Penaltyoptions
(1) ADisciplinaryTribunalshallimposeonaMemberoftheCollegefoundguilty
of an Offence, one of the following penalties, in respect of one or more of
thecounts:
(a) areprimand;
(b) asuspensionfromtheCollege;
(c) anexpulsionfromtheCollege.
ADisciplinaryTribunalmayalsoimposeafineonaMemberoftheCollege
foundguiltyofanOffence,inrespectofoneormoreofthecounts.
Refreshertraining
(2) ADisciplinaryTribunalmayalsorequireaMemberfoundguiltyofanOffence
to take a refresher course or courses and may restrict or suspend the
individual’s right to be a Member of the College until completion of the
courseorcourses.
(3)
A Disciplinary Tribunal may also require a Member of the College to be
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
123
IV.CodeandDiscipline
supervised by another Member of the College by means of a review of
applications, opinions, correspondence or such other things as the
Disciplinary Tribunal may decide and for such period of time as the
DisciplinaryTribunalmayfix.
Audits
(4)
ADisciplinaryTribunalmayrequireaMemberoftheCollegetobesubjectto
periodic audits of books and records for such period of time as the
DisciplinaryTribunalmayfix.
Termsandconditions
(5) ADisciplinaryTribunalmayfixthetermsandconditionsofthepenalties
itimposes.
ImplementationofPenalties
(6) The penalty imposed by a Disciplinary Tribunal shall be implemented upon
theexpiryoftheperiodforappeal,providednonoticeofappealisfiled,in
accordance with the terms and conditions indicated in the By-laws, unless
the Disciplinary Tribunal orders provisional implementation of the decision
uponitsreceiptbytheRespondent.
PaymentofasumofMoney
(7) WhenadecisionofaDisciplinaryTribunalobligesapartytoremitasumof
moneyforcostsorafine,orboth,theRespondentmustpaytheamountin
question to the College or the College must pay the amount in question to
the Respondent within 10 days after the expiry of the period for appeal,
provided no notice of appeal is filed, unless otherwise ordered by the
Disciplinary Tribunal. Should the party fail to pay the amount within the
specified period, said party shall be liable to interest charges, at the prime
rateoftheBankofCanadaplustwopercentagepoints,aswellascollection
costs. If the party is a Member of the College, said Member shall be
automatically suspended from the College until such time as all amounts
havebeenpaidinfull.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
124
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Appeal
By-law13
FilingofnoticeofAppeal
(1) A party before a Disciplinary Tribunal may file a notice of appeal from a
decision rendered by the Disciplinary Tribunal finding the Respondent not
guilty of a charge after the receipt of said decision within the time period
specified by the Federal Court Act. If the Disciplinary Tribunal renders a
decisionfindingtheRespondentguiltyofacharge,apartymayfileanotice
of appeal from such decision or from the decision on penalty after the
receipt of the decision on penalty within the time period as is specified by
theFederalCourtAct.
(2) ApartyshallserveandfileitsnoticeofappealinaccordancewiththeFederal
Court Act and the Rules of the Federal Court of Canada. The Discipline
Committeeshallnotifythecomplainantwithinareasonableperiodoftimein
writingofthenoticesfiled,ifany.
PublicationofDecisionsandReports
By-law14
DecisionsenttoCouncil
(1)
The Executive Director shall send to Council the admission of guilt and
acceptanceofarecommendationofsanctionorthedecisionofaDisciplinary
Tribunalwithin10daysaftertheadmissionandacceptanceorthedecisionof
atribunalhasbeenmade.
Noticeofdecision
(2)
TheExecutiveDirectorshallensurethatanoticeispreparedoftheadmission
ofguiltandacceptanceofrecommendationofsanction,orofthedecisionof
the Disciplinary Tribunal, provided no notice of appeal has been filed, or of
anydecisionoftheFederalCourtofCanada.Thenoticeshallcontain;
(a) thenameoftheMemberoftheCollege;
(b) theprincipalpracticeaddressoftheMemberoftheCollege;
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
125
IV.CodeandDiscipline
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
thespecialtyareainwhichtheMemberpractices,ifany;
thecharge;
thedateandasummaryoftheadmissionofguiltandacceptanceofa
recommendationofsanctionorthedecision;and
in the case of a suspension or expulsion, a heading “Notice of
SuspensionfromtheCollege”or“NoticeofExpulsionfromtheCollege”,
asthecasemaybe.
NoticeshallbePublished
(3) ExceptasprovidedinBy-laws14(4),14(5)and14(6),theExecutiveDirector
shallensurethatthenoticeispublishedtoeachMemberoftheCollege.In
thecaseofasuspensionorexpulsion,theExecutiveDirectorshallpublisha
summaryofthenoticeinanewspaperhavinggeneralcirculationintheplace
where the Member of the College principally practices in Canada. The
publicationofthenoticeshalltakeplace;
(a) within60daysaftertheBoardhasreceivedtheadmissionofguiltand
acceptanceofarecommendationofsanction;
(b) within60daysaftertheexpiryoftheperiodforappeal,providedno
noticeofappealhasbeenfiled;or
(c) within60daysafterafinaldecisionoftheFederalCourtofCanada(and
anyappealstherefrom)havebeenrendered.
Exceptions
(4) A Disciplinary Tribunal may direct that the above requirements for
publicationofthenoticebevaried.However,inthecaseofasuspensionor
expulsion, a Disciplinary Tribunal may not vary the requirement that the
name of the Member and the sanction imposed be published to each
Member of the College within 60 days after the expiry of the period for
appeal,providednonoticeofappealhasbeenfiled,orwithin60daysaftera
finaldecisionoftheFederalCourtofCanada(andanyappealstherefrom)has
beenissued.
PowersofCouncil
(5)
Inthecaseofadecisionwherenosuspensionorexpulsionhasbeenordered,
Councilmayreducetheaboverequirementsforpublicationofthenotice,but
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
126
IV.CodeandDiscipline
Councilmaynot;
(a) change any direction given by a Disciplinary Tribunal under By-law 14
(4);or
(b) vary the requirement that the Member’s name and the sanction
imposed bepublishedtoeachMemberoftheCollege.
NonoticetobePublished
(6)
InthecaseofadecisionwhichfindsaMemberoftheCollegenotguiltyofa
charge,nonoticeinrelationtothatchargeshallbepublishediftheMember
of the College so notifies the Executive Director within 30 days after the
expiryoftheperiodforappealprovidednonoticeofappealhasbeenfiled,
orwithin30daysafterthefinaldecisionoftheFederalCourtofCanada(and
anyappealstherefrom)hasbeenissued.
AnnualreporttoCouncil
(7)
The Executive Director must make an annual report to Council on the
activities of the Discipline Committee, the Disciplinary Tribunals and the
Courts.Thereportshallinclude,ataminimum,
(a) thenumberandnatureofcomplaintslaid;
(b) thenumberofprivateadmonishmentsissuedwithoutdisclosingthe
nature of the private admonishments or the names of the Members
admonished;
(c) thenumberandnatureofadmissionsofguiltandacceptancesofa
recommendationofsanctionmade;
(d) the number and nature of decisions rendered by the Discipline
Committee,theDisciplinaryTribunalsandtheCourts;and
(e) to the extent such information is made available to the Discipline
Committee, the number and nature of complaints laid concerning the
practice of Members of the College in the jurisdiction of bilateral
organizations,aswellasthenumberandnatureofdecisionsrendered
withrespecttomembersofbilateralorganizations.
PeriodicreporttoMembers
(8)
TheExecutiveDirectormustmakeaperiodicreport,atleasttwiceperyear,
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
127
IV.CodeandDiscipline
toeachMemberoftheCollegeontheactivitiesoftheDisciplineCommittee
andofDisciplinaryTribunals.Thereportshallinclude,ataminimum,
(a) thenumberandnatureofcomplaintslaid,includingcomplaintslaid
concerningthepracticeofMembersoftheCollegeinthejurisdiction
ofbilateralorganizations;
(b)
the
the number and nature of charges filed which are referred to a
DisciplinaryTribunalorwithrespecttowhicharecommendationof
sanction is offered, without disclosing the names of the Members of
Collegecharged;
(c) thenumberofprivateadmonishmentsissuedwithoutdisclosingthe
natureoftheprivateadmonishmentsorthenamesoftheMembersof
the College;
(d) any notices of admissions of guilt and acceptances of a
recommendationofsanctionordecisionswhichhavebeenfinalizedsincethe
lastreport;
and
(e) an explanation as to how a Member, who wishes to request more
information about charges which have been filed or tribunal
proceedings,mayobtainthatinformation.
ReciprocalArrangements
By-law15
EnteringintoAgreementswithBilateralOrganizations
(1)
(2)
The College may enter into agreements with bilateral organizations for the
purpose of dealing with disciplinary matters arising from Members of the
Collegewhoarealsomembersofandsubjecttotherulesandregulationsof
oneormorebilateralorganization.
In instances where both the College and the bilateral organization would
have investigatory jurisdiction over an individual, the Chairperson of the
Discipline Committee and such Chairperson’s counterpart in the bilateral
organization shall agree between themselves as to which organization can
provide the most appropriate forum for the investigation based on the
totalityofthefactsofthecase.Suchfactorsasthephysicallocationofthe
individual’s practice, the nature of the work performed, and the nature of
theindividual’spracticewillbeconsideredindecidingwhichorganizationwill
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
128
IV.CodeandDiscipline
conducttheinvestigation.
DeterminationofguiltbyCollege
(3) Where the College takes jurisdiction over an individual, a determination by
the College that a Member has breached the Code of Ethics or the By-laws
shallbemadesolelybytheCollege.
CommunicationofDetermination
(4) The Executive Director shall communicate to the bilateral organization any
finaldeterminationthatamemberofthatorganizationbreachedtheCodeof
Ethics or By-laws. The Executive Director shall also provide the relevant
bilateral organization with a copy of the guilty plea or the Disciplinary
Tribunal and appeal decision(s), the transcripts and if requested, the
documents filed in evidence with the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Courts,
unless communication thereof is restricted by law or by order of the
DisciplinaryTribunal.
Publicsanction
(5) If the Respondent pleads guilty or a Disciplinary Tribunal makes a
determination that a member of one or more provincial law societies has
breachedtheCodeofEthicsortheBy-laws,theCollegeshallnotrecommend
a specific penalty to be imposed by the bilateral organization against its
member, but shall recommend that the bilateral organization consider
imposingpublicsanctionsagainstthemember.
Bilateralorganization
(6) Questionsconcerningthepracticeorprofessionalconductinthejurisdiction
ofabilateralorganizationbyaMemberwhoisalsoamemberofthebilateral
organization shall be governed by the bilateral organization in accordance
with its rules and procedures. The bilateral organization shall make a
determinationofnon-guilt,orshallmakeadeterminationofguiltandimpose
an appropriate penalty against its member in accordance with its rules and
procedures.
Determinationofguiltbybilateralorganization
(7) AdeterminationbyabilateralorganizationthataMemberhasbreachedthe
rulesofprofessionalconduct,standardsofpracticeoreligibilityrequirements
ofthatorganizationwhenpracticinginthatjurisdictionshallbemadesolely
bythatorganization.Thedeterminationbythebilateralorganizationwillbe
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
129
IV.CodeandDiscipline
deemed final by the College when the appeal process of that organization
hasbeenexhausted.
CommunicationofDetermination
(8)
The Executive Director shall receive from a bilateral organization any final
determination that a Member breached the rules of professional conduct,
standardsofpracticeoreligibilityrequirementsofthebilateralorganization
whenpracticinginitsjurisdiction.TheExecutiveDirectorshallrequestfrom
that bilateral organization a copy of the decision-making body’s decision(s),
the hearing transcripts and the documents filed in evidence with or
considered by the decision-making body in rendering its decision(s), unless
communication thereof is restricted by law or by order of the decisionmakingbody.
Recommendationofpublicsanction
(9)
If a bilateral organization makes a determination that a Member breached
therulesofprofessionalconduct,thestandardsofpracticeortheeligibility
requirementsofthebilateralorganizationwhenpracticinginitsjurisdiction,
theCollegeshallnotactuponarecommendationfromthedecision-making
bodyofthatorganizationtotheeffectthataspecificpenaltybeimposedby
theCollegeagainsttheMember.TheCollegeshallreceivearecommendation
from that organization that the College consider imposing public sanctions
against the Member and shall determine an appropriate sanction for it to
imposeagainstitsMemberinaccordancewiththeBy-laws.
Process
(10) More specifically, the determination of guilt by a bilateral organization in
respect of a Member practicing in that jurisdiction shall be received by the
ExecutiveDirectorandconsideredasacomplaintindicatingthatanOffence
hasbeencommitted,pursuanttoBy-law4.By-laws1-13shallbefollowedto
theextentthattheyareapplicable,exceptthat:
(a) anInvestigationTeamshallnotinvestigatethecomplaintorpreparea
reportfortheDisciplineCommittee’sconsideration;
(b) as guilt has already been determined by the bilateral organization the
DisciplineCommittee’spowersprovidedinBy-law6shallbelimitedto
filingachargeandissuingaprivateadmonishment,filingachargeand
making a recommendation of sanction to the Respondent, or filing a
chargeandreferringittoaDisciplinaryTribunalonlytodecideuponan
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
130
IV.CodeandDiscipline
appropriatepenalty;and
(c) theDisciplinaryTribunalshallholdahearingwithrespecttothepenalty
within30daysaftertheappointmentoftheDisciplinaryTribunal,based
onthedocumentsprovidedbythebilateralorganization.
The Disciplinary Tribunal's decision on penalty may be appealed in
accordancewithBy-law13anditissubjecttothepublicationrequirements
ofBy-law14.
____________
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
131
IV.CodeandDiscipline
4.Feedisputeresolutionmechanism
Some professions handle complaints from clients regarding fees with the regular
complaints and discipline process. Some other professions have a separate mechanism for
fee disputes while most regulated professions do not deal with this matter.
CPA Alberta and CPA Ontario offer a fee mediation service. It begins with a mediation
by a volunteer member and can be followed if necessary by arbitration.
Some advantages of this approach are that the client and the organization do not have to
engage the discipline process and that both the client and the professional can call upon
this service.
In Québec, under the Professional Code, the regulatory bodies must have a fee arbitration
committee. Fee disputes are first submitted to the “syndic” for mediation (the person
responsible for complaints and discipline) and if not resolved, the committee has
authority to make a decision.
IPIC recommends that the College examine the possibility of creating a fee dispute
mechanism. This study could be done once the College is operational. There are potential
issues with such a mechanism (e.g. abuse of the service, costs, possibility of appeal) and
thus IPIC has not concluded whether or not the College should implement one.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
132
V.Organization
Beeffective,efficient,transparent,andaccountable
IPICprovidessuggestionsastohowtheCollegecouldbeorganizedtocarryout
effectively,efficiently,andwithtransparencytheresponsibilitiesoutlinedinthe
previoussections.
133
V.Organization
A.Name
IPIC proposes that the new regulatory body be named:
College of Patent and Trademark Agents of Canada
Ordre des agents de brevets et de marques de commerce du Canada
Although IPIC has done some research to arrive at these names, the implementation team
may want to do additional work, for example with regard to the acronym that will be
used.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
134
V.Organization
B.Organizationalstructure
Members
Council
Committees
Staff
Other
1.Membership
All registered agents (and only registered agents) would be members of the College.
Members would number approximately:
Patent agents: 900
Trademark agents: 1,650
Approximately 340 agents are both patent and trademark agents.
Therefore, the total number of regulated individuals would approximate 2,200.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
135
V.Organization
2.Council
As suggested in the consultation paper, we use in this document the term “Council” for
the board of directors.
To help ensure that the regulator is acting in the public interest, members of the public
usually participate in one or more of the regulator’s decision-making bodies such as the
Council, the discipline committee, and the discipline tribunals.
Options
Our research shows that members of the public usually make up 20 to 30% of the
membership of the board of Canadian regulators.
Our research also shows various approaches for the nomination of members of the
public. They can be nominated by:
• The relevant Minister
• An external committee*
• An internal committee
• The board of directors
*For example, the Manitoba engineers: Appointed councillors shall be residents of
Manitoba appointed by a committee composed of (a) the dean of the faculty of
engineering at the University of Manitoba; (b) the immediate past-president of the
association, who shall serve as chair of the committee; (c) the provincial ombudsman;
and (d) the minister appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to administer The
Labour Relations Act;
At the federal level, the “public interest directors” of the Immigration Consultants
of Canada Regulatory Council are appointed by its board of directors.
As for Canada Land Surveyors, the Act includes:
13 The Council is the governing body of the Association and consists of
(a) the President and Vice-President of the Association;
(b) the most recent past President of the Association as defined in the bylaws;
(c) members of the Association, in a number set out in the by-laws, which
number may not be less than three, who are elected in accordance with the
by-laws;
(d) the Surveyor General; and
(e) two persons who are not members of the Association and who are
appointed by the Minister.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
136
V.Organization
Recommendation
The implementation team may want to conduct additional research into best
governance practices when it drafts the College by-laws, but IPIC suggests that
the board of directors have a total of nine (9) members including two (2) members
of the public.
The two members of the public should be appointed by the Minister of
Innovation, Science and Economic Development. (See answer to Question 11 in
Section VIII.)
To avoid any appearance of partiality, federal government employees should not
be among those appointed by the Minister. Although the Council of the
Association of Canada Lands Surveyors includes the Surveyor General, we
disagree with the parallel, drawn in the consultation paper, of having the CEO of
CIPO/Commissioner of Patents/Registrar of Trade-marks appointed to the College
board. The role of patent and trademark agents on behalf of their clients before
CIPO is not the same as the role of Canada Land Surveyors before the Surveyor
General and therefore, as explained in the answer to Question 6, the federal
government should not be represented on the board of the College.
A note regarding the drafting of legislation: There is need to verify what the
Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act will allow in terms of public
appointments. Normally all members of the board must be elected but article
128(8) stipulates that the elected directors can appoint other directors (maximum
one-third) for a term until the AGM. Some regulators seem to have in legislation
an exclusion from the applicable not-for-profit corporations legislation.
3.Committees
IPIC proposes this initial list of committees for the College.
Admissions*
•
•
•
•
Acommitteeforpatentsandacommitteefortrademarks
Establishtheconditionstobeeligiblefortheexams
Overseeensuringthereisafairaccesstopractice,includingbythose
trainedandqualifiedinforeignjurisdictions
Createapre-exam
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
137
V.Organization
•
•
•
By-law
•
•
CPD
•
Discipline*
•
Ethics
•
•
FeeDisputes
•
Liaison
•
•
•
Nominating*
•
•
Unauthorized
Practice
•
Establishacurriculum
Designatemandatorycourses(ifany)
Overseetheexams
Overseethedraftingoftheadministrativeby-lawoftheCollege
Establishotherinternalgovernancemechanisms(e.g.contentofthe
AnnualMeeting)
Establishthecriteriaandrequirementsregardingcontinuing
professionaldevelopment
Handlecertainstepsofthedisciplineprocessanddecidecertain
outcomes
Maintainthecodeofethics
Establishamechanismtoprovideinformationoradvicetomembers
Thecreationofthiscommitteedependsonwhetherafeedispute
mechanismisestablished(separatefromdiscipline)andifthereisa
needforacommitteeinsuchamechanism
LiaisonwithIPICfortopicsofcommoninterest(e.g.trainingforexams)
LiaisonwithCIPOregardingoperationsoftheIPsystem(e.g.
proceduresforwhentheCollegesuspendsanagent)
Liaisonwithotherregulatorybodies,particularlylawandengineering
societies,fordisciplineofagentswhohavedualqualifications
NominationstotheCouncil
Maybeothernominationsaswell(e.g.disciplinetribunals)
Examinecomplaintsagainstnon-membersanddeterminebestwayto
proceedtoresolveproblem
*ThesecommitteeswouldbedefinedintheCollege’sby-laws.
4.Staff
IPIC foresees that the College would have four to seven employees. There are many ways
of attributing the responsibilities to the employees. Here is a preliminary proposal that
assumes five staff members. It also assumes that given the history of few complaints
against the members of the profession, the registrar/executive director would manage the
discipline process.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
138
V.Organization
At the beginning, perhaps some tasks would be outsourced, until the College is fully
operational. It may therefore be possible to begin with fewer staff and determine the staff
needs as the workload becomes more defined.
Registrar/Executive •
Director
•
•
•
•
Administrative
Assistant
Directorof
professional
practice
Managerof
communications
andIT
Managerof
membershipand
meetings
Managehumanandfinancialresources
Developstrategyandoperationalplans
Managedisciplineprocess
Supportboardofdirectors
Member,public,andgovernmentrelations
Committees:By-law,Discipline,Ethics,Liaison,Nominating,
UnauthorizedPractice
• Provideadministrativesupporttoallstaff
• Dobookkeeping
• Takeminutesofmeetingsasrequired
• Assignorrespondtomemberenquiries
• Managethepre-examsandexams
• Developinformationregardingcurriculum
• ManagetheCPDrequirementsandenforcement
Committees:Admission,CPD
• Managethecommunicationswithmembers
• Managethecommunicationswiththepublicandthemedia
• Thiswillincludethewebsiteandsocialmedia
• ManagetheITsuppliersandinternalsystems
• Managetheregister/listofagents
• Managetheprofessionalrequirements(insurance,paymentoffees)
• Managethefeedisputemechanism(ifapplicable)
• Organizemeetingsoftheboard,theexamboards,thetribunals
• OrganizetheAnnualMeeting(shouldbeashortmeetingfocusedon
theregulatoryfunction,notanIP-focusedmeeting)
Committee:feedisputes
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
139
V.Organization
C.Financialestimates
These are preliminary financial estimates for the operations of the College.
1.Revenues
a) Annual fees
The regulation of agents would continue to be funded by the agents. Agents currently pay
an annual fee of $350 to CIPO to be on the register or list (reduced fee of $300 for
trademark agents who pay on-line). The fee is paid twice if an agent is on both the
register and list.
Under the new model, patent and trademark agents would pay the fee to the College and,
instead of paying $350 to CIPO, we estimate the annual fee paid to the College would be
in the order of $500 per registration. This increase in fees, required to be able to manage a
complete regulatory system, should not be seen as a barrier to entry given that the CIPO
fees have not changed in over 10 years and therefore have not followed inflation.
Based on the current number of agents, this would represent annual revenues of
approximately $1,275,000.
b) Exam fees
Candidates for the exams pay $400 for the trademark agent exams and $200 per paper for
the patent agent exams. These funds would also be collected by the College instead of
CIPO. For the purpose of these estimates, we use the current fees. Based on the numbers
of papers written in recent years, the income would be approximately $70,000 from the
patent agent exams and $30,000 from the trademark agent exams.
c) Total revenues
Annual revenues for the College are estimated at $1,375,000.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
140
V.Organization
2.Expenses
Estimates for annual operations:
Salaries, rent, meetings, travel, office administration
Exams
Discipline*
Total expenses
$900,000
$120,000
$100,000
$1,120,000
* See discussion below about the reserve
We currently estimate that the direct costs of the exams would be more than the exam
fees. The College could consider increasing those fees, being careful not to create a new
barrier to entry. It has been a number of years since the exam fees were increased.
3.Reserve
For a new regulatory body, the main source of financial uncertainty is the cost of
discipline procedures. Depending on the nature of the complaint and the number of steps
(e.g. if the case goes through all the internal steps and is appealed in court), the legal fees
can vary significantly. Given the low number of complaints against agents (to our
knowledge, in the past 100 years, less than five agents have been removed from the
register on the basis of a complaint), expensive proceedings should not be a frequent
occurrence. The College should therefore build a reserve for those cases (one regulator
provided us with an estimate of $600,000 for a major case) instead of budgeting a
significant amount for each year.
This reserve will be accumulated from the difference between revenues and operating
expenses. According to the above estimates, the annual surplus would be in the order of
$255,000.
However, to be prepared if a “big case” were to arrive early in the life of the College,
IPIC proposes that the College seek a loan guarantee or other form of support from the
government until a sufficient reserve is accumulated. There are precedents for such
support.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
141
VI.Alternatives
Inthissectionweprovideadditionalcommentsonthetwoothermodelsproposedin
theconsultationpaper.
142
VI.Alternatives
A.Concerns
We have explained throughout this document the advantages of self-regulation over
Models One (administrative agency) and Two (mixed-model). We provide here some
additional concerns regarding Models One and Two.
1.Supportinginnovationdoesnotmeanexperimentingwithregulation
The first concern is that we are not aware of any administrative agency or mixed models
in place for a Canadian profession as discussed in the consultation paper. The
consultation paper does not provide such examples and the foreign examples provided
cannot be applied without a comprehensive study of the regulatory environment in those
countries, and of the effectiveness of those regulators. The regulation of Canadian patent
and trademark agents does not need to explore new territory when a viable and proven
model of self-regulation can be easily applied.
Furthermore, Models One and Two are not presented as complete models. They only
address the code and discipline. We believe that after all the work done by government
and the profession since 1995 regarding the governance framework, it is now time to
implement a complete system.
2.ModelsOneorTwowouldsendthewrongsignaltoinnovators
Because virtually all professions are self-regulated, if the government were to choose the
administrative agency or mixed model, it could create the opposite effect than what is
desired. Instead of encouraging innovation, the government would be saying to
innovators that it does not trust patent and trademark agents. We do not think that this
serves to assist in promoting an improved innovation environment.
3.CIPOwouldbeinconflict
As mentioned earlier, Professor Bruce Doern, a public administration expert, stated in a
report commissioned by CIPO:
(…) my considered view is that, in the mid-1990s, there is no convincing
rationale for the patent and trade-mark profession to be so directly
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
143
VI.Alternatives
supervised by an agency of the federal government in matters of its
professional qualifications. As the federal agency involved, CIPO should focus on
its more complex mandate tasks and should not be so closely regulating one of
the client groups it must interact with in other vital public interest ways.9
(emphasis added)
For clients to have appropriate representation, their professional advocates should not be
regulated by the agency to whom they are advocating on behalf of their clients, as would
be the case if either Model One or Model Two were adopted. We explain this further
under Question 6 (Section VIII).
4.Self-regulationshouldnotbedisavowedwithoutevidence
There is no evidence that patent and trademark agents cannot form a self-regulated
profession. To the contrary, the profession has shown throughout its history strong ethical
behaviour and is already involved in many elements of a regulatory framework. The
evidence supports that in the great majority of situations, the profession regulatory model
utilized by provinces is working well.
Two other national self-regulated professions are also models of excellence: the actuaries
and the Canada Lands Surveyors.
The government of Canada need not select an untried approach. It is respectfully
suggested that the least-risk path is to employ the self-regulatory model.
Problems with self-regulation that require intervention by government are rare. On this
note, there has been criticism of one of the federal self-regulated professions, the
immigration consultants. The government had to remove the authority of the first selfregulatory body and a new one was created, the Immigration Consultants of Canada
Regulatory Council (ICCRC). Also, recent complaints seem to be due more to
unregulated consultants than those who are regulated. In fact, the government’s
evaluation in 2014 of the ICCRC was positive (see Annex F).
5.Thelostopportunity
The objective of professional regulation is to foster and maintain a culture of second
nature thinking on right conduct in protecting the public. Ethical thinking and ethical
9
G.BruceDoern,TheRegulationofPatentandTrade-markAgentQualifications:InstitutionalIssuesand
Options,AStudyPreparedfortheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice,June1995,p.120
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
144
VI.Alternatives
behaviour is best achieved through profession self-regulation. It is the least cost and best
path to achieve a positive regulatory goal.
Given the history of the profession, everything the profession has researched and
considered over the last 20 years, and previous efforts by government, it is now the time
to implement self-regulation to protect the public interest, help foster a culture of
innovation, and sustain the excellence of the profession.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
145
VII.Implementation
CreatetheCollege
Weprovideapreliminarytimelineforimplementationfollowedbylegislativeoptionsto
enactthenewgovernanceframework.Althoughmoreworkisrequired,wepropose–to
beginthediscussion–changestothePatentAct,Trade-marksAct,PatentRules,and
Trade-marksRegulations.
146
VII.Implementation
A.Implementationconsiderations
1.IPIC’srole
IPIC understands the government’s desire to act quickly on innovation initiatives and is
ready to assist the government and take a proactive role in the creation of the College.
The overriding goal for IPIC’s assistance will be to help establish the College as soon as
practical, and then withdraw to ensure that the college is, and is seen to be, a separate and
distinct entity.
In this regard, IPIC proposes to:
•
Work with the government on the legislation to modernize the governance
framework
•
Manage the initial steps in the creation of the College after legislation is enacted
such as:
o recruiting a governing Council and implementation committees,
o providing support to these groups,
o drafting of by-laws,
o rental of office space,
o incorporation (depending on legislation), and
o organizing the founding general meeting.
2.Transitionfunding
IPIC recommends, to ensure quick implementation once legislation is introduced in
Parliament, that part of the annual agent fees collected by CIPO be provided first to IPIC
and then to the College to help with, for example, the hiring of staff until the College
itself begins to collect those annual fees.
3.Timeline
We propose here a preliminary timeline that assumes a desire by government for quick
implementation after the decision is made to go ahead with a self-regulation model.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
147
VII.Implementation
Uponacceptanceof
theCollegeoption
Whenlegislationis
introduced
Whenlegislationis
adopted
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oneyearlater?
•
•
Legislationdrafting
Preparedetailedimplementationplan
CIPOandIPICworkonthechangestothePatentRulesandTrademarksRegulations
BegintheorganizationoftheCollege:recruitmentofvolunteers,
draftingofby-laws,refinethevariouselementsofthegovernance
framework
Seekadoptionoftheregulatorychanges
OrganizeandholdfoundingmeetingoftheCollege
Collegetohirestaff,openanoffice
Finishdetailsofthegovernanceelements
Transferofregister/listandexamsfromCIPOtoCollege
Collegebeginsoperationsasregulator
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
148
VII.Implementation
B.Legislativeoptions
Option1:Stand-aloneact
The model for the great majority of licensed professions in Canada is the self-regulating
body governed by a provincial statute.
At the federal level, the example of the application of the standard model, as mentioned
in the consultation paper, is the profession of Canada Lands Surveyors, governed by the
Canada Lands Surveyors Act. The already existing Association of Canada Lands
Surveyors became the regulatory body in 1999 when the Act came into force. Regulatory
powers were provided to the Association so that it could:
•
•
•
•
•
set the standards of qualification for Canada Lands Surveyors;
reinforce the existing Code of Ethics;
establish comprehensive complaints and discipline procedures;
establish a practice review process; and
develop a continuing professional development (CPD) program.
Beginning in 1999, IPIC proposed the standard model to regulate patent and trademark
agents.
However, a disadvantage of the stand-alone legislation option is that it is difficult to
amend as may be necessary from time to time. We regularly see provincial regulatory
bodies seeking amendments to their legislation as regulatory best practices evolve (for
example, making CPD a professional requirement is a recent development). Finding time
in the provincial legislatures to obtain the required legislative changes is a challenge.
IPIC is concerned that it would be an even greater challenge in Parliament where there is
rarely discussion about the regulation of professions.
If the government chooses to proceed with stand-alone legislation, IPIC wishes strongly
to be involved in the discussions leading to that legislation. The Canada Lands Surveyors
Act is a good starting point as well as draft legislation that IPIC had prepared with CIPO
in 2006. Both would need to be reviewed to identify the essential sections and the
elements that can be left to the College to decide.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
149
VII.Implementation
Option2:AmendmentstothePatentActandtotheTrade-marksAct
In the course of IPIC’s work on modernizing the governance framework, it became
apparent that given the lack of history in Parliament with professional governance
statutes (in contrast to the provinces), and from comments made by officials, a repetition
of the Canada Lands Surveyors Act was not on the horizon. A similar conclusion was
reached regarding immigration consultants as indicated in the 2011 Regulatory Impact
Analysis Statement (RIAS) of the Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations: “In particular, consideration was given to the introduction of
stand-alone legislation to establish a federal regulator using a law society model as
recommended by the Standing Committee. This latter approach was rejected due to
concerns about a resource-intensive and lengthy implementation process.”10
IPIC therefore examined the option of legislation similar to sections (5), (5.1), and (6) of
article 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (added in 2011). It would
involve simple amendments to the Patent Act and to the Trade-marks Act that would
allow the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to designate a
regulatory body, require that body to report on its activities, and be able to revoke
the regulatory powers from that body.
This approach provides flexibility for the regulator to adapt as the environment evolves
and it ensures that the regulatory body performs well because it will be easy for the
Minister to remove the regulator’s powers.
IPIC’s Professional Regulation Committee has drafted possible amendments to the Patent
Act and Trade-marks Act to implement this legislative option. These are provided as a
starting point for discussion, and we do not presume to have arrived at the final texts.
Of note, if the government chooses the approach of a stand-alone act, changes will still be
required to the Patent Act and Trade-marks Act, and the following will be useful in this
regard.
In the following tables, the first column provides the current legislative text and, where
applicable, notes about changes to the Acts that have been adopted but are not yet in
force. The second column is our primary recommendation regarding amendments to the
Acts while the third column provides a second choice. The Rationale column explains the
proposed choices.
10
RegulationsAmendingtheImmigrationandRefugeeProtectionRegulations,CanadaGazette,Vol.145,
No.12,March19,2011
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
150
VII.Implementation
PATENTACT–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
Includeherewhatis
includedinsection15(4)
intheproposedtext.
(j)respectingtheentry
******
on,themaintenanceof
Repealthistext
andtheremovalfromthe
Addasectiontosay
registerofpatentagents
thatthedesignated
ofthenamesofpersons
bodymaymakerules
andfirms,includingthe
andregulations
qualificationsthatmust
respectingtheentryon,
bemetandtheconditions themaintenanceofand
thatmustbefulfilledbya theremovalfromthe
personorfirmbeforethe registerofpatent
nameofthepersonor
agentsofthenamesof
firmisenteredthereon
personsandfirms,
andtomaintainthename includingthe
ofthepersonorfirmon
qualificationsthatmust
theregister;
bemetandthe
conditionsthatmustbe
fulfilledbyapersonor
firmbeforethenameof
thepersonorfirmis
TobeaddedbyC-43:
enteredthereonandto
maintainthenameof
12(1)(j.01)respectingthe
Thenewtextadded
thepersonorfirmon
circumstancesin
byC-43would
theregister;
whichan
remain.
applicant,
Or
patenteeor
otherperson
TheCanadaLands
mayormustbe
SurveyorsActincludes
representedbya
section62:
patentagentor
Subjecttothe
otherpersonin
approvalofthe
businessbefore
Minister,theCouncil
thePatent
maymakeregulations
Office;
respecting…
andthenlists18items.
Current:
15.(1)Aregisterof
15(1)Aregisterofall
patentagentsshallbe patentagentsshallbe
15.Aregisterofpatent
keptbyadesignated keptbyabody
agentsshallbekeptinthe
regulatorybodyon
designatedby
PatentOfficeonwhichshall
whichshallbe
regulationbythe
beenteredthenamesofall
enteredthenamesof Minister.
12.(1)TheGovernorin
Councilmaymakerulesor
regulations
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
Rationale
BecauseCIPOwould
nolongersetthe
conditionsfor
admittanceonthe
register,thisrulemakingpower
shouldberemoved
toavoidthe
possibilityofparallel
rules.
Thefirstalternative
isaquestionof
draftingpreference
regardingthe
positioningofa
clause.
Thesecond
alternative(withthe
examplefromthe
CanadaLands
SurveyorsAct)would
beapossibilityifthe
governmentfeels
thatthispower
attributedtothe
regulatorshouldbe
putinlegislation.
However,itisnotin
theImmigrationAct
andwouldrequire
furtherthoughton
thelegislation,i.e.if
thisauthorityis
included,whynot
anotherone.
Thisisthekey
clause.Itspecifies
thattheregisteris
heldbythe
designated
regulator.
151
VII.Implementation
PATENTACT–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
personsandfirmsentitledto
representapplicantsinthe
presentationandprosecution
ofapplicationsforpatentsor
inotherbusinessbeforethe
PatentOffice.
NewfromC-43
15.Registerofpatent
agents
Aregistershallbekeptin
thePatentOffice,on
whichshallbeentered
thenamesofallpersons
andfirmsthatmayactas
patentagents.
15.1Intheprescribed
circumstances,an
applicant,patentee,or
otherpersonshallbe
representedbyapatent
agentinallbusiness
beforethePatentOffice.
allpersonsandfirms
thatmayactas
patentagents.
15(2)Theregulatory
bodywillbe
designatedbythe
Ministerby
regulation.
15(3)Forgreater
certainty,subsection
(2)authorizesthe
Ministertorevoke,by
regulation,a
designationmade
underthat
subsection.
15(4)TheGovernorin
Councilmaymake
regulationsrequiring
thedesignatedbody
toprovidethe
Ministerwithany
informationsetoutin
theregulations,
includinginformation
relatingtoits
governanceand
informationtoassist
theMinisterto
evaluatewhetherthe
designatedbody
governsitsmembers
inamannerthatisin
thepublicinterestso
thattheyprovide
professionaland
ethical
representationand
advice.
15.1Inthe
prescribed
circumstances,an
applicant,patentee,
orotherpersonshall
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
Alternatives
Rationale
15(2)Allfirmsthatmay
actaspatentagentswill
alsobeincludedonthe
registerofpatent
agents.
15(3)Forgreater
certainty,subsection(1)
authorizestheMinister
torevoke,byregulation,
adesignationmade
underthatsubsection.
Contrarytothe
ImmigrationAct,it
doesnotreferto
members.
Thealternativetext
issimplyadifferent
wayofwritingthe
firstthreesections.
152
VII.Implementation
PATENTACT–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
Rationale
Onadvicefromthe
designatedbody,the
Commissionermay
refusetorecognizeany
personasapatent
agenteithergenerally
orinanyparticularcase.
TheCommissioner
willnolongerhave
theauthorityto
removesomeone
fromtheregister,
thustheproposalto
repealthesection.
However,the
wordingofarticle16
isoddinthatit
doesn’tsay“remove
fromtheregister”.
Arethere
circumstanceswhen
theCommissioner
shouldnot
“recognize”an
agent,perhaps
temporarily?For
example,ifthe
Collegesuspendsan
agent?Orfora
reasonrelatedto
CIPOprocedures?
berepresentedbya
patentagentinall
businessbeforethe
PatentOffice.
16.Forgrossmisconduct
oranyothercausethathe
maydeemsufficient,the
Commissionermayrefuseto
recognizeanypersonasa
patentagentorattorney
eithergenerallyorinany
particularcase.
Repeal
29.(1)Anapplicantfora
patentwhodoesnotappear
toresideorcarryonbusiness
ataspecifiedaddressin
Canadashall,onthefiling
dateoftheapplication,
appointasarepresentativea
personorfirmresidingor
carryingonbusinessata
specifiedaddressinCanada.
C-43repealsthis
section
(2)Subjecttothissection,
anomineeofanapplicant
shallbedeemedtobethe
representativeforall
purposesofthisAct,including
theserviceofanyproceedings
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
Willthissectionbe
replacedbynew
rules?Ifso,andin
anycase,our
proposalswillneed
tobeadjusted
accordingtothe
changestothe
rulescausedbyPLT.
153
VII.Implementation
PATENTACT–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
Rationale
takenunderit,ofthe
applicantandofanypatentee
ofapatentissuedonhis
applicationwhodoesnot
appeartoresideorcarryon
businessataspecified
addressinCanada,andshall
berecordedassuchbythe
Commissioner.
3)Anapplicantfora
patentorapatentee
(a)may,bygivingnoticeto
theCommissioner,appoint
anewrepresentativein
placeofthelatest
recordedrepresentative,
ormaygivenoticetothe
Commissionerofachange
intheaddressofthelatest
recordedrepresentative;
and
(b)shallsoappointanew
representativeorsupplya
newandcorrectaddressof
thelatestrecorded
representativeonreceipt
ofarequestofthe
Commissionerstatingthat
thelatestrecorded
representativehasdiedor
thataletteraddressedto
thelatestrecorded
representativeatthelatest
recordedaddressandsent
byordinarymailhasbeen
returnedundelivered.
5)Nofeeispayableonthe
appointmentofanew
representativeorthesupply
ofanewandcorrectaddress,
unlessthatappointmentor
supplyfollowsarequestby
theCommissionerunder
subsection(3),inwhichcase
theprescribedfeeispayable
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
154
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSACT–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
28.(1)Thereshallbekeptunderthe
supervisionoftheRegistrar
(f)alistoftrademark
agents;and
28.(2)Thelistoftrademarkagents
shallincludethenamesofall
personsandfirmsentitledto
representapplicantsinthe
presentationandprosecutionof
applicationsfortheregistrationofa
trademarkorinotherbusiness
beforetheTrademarksOffice.
Withrecentlegislation,thissection
istobereplacedby:
28.Thereshallbekeptunderthe
supervisionoftheRegistraralistof
trademarkagents,whichshall
includethenamesofallpersonsand
firmsentitledtorepresent
applicantsandothers,includingthe
registeredownerofatrademark
andpartiestotheproceedings
undersections38and45,inall
businessbeforetheOfficeofthe
RegistrarofTrademarks.
28.(1)Alistoftrademark
agentsshallbekeptbya
designatedregulatory
body,whichlistshall
includethenamesofall
personsandfirmsthatare
entitledtorepresent
applicantsandothers,
includingtheregistered
ownerofatrademarkand
partiestotheproceedings
undersections38and45,
inallbusinessbeforethe
OfficeoftheRegistrarof
Trademarks.
28(2)Theregulatorybody
willbe
designatedby
theMinisterby
regulation.
28(3)Forgreater
certainty,
subsection(2)
authorizesthe
Ministerto
revoke,by
regulation,a
designation
madeunderthat
subsection.
28(4)TheGovernorin
Councilmaymake
regulationsrequiringthe
designatedbodyto
providetheMinisterwith
anyinformationsetoutin
theregulations,including
informationrelatingtoits
governanceand
informationtoassistthe
Ministertoevaluate
whetherthedesignated
bodygovernsitsmembers
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
Alternatives
Rationale
28.(1)Alistof
trademarkagents
shallbekeptbya
designated
regulatorybody
onwhichshallbe
enteredthe
namesofall
personsandfirms
thatmayactas
trademarkagents.
Thisisthekey
clause.It
specifiesthat
theregisteris
heldbythe
designated
regulator.
Contrarytothe
Immigration
Act,itdoesnot
referto
members.
TheTrademarksActuses
“list”insteadof
register,
probablyto
avoidconfusion
withthe
registerof
trademarks.We
couldexamine
thepossibilityof
using“register”
butitwould
requireacareful
examinationof
theActand
Regulationsto
seeifitcanbe
donewithout
confusion.For
now,weuse
“list”.
Intheiroriginal
text,andin
particularwith
thechanges
thathaveyetto
comeinto
force,the
155
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSACT–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
inamannerthatisinthe
publicinterestsothat
theyprovideprofessional
andethicalrepresentation
andadvice.
29.(1)Subjecttosubsection(2),the
registers,thedocumentsonwhich
theentriesthereinarebased,all
applications,includingthose
abandoned,theindexes,thelistof
trademarkagentsandthelistof
geographicalindicationskept
pursuanttosubsection11.12(1)
shallbeopentopublicinspection
duringbusinesshours,andthe
Registrarshall,onrequestandon
paymentoftheprescribedfee,
furnishacopycertifiedbythe
registrarofanyentryonthe
registers,indexesorLists,orofany
ofthosedocumentsorapplications.
Thissectionistobereplacedby:
29.(1)Thefollowingshallbe
madeavailabletothepublicatthe
timesandinthemannerestablished
bytheRegistrar:
(a)theregister;
(b)allapplicationsforthe
registrationofatrademark,
includingthoseabandoned;
Needtoamend
29.(1)Thefollowing
shallbemadeavailableto
thepublicatthetimes
andinthemanner
establishedbythe
Registrar:
Rationale
wordingof
theseclauses
arequite
differentfor
patentsand
trademarks.
Thealternative
textisan
attemptto
mirrorthe
proposedtext
ofthePatent
Act.
Remove
referencetothe
listofagents.
(a)theregister;
(b)allapplicationsfor
theregistrationofa
trademark,including
thoseabandoned;
(c)delete
(d)thelistof
geographicalindications
keptundersubsection
11.12(1);
(e)allrequestsmade
underparagraph9(1)(n);
and
(f)alldocumentsfiled
withtheRegistrarrelating
toaregisteredtrademark,
anapplicationforthe
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
156
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSACT–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
(c)thelistoftrademarkagents;
(d)thelistofgeographical
indicationskeptundersubsection
11.12(1);
Alternatives
Rationale
registrationofa
trademark,arequest
underparagraph9(1)(n)
andobjectionproceedings
under11.13.
(2)TheRegistrarshall,on
requestandonpayment
oftheprescribedfee,
furnishacopycertifiedby
(f)alldocumentsfiledwiththe
theRegistrarofanyentry
Registrarrelatingtoaregistered
ontheregisterorlists,or
trademark,anapplicationforthe
anyofthoseapplications,
registrationofatrademark,a
requestunderparagraph9(1)(n)and requestsordocuments.
objectionproceedingsunder11.13.
(e)allrequestsmadeunder
paragraph9(1)(n);and
(2)TheRegistrarshall,on
requestandonpaymentofthe
prescribedfee,furnishacopy
certifiedbytheRegistrarofany
entryontheregisterorlists,orany
ofthoseapplications,requestsor
documents.
41.(1)TheRegistrarmay,on
applicationbytheregisteredowner
ofatrademarkmadeinthe
prescribedmanner,makeanyofthe
followingamendmentstothe
register:
Nochange
(a)correctanyerrororenterany
changeinthename,addressor
descriptionoftheregistered
ownerorofhisrepresentative
forserviceinCanada;
ProposedChanges:
(a)correctanyerrororenterany
changeinthename,addressor
descriptionoftheregistered
owner.
Representativeforservice
42.(1)Theregisteredownerofa
trademarkwhohasnoofficeor
placeofbusinessinCanadashall
nameanotherrepresentativefor
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
157
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSACT–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
serviceinplaceofthelatest
recordedrepresentativeorsupplya
newandcorrectaddressofthe
latestrecordedrepresentativeon
noticefromtheRegistrarthatthe
latestrecordedrepresentativehas
diedorthataletteraddressedto
himatthelatestrecordedaddress
andsentbyordinarymailhasbeen
returnedundelivered.
ProposedChanges:Section42is
repealed.
46.(1)Theregistrationofa
trademarkthatisontheregisterby
virtueofthisActissubjectto
renewalwithinaperiodoffifteen
yearsfromthedayofthe
registrationorlastrenewal.
Nochangerequired.
Alternatives
Rationale
(2)Iftheregistrationofa
trademarkhasbeenontheregister
withoutrenewalfortheperiod
specifiedinsubsection(1),the
Registrarshallsendanoticetothe
registeredownerandtothe
registeredowner’srepresentative
forservice,ifany,statingthatif
withinsixmonthsafterthedateof
thenoticetheprescribedrenewal
feeisnotpaid,theregistrationwill
beexpunged.
ProposedChanges:
46(1)Subjecttoanyother
provisionofthisAct,theregistration
ofatrademarkisontheregisterfor
aninitialperiodof10years
beginningonthedayofthe
registrationandforsubsequent
renewalperiodsof10yearsif,for
eachrenewal,theprescribed
renewalfeeispaidwithinthe
prescribedperiod.
(2)Iftheinitialperiodorarenewal
periodexpiresandtheprescribed
renewalfeehasnotbeenpaid,the
Registrarshallsendanoticetothe
registeredownerstatingthatifthe
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
158
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSACT–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
Rationale
Addasectionto
saythatthe
designatedbody
maymakerules
andregulations
respectingthe
maintenanceof
thelistof
trademarkagents
andtheentryand
removalofthe
namesofpersons
andfirmsonthe
list,includingthe
qualificationsthat
mustbemetand
theconditions
thatmustbe
fulfilledtohavea
nameenteredon
thelistandto
maintainthe
nameonthelist;
Or
TheCanadaLands
SurveyorsAct
includessection
62:
Subjecttothe
approvalofthe
Minister,the
Councilmay
makeregulations
respecting…
andthenlists18
items.
BecauseCIPO
wouldnolonger
setthe
conditionsfor
admittanceon
theregister,this
rule-making
powershould
beremovedto
avoidthe
possibilityof
parallelrules.
Thefirst
alternativeisa
questionof
drafting
preference
regardingthe
positioningofa
clause.
Thesecond
alternative
(withthe
examplefrom
theCanada
LandsSurveyors
Act)wouldbea
possibilityifthe
government
feelsthatthis
power
attributedto
theregulator
shouldbeputin
legislation.
However,itis
notinthe
ImmigrationAct
andwould
requirefurther
thoughtonthe
legislation,i.e.if
thisauthorityis
included,why
feeisnotpaidwithintheprescribed
period,theregistrationwillbe
expunged
65.ThegovernorinCouncilmay
makeregulationsforcarryinginto
effectthepurposesandprovisions
ofthisActand,inparticular,may
makeregulationswithrespecttothe
followingmatters:
(c.1)themaintenanceofthelist
oftrademarkagentsandtheentry
andremovalofthenamesof
personsandfirmsonthelist,
includingthequalificationsthat
mustbemetandtheconditionsthat
mustbefulfilledtohaveaname
enteredonthelistandtomaintain
thenameonthelist
65.TheGovernorin
Councilmaymake
regulationsforcarrying
intoeffectthepurposes
andprovisionsofthisAct
and,inparticular,may
makeregulations
[…]
(f)repeal
Replacethesub-section
withtheproposedtext
listedunderalternatives.
Thissectionistobereplacedby:
65.TheGovernorinCouncilmay
makeregulationsforcarryinginto
effectthepurposesandprovisions
ofthisActand,inparticular,may
makeregulations
[...]
(f)respectingthemaintenanceof
thelistoftrademarkagentsandthe
entryandremovalofthenamesof
personsandfirmsonthelist,
includingthequalificationsthat
mustbemetandtheconditionsthat
mustbefulfilledtohaveaname
enteredonthelistandtomaintain
thenameonthelist;
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
159
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSACT–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
Rationale
notanother
one.
Definitions
“representative
forservice”
«représentant
pour
signification»
Changesnotneeded
representative
forservice”
meansthe
personor
firmnamed
under
paragraph
30(g),
subsection
38(3),
paragraph
41(1)(a)or
subsection
42(1);
Proposed
changes:Thisis
toberepealed.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
160
VII.Implementation
3.Additionalclauses
The above changes are the basic changes required to enact the proposed governance
framework. Additional clauses would be added to the Patent Act and Trade-marks Act or
would be included in the stand-alone legislation. Looking at the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act and at the Canada Lands Surveyors Act, we’ve determined that these
would include at least:
•
A clause to specify that appeals from the discipline process can be heard by the
Federal Court (unless the College’s tribunal is considered a federal tribunal)
•
An immunity clause
The example from the Canada Lands Surveyors Act:
37 No action or other proceedings for damages shall be instituted against
the Association, a committee of the Association, a member of the
Association, a member of a committee of the Association or an officer,
employee, agent or appointee of the Association for any act done in the
performance of any duty, or the exercise of any power, in good faith, under
this Act or for any neglect or default in the performance of any duty, or the
exercise of any power, in good faith, under this Act.
•
A clause to help prevent unauthorized practice by strengthening protection of title
as shown in this example from the Canada Lands Surveyors Act:
63 Every person, other than a Canada Lands Surveyor, who
(a) uses the title “Canada Lands Surveyor” or “arpenteur des
terres du Canada”, or any addition to or abbreviation of that title, or any
words, name or designation that leads to the belief that the person is a
Canada Lands Surveyor, or
(b) advertises or purports, in any way or by any means, to be a
Canada Lands Surveyor,
is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not
exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months, or to both.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
161
VII.Implementation
4.Changestoregulations
We have begun examining the changes that would be required to the Patent Rules and to
the Trade-marks Regulations and provide the following for discussion. Note that we
drafted the following changes without knowledge of the changes intended by CIPO to
implement the treaties.
PatentRules–Draftfordiscussion
Originaltext
Proposed
text
2.
IntheseRules,
"associatepatentagent"meansa
patentagentappointedbyanother
patentagentinaccordancewith
section21;(coagent)
Keepmostas
isbutmodify
definitionof
patentagent:
"authorizedcorrespondent"means,in
respectofanapplication,
(a)wheretheapplicationwas
filedbytheinventor,whereno
transferoftheinventor'sright
tothepatentorofthewhole
interestintheinventionhas
beenregisteredinthePatent
Officeandwherenopatent
agenthasbeenappointed
(i)thesoleinventor,
(ii)oneoftwoormorejoint
inventorsauthorizedbyall
suchinventorstoacton
theirjointbehalf,or
Alternatives
Rationale
Keeporiginaldefinition
andkeepsome
languageinS.15ofthe
Rules(seebelow)
Needtorecognize
thatregisteriskept
bydesignated
body.
"patent
agent"
meansany
personor
firm
whose
nameis
entered
onthe
registerof
patent
agentsby
the
designate
d
regulatory
body;
(agentde
brevets)
(iii)wheretherearetwoor
morejointinventorsand
noinventorhasbeen
authorizedinaccordance
withsubparagraph(ii),the
firstinventornamedinthe
petitionor,inthecaseof
PCTnationalphase
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
162
VII.Implementation
PatentRules–Draftfordiscussion
Originaltext
Proposed
text
Alternatives
Rationale
Rulesregarding
authorized
correspondentsare
includedhereto
verifywhether
theyneedtobe
amendedgiventhe
changeinwho
keepstheregister.
Mayneedtoverify
thattheyhaveall
beenincluded.
applications,thefirst
inventornamedinthe
internationalapplication,
(b)whereanassociatepatent
agenthasbeenappointedoris
requiredtobeappointed
pursuanttosection21,the
associatepatentagent,or
(c)whereparagraphs(a)and
(b)donotapply,apatentagent
appointedpursuanttosection
20;(correspondantautorisé)
"patentagent"meansanypersonor
firmwhosenameisenteredonthe
registerofpatentagentspursuant
tosection15;(agentdebrevets)
6.(1)ExceptasprovidedbytheAct Maintain
ortheseRules,forthepurposeof
prosecutingormaintainingan
applicationtheCommissionershall
onlycommunicatewith,andshallonly
haveregardtocommunicationsfrom,
theauthorizedcorrespondent.
8. (1)Subjecttosubsection(2),
communicationsaddressedtothe
Commissionerinrelationtoan
applicationorapatentshallrelateto
oneapplicationorpatentonly.
Maintain
(2)Subsection(1)doesnotapplyin
respectofcommunicationsrelatingto
(a)atransfer,alicenceora
securityinterest;
(b)achangeinthenameor
addressofanapplicant,a
patentee,apatentagent,an
associatepatentagentora
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
163
VII.Implementation
PatentRules–Draftfordiscussion
Originaltext
Proposed
text
representativeforservice;or
12Apersoniseligibletositforthe
qualifyingexaminationforpatent
agentsiftheperson,
Repeal
(a)onthefirstdayofthe
examination,residesinCanadaand
Alternatives
Rationale
These
requirements
wouldbesetby
thedesignated
regulatorybody,
nolongerCIPO.
(i)hasbeenemployedforatleast
24monthsontheexaminingstaff
ofthePatentOffice,
(ii)hasworkedinCanadainthe
areaofCanadianpatentlawand
practice,includingthepreparation
andprosecutionofapplicationsfor
apatent,foratleast24months,or
(iii)hasworkedintheareaof
patentlawandpractice,including
thepreparationandprosecutionof
applicationsforapatent,forat
least24months,atleast12of
whichwereworkedinCanadaand
therestofwhichwereworkedina
countryotherthanCanadawhere
thepersonwasregisteredasa
patentagentingoodstandingwith
apatentofficeofthatcountry;and
(b)withintwomonthsafterthe
dayonwhichthenoticereferredto
insubsection14(2)waspublished,
(i)notifiestheCommissionerin
writingoftheirintentiontositfor
theexamination,
(ii)paysthefeesetoutinitem34
ofScheduleII,and
(iii)furnishestheCommissioner
withevidenceestablishingthat
theymeettherequirementsset
outinparagraph(a).
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
164
VII.Implementation
PatentRules–Draftfordiscussion
Originaltext
Proposed
text
Alternatives
Rationale
13(1)AnExaminingBoardis
herebyestablishedforthepurpose
ofpreparing,administeringand
markingthequalifyingexamination
forpatentagentsreferredtoin
section14.
(2)ThemembersoftheExamining
Boardshallbeappointedbythe
Commissioner,andthechairperson
andatleastthreeothermembers
shallbeemployeesofthePatent
Officeandatleastfivemembers
shallbepatentagentsnominated
bytheIntellectualProperty
InstituteofCanada.
14(1)TheExaminingBoardshall
administeraqualifying
examinationforpatentagentsat
leastonceayear.
(2)TheCommissionershallpublish
onthewebsiteoftheCanadian
IntellectualPropertyOfficeanotice
thatspecifiesthedateofthenext
qualifyingexaminationandthat
indicatesthatanypersonwho
intendstositfortheexamination
shallcomplywiththerequirements
setoutinparagraph12(b).
(3)TheCommissionershall
designatetheplaceorplaces
wherethequalifyingexamination
istobeheldandshallnotify,at
leasttwoweeksbeforethefirst
dayoftheexamination,every
personwhohasmetthe
requirementssetoutinsection12.
15TheCommissionershall,on
writtenrequestandpaymentofthefee
setoutinitem33ofScheduleII,enter
ontheregisterofpatentagentsthe
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
Repeal
15.Thedesignated
regulatorybodyshall
enterontheregisterof
patentagents,on
Theproposalisto
repealthissection
165
VII.Implementation
PatentRules–Draftfordiscussion
Originaltext
Proposed
text
nameof
•
(a)anyresidentofCanada
whohaspassedthequalifying
examinationforpatent
agents;
•
(b)anyresidentofacountry
otherthanCanadawhois
registeredandingood
standingwiththepatentoffice
ofthatcountryorwitha
regionalpatentofficeforthat
country;and
•
(c)anyfirm,ifthenameofat
leastonememberofthefirm
isenteredontheregister.
Alternatives
Rationale
paymentofthefeeset
outinitem33of
ScheduleII,thename
of
becauseitwould
nowbethe
designatedbody
thatentersagents
ontheregister.
Thealternativetext
isanapproachthat
wouldprovide
moreinformation
inthePatentRules.
(a)anyresidentof
Canadawhohas
demonstrateda
goodknowledgeof
Canadianpatent
lawandpractice
(bypassingthe
qualifying
examinationfor
patentagents
relatingtopatent
lawandpractice);
**secondpart
maybenot
necessary
(b)anyresidentof
acountryother
thanCanadawhois
registeredandin
goodstandingwith
thepatentofficeof
thatcountryor
witharegional
patentofficefor
thatcountry;and
(c)anyfirm,ifthe
nameofatleast
onememberofthe
firmisenteredon
theregister.
Orreplacethe
qualifierfor(c):
(c)anyfirmthat
meetsthe
requirementsset
bythedesignated
regulatorybody.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
166
VII.Implementation
PatentRules–Draftfordiscussion
Originaltext
Proposed
text
Alternatives
Rationale
16.(1)Duringtheperiod
beginningonJanuary1andendingon
March31ineveryyear
(a)everypersonwhoisaresident
ofCanadaandwhosenameis
enteredontheregisterofpatent
agentsshallpaythefeesetoutin
item35ofScheduleIIinorderto
maintaintheperson'snameonthe
register;
(b)everypersonwhoisaresident
ofanothercountryandwhose
nameisenteredontheregisterof
patentagentsshall,inorderto
maintaintheperson'snameonthe
register,fileastatement,signedby
theperson,indicatingtheperson's
countryofresidenceandstating
thatthepersonisregisteredandin
goodstandingwiththepatent
officeofthatcountryorwitha
regionalpatentofficeforthat
country;and
Repeal
Feeswouldbepaid
tothedesignated
regulatorybody.
Notethatremoval
fromtheregister
willrequiresome
formof
coordinationwith
CIPOtoensure
clientsdonotlose
rights.
Inthedraftingofa
similarrulefor/by
theCollege,we
shouldensurethat
thelanguage
“removedfromthe
Register”shouldbe
softersuchas
“suspendedor
removedfromthe
“Register”.
(c)everyfirmwhosenameis
enteredontheregisterofpatent
agentsshall,inordertomaintain
itsnameontheregister,filea
statementindicatingeachmember
ofthefirmwhosenameisentered
ontheregister,signedbyaduly
authorizedmemberofthefirm
whoseownnameisenteredonthe
register.
(2)Repealed
(3)TheCommissionershall
removefromtheregisterofpatent
agentsthenameofanypatentagent
who
(a)failstocomplywithanotice
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
167
VII.Implementation
PatentRules–Draftfordiscussion
Originaltext
Proposed
text
Alternatives
Rationale
Thedesignated
regulatorybody
wouldestablishits
ownrulesfor
reinstatement.
Inthedraftingofa
similarrulefor/by
theRegulator,we
shouldensurethat
thelanguage
“removedfromthe
Register”shouldbe
softersuchas
“suspendedor
removedfromthe
“Register”.
sentpursuanttosubsection(1);or
(b)nolongermeetsthe
requirementsunderwhichthe
nameofthepatentagentwas
enteredontheregisterunlessthe
patentagentisapersonreferred
toinparagraph15(a)or(b)ora
firmreferredtoinparagraph15(c).
(4)Repealed
17.Wherethenameofapatent
agenthasbeenremovedfromthe
registerofpatentagentspursuantto
subsection16(3),itmaybereinstated
ontheregisterifthepatentagent
Repeal
(a)appliestotheCommissioner,in
writing,forreinstatementwithin
theone-yearperiodafterthedate
onwhichthenameofthepatent
agentwasremovedfromthe
register;and
(b)either
i.
ii.
iii.
isapersonreferredtoin
paragraph15(a)andpays
thefeesetoutinitems35
and36ofScheduleII,
isapersonreferredtoin
paragraph15(b)andfiles
thestatementreferredto
inparagraph16(1)(b),or
isafirmreferredtoin
paragraph15(c)andfiles
thestatementreferredto
inparagraph16(1)(c).
(c)Repealed
(d)Repealed
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
168
VII.Implementation
PatentRules–Draftfordiscussion
Originaltext
Proposed
text
18.Anydecisionofthe
Commissionerundersection16ofthe
Acttorefusetorecognizeapersonasa
patentagentandanydecisionofthe
Commissionerundersubsection16(3)
toremovethenameofapersonfrom
theregisterofpatentagentsshallbe
withoutdelayenteredintheregisterof
patentagentsandpublishedin
theCanadianPatentOfficeRecordand
acopyshallbesentbyregisteredmail
tothepersonreferredtointhe
decision.
Repeal
Alternatives
Rationale
Modifytodealwith
correspondenceto
agentsremovedfrom
theregisteror
suspendedbythe
designatedregulatory
body.
Theproposalto
repealisduetothe
repealofSection
16oftheAct.
However,thisrule
providesforrelief
totheclient.
Somethinglikethis
maystillbe
required,thusthe
suggestionforan
alternative.
•
•
19(1)IftheCommissioner
makesadecisionunder
section16oftheActthata
personberefusedrecognition
asapatentagentormakesa
decisionundersubsection
16(3)toremovethenameofa
personfromtheregisterof
patentagents,any
correspondencerespectingan
applicationsentbythe
Commissionerorbythe
PatentOfficetothatperson
withinthesix-monthperiod
beforethedateofthe
decisionandtowhichnoreply
hasbeenmadebythatdateis
deemednottohavebeensent
totheapplicant.
(2)Anapplicationfiledbya
personwhohasbeenrefused
recognitionasapatentagent
bytheCommissioneror
whosenamehasbeen
removedfromtheregisterof
patentagentsoran
applicationthatincludesan
appointmentofsuchaperson
aspatentagentofthe
applicantorasassociate
patentagentshallbetreated
bytheCommissionerasan
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
Repeal
169
VII.Implementation
PatentRules–Draftfordiscussion
Originaltext
Proposed
text
Alternatives
Rationale
21.Nochange applicationfiledbythe
applicantorbythepatent
agentwhoappointedthe
associatepatentagent.
20.Anapplicantwhoisnotan
inventorshallappointapatentagent
toprosecutetheapplicationforthe
applicant.
20.Nochange
(2)Theappointmentofapatent
agentshallbemadeinthepetitionor
bysubmittingtotheCommissionera
noticesignedbytheapplicant.
(3)Theappointmentofapatent
agentmayberevokedbysubmittingto
theCommissioneranoticeof
revocationsignedbytheapplicantor
thatpatentagent.
21.(1)Everypatentagentwhodoes
notresideinCanadaandwhois
appointedasthepatentagentforan
applicantinrespectofanapplication
shallappointastheassociatepatent
agentinrespectoftheapplicationa
patentagentwhoresidesinCanada.
(2)Everypatentagentwhoresides
inCanadaandwhoisappointedasthe
patentagentforanapplicantinrespect
ofanapplicationmayappointasthe
associatepatentagentinrespectofthe
applicationapatentagentwhoresides
inCanada.
(3)Theappointmentofan
associatepatentagentshallbemadein
thepetitionorbysubmittingtothe
Commissioneranoticesignedbythe
patentagentwhoappointedthe
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
170
VII.Implementation
PatentRules–Draftfordiscussion
Originaltext
Proposed
text
Alternatives
Rationale
associatepatentagent.
(4)Theappointmentofan
associatepatentagentmayberevoked
bysubmittingtotheCommissionera
noticeofrevocationsignedbythe
associatepatentagentorthepatent
agentwhoappointedtheassociate
patentagent.
NewPatentRule
The designation of the regulatory body for immigration consultants is a separate
regulation called Regulations Designating a Body for the Purposes of Paragraph 91(2)(c)
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
It states:
2 For the purposes of paragraph 91(2)(c) of the Act, the ICCRC is designated as a
body whose members in good standing may represent or advise a person for
consideration — or offer to do so — in connection with a proceeding or
application under the Act.
It also has transitional measures.
A similar addition to the Patent Rules could look like:
For the purposes of paragraph 15(2) of the Act, the College of Patent Agents and
Trademark Agents of Canada shall keep the register of patent agents on which
shall be entered the names of all persons and firms that may act as patent agents.
Transitional measures:
3 (1) Any person or firm who, on the date on which these Rules come into force,
is on the register of Patent Agents maintained by the Commissioner remains on
the register maintained by the designated body,
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
171
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSREGULATIONS–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
Nochange
2.Thefollowingdefinitions
"trademarkagent"
applyintheseRegulations
meansaperson
whosenameis
"trademarkagent"meansa
enteredonthelistof
personwhosenameis
trademarkagents
enteredonthelistof
andfirmsbythe
trademarkagentsreferred
designatedregulatory
toinsection21.(agentde
body.(agentde
marquesdecommerce)
marquesde
commerce)
8.(1)Subjecttosubsections
(2)and(4),correspondence
relatingtotheprosecutionof
anapplicationforthe
registrationofatrademark
shallbewiththeapplicant.
(2)Subjecttosubsection
(3)andsections9and11,
correspondencereferredtoin
subsection(1)shallbewitha
trademarkagent,wherethe
trademarkagenthasbeen
authorizedtoactonbehalfof
theapplicantinoneofthe
followingways:
(a)thetrademark
agentfiledtheapplication
withtheRegistrarastheagent
oftheapplicant;
(b)thetrademark
agentisappointedasthe
agentoftheapplicantinthe
applicationoran
accompanyingdocument;or
(c)thetrademark
agentisappointedasthe
agentoftheapplicantafter
Rationale
Proposalbelowisto
repealS.21thus
theneedtomodify
thedefinition.
Alternativeisto
leaveasisbut
modifyS.21(the
wordingofthis
definitionis
differentthanin
thePatentRules).
Nochangeneeded.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
172
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSREGULATIONS–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
Rationale
theapplicationisfiled.
(3)Whereatrademark
agentreferredtoinsubsection
(2)appointsanother
trademarkagentasassociate
orsubstituteagent,
correspondenceshallbewith
theassociateorsubstitute
agent.
(4)Whereaperson
requestsrecognitionofa
transferofanapplication
pursuanttosection48,
correspondenceinrespectof
therecognitionofthetransfer
shallalsobewiththeperson
whorequeststhatrecognition.
Nochangeneeded.
9. (1)Whereatrademark
agentisnotaresidentof
Canada,theagentshall
appointanassociateagent
whoisaresidentofCanada.
(2)Whereanassociate
trademarkagentisnot
appointedpursuantto
subsection(1),theRegistrar
shallcorrespondwiththe
applicant.
10. Sections8and9apply,
Nochangeneeded.
11. (1)Theappointmentofa
Nochangeneeded
withsuchmodificationsasare
necessary,topartiesto
oppositions.
trademarkagentneednotbe
madeinwriting,butthe
Registrarmayrequirethe
agenttofileawritten
authorizationfromtheperson
orfirmthatthatagentclaims
torepresent,wherethe
circumstancesdescribedin
anyofparagraphs8(2)(a)to
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
173
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSREGULATIONS–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
Rationale
(c)havenotoccurredorthe
appointmenthasnotbeen
clearlyestablished.
(2)Whereatrademark
agentfailstofilean
authorizationrequired
pursuanttosubsection(1),the
Registrarmaynotifythe
personorfirmthattheagent
claimstorepresent,andshall,
subjecttosection8,continue
tocorrespondwiththeperson
orfirmnotifieduntilthe
writtenauthorizationisfiled.
ELIGIBILITYFOR
EXAMINATION
Repeal
18. Apersoniseligibletosit
forthequalifyingexamination
fortrademarkagentsifthe
person,
(a)onthefirstdayofthe
examination,residesin
Canadaand
Theserequirements
wouldbesetbythe
designated
regulatorybody.
Theexamswould
beadministeredby
theregulatory
body.
(i)hasbeenemployedfor
atleast24monthsinthe
OfficeoftheRegistrarof
Trademarkseitheronthe
examiningstafforasa
delegateoftheRegistrar’s
powersundersection38or45
oftheAct,
(ii)hasworkedinCanada
intheareaofCanadian
trademarklawandpractice,
includingthepreparationand
prosecutionofapplicationsfor
theregistrationoftrademarks
foratleast24months,or
(iii)hasworkedinthearea
oftrademarklawandpractice,
includingthepreparationand
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
174
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSREGULATIONS–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
Rationale
prosecutionofapplicationor
theregistrationoftrademarks,
foratleast24months,at
least12ofwhichwereworked
inCanadaandtherestof
whichwereworkedinanother
countrywherethepersonwas
registeredasatrademark
agentingoodstandingwitha
trademarkofficeofthat
country;and
(b)withintwomonths
afterthedayonwhichthe
noticereferredtoin
subsection20(2)was
published,
(i)notifiestheRegistrarin
writingoftheirintentiontosit
fortheexamination;
(ii)paysthefeesetoutin
item20oftheschedule,and
(iii)furnishestheRegistrar
withevidenceestablishing
thattheymeetthe
requirementssetoutin
paragraph(a).
EXAMININGBOARD
Repeal
19. Themembersofan
examiningboardshallbe
appointedbytheRegistrar
andatleasttwomembersof
theboardshallbetrademark
agentsnominatedbythe
IntellectualPropertyInstitute
ofCanada.SOR/2003-209,s.1.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
175
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSREGULATIONS–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
QUALIFYINGEXAMINATION
Repeal
Rationale
20. (1)Theexaminingboard
shalladministeraqualifying
examinationfortrademark
agentsatleastonceayear.
(2)TheRegistrarshall
publishonthewebsiteofthe
CanadianIntellectualProperty
Officeanoticethatspecifies
thedateofthenextqualifying
examinationandthat
indicatesthatanypersonwho
intendstositforthe
examinationshallcomplywith
therequirementsetoutin
paragraph18(b).
(3)TheRegistrarshall
designatetheplaceorplaces
wherethequalifying
examinationistobeheldand
shallnotify,atleasttwoweeks
beforethefirstdayofthe
examination,everyperson
whohasmetthe
requirementssetoutin
section18.
LISTINGOFTRADEMARK
AGENTS
21.TheRegistrarshall,on
writtenrequestandpayment
ofthefeesetoutinitem19of
theschedule,enteronalistof
trademarkagentsthenameof
(a)anyresidentofCanada
whohaspassedthequalifying
examinationfortrademark
agents;
(b)repealed
(c)aresidentofanyother
countrywhoisentitledto
Repeal
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
21.Thedesignated Theproposalisto
regulatorybody
shall,onwritten
requestand
paymentofthefee
setoutinitem19of
theschedule,enter
onalistof
trademarkagents
thenameof
(a)anyresidentof
Canadawhohas
passedthe
qualifying
examinationrelating
toCanadian
repealthissection
becauseitwould
nowbethe
designatedbody
thatentersagents
onthelist.
Therationale
behindthe
alternativetextisto
leavesome
informationinthe
trademark
regulations.
176
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSREGULATIONS–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
practisebeforethe
trademarksofficeofthat
country;and
(d)anyfirmhavingthename
ofatleastoneofitsmembers
enteredonthelistasa
trademarkagent.
REPEAL
RENEWAL
22.(1)Duringtheperiod
beginningonJanuary1and
endingonMarch31ofeach
year,
(a)aresidentofCanada
whosenameisenteredonthe
listoftrademarkagentsshall,
inordertomaintainthe
resident'snameonthelist,
paythefeesetoutinitem21
oftheschedule;
(b)aresidentofanyother
countrywhosenameis
enteredonthelistof
trademarkagentsshall,in
ordertomaintainthe
resident'snameonthelist,file
astatementsignedbythe
agentsettingouttheagent's
countryofresidenceand
declaringthattheagentisin
goodstandingbeforethe
trademarkofficeofthat
country;and
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
trademarklawand
practice,including
thepreparationand
prosecutionof
applicationsfor
registrationof
trademarks;
(c)aresidentofany
othercountrywhois
entitledtopractice
beforethe
trademarksofficeof
thatcountry;and
(d)anyfirmhaving
thenameofatleast
oneofitsmembers
enteredonthelist
asatrademark
agent.
Rationale
Feeswouldbepaid
tothedesignated
regulatorybody.
Notethatremoval
fromtheregister
willrequiresome
formof
coordinationwith
CIPOtoensure
clientsdonotlose
rights.
177
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSREGULATIONS–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
(c)afirmhavingthenameof
atleastoneofitsmembers
enteredonthelistof
trademarkagentsshall,in
ordertomaintainthefirm's
nameonthelist,filea
statementsignedbyoneofits
memberswhosenameison
thelist,indicatingallofits
memberswhosenamesareon
thelist.
(2)TheRegistrarshallremove
fromthelistoftrademark
agentsthenameofany
trademarkagentwho
(a)failstocomplywith
subsection(1)
(b)nolongermeetsthe
requirementsunderwhichthe
nameofthetrademarkagent
wasenteredonthelistunless
thetrademarkagentisa
personreferredtoin
paragraph21(a)or(c)ora
firmreferredtoinparagraph
21(d).
23.(1)Ifthenameofa
trademarkagenthasbeen
removedfromthelistof
trademarkagentsunder
subsection22(2),itmaybe
reinstatedonthelistifthe
trademarkagent
(a)appliestotheRegistrar,in
writing,forreinstatement
withintheoneyearperiod
afterthedateonwhichthe
nameofthetrademarkagent
wasremovedfromthelist;
and
(b)either
(i)isapersonreferredtoin
paragraph21(a)andpaysthe
feesetoutinitems21and22
Repeal
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
Rationale
Thedesignated
regulatorybody
wouldestablishits
ownrulesfor
reinstatement.
178
VII.Implementation
TRADE-MARKSREGULATIONS–DRAFTFORDISCUSSION
Originaltext
Proposedtext
Alternatives
oftheschedule,
(ii)isapersonreferredtoin
paragraph21(c)andfilesthe
statementreferredtoin
paragraph22(1)(b),or
(iii)isafirmreferredtoin
paragraph21(d)andfilesthe
statementreferredtoin
paragraph22(1)(c).
Rationale
NewTrade-marksRegulation
The designation of the regulatory body for immigration consultants is a separate
regulation called Regulations Designating a Body for the Purposes of Paragraph 91(2)(c)
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
It states:
2 For the purposes of paragraph 91(2)(c) of the Act, the ICCRC is designated as a
body whose members in good standing may represent or advise a person for
consideration — or offer to do so — in connection with a proceeding or
application under the Act.
It also has transitional measures.
A similar addition to the Trade-marks Regulations could look like:
For the purposes of paragraph 28(2) of the Act, the College of Patent Agents and
Trademark Agents of Canada shall keep the list of trademark agents on which
shall be entered the names of all persons and firms that may act as trademark
agents.
Transitional measures:
3 (1) Any person or firm who, on the date on which these Regulations come into
force, is on the list of trademark agents maintained by the Registrar remains on
the list maintained by the designated body,
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
179
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
ThissectionpresentsanswerstothequestionsposedintheISEDconsultationpaper.
180
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
Preface
Although the questions apply equally to all three models, for many of the questions we
have information only with respect to the proposed role of the College of Patent and
Trademark Agents of Canada.
However, as a general comment, we note that certain advantages of self-regulation would
probably not accrue to the other models, such as the value of volunteer time, the expertise
of the professionals in the issues facing patent and trademark agents, and the credibility
of professionals who want to give back to the profession.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
181
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
CodeofConduct
1. Doesthedraftcodecoveralltherightelements?Areanyelementsmissing?Are
anychangesnecessarybeforeimplementation?
Asrequested,wefirstansweredthisquestioninourJune13,2016
responsetotheconsultationontheCodeofConduct(seeAnnexA).
IPICwelcomestheopportunityoftheadditionalconsultationperiod
aboutthedraftcodetoprovidearevisedcodeaswellasadditional
informationaboutIPIC’scurrentprocessandaboutfutureworkonthe
code,alivingandlearningdocument.
Currentprocess
As indicated in our June response, IPIC’s Professional Regulation Committee has
continued making revisions to our draft code. The revised draft is included in
Section IV. The changes result from examining:
• Updates made by the Federation of Law Societies to its Model Code
since the version that was used for IPIC’s 2013 draft.
• Comments from members following our June 2016 webinars in English
and French about the code of conduct that was subject of ISED’s
consultation.
• Changes made by ISED following its consultation.
• The submission by FICPI Canada.
• Comments from members during a consultation by IPIC that concluded
on August 18, 2016.
This revised code of ethics11 will be proposed for adoption at the Annual General
Meeting in Québec City on September 29, 2016.
IPIC recommends that ISED and CIPO, after IPIC’s AGM, replace their current
interim code by IPIC’s code in force after the AGM.
11
TheIPICcodeiscalledCodeofEthicsasthisisthetermusedintheIPICBy-law.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
182
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
This diagram summarizes the process that has been followed and is proposed by
IPIC for the code:
Code
inforce
CurrentIPIC
Codeof
Ethics
(2001)
NewIPIC
Codeof
Ethics
(2016)
College
Codeof
Ethics
(date?)
Revision and
adoption by
College
(date?)
Revision
IPIC/College
Draft
revision
(2012)
Member
consultation
(2016)
Adoption
atAGM
(2016)
Revision
CIPO&ISED
Modernizing the
IPCommunity
(2013-14)
Consultation
(2016)
Interim Code
(2016)
Futurework
A code of ethics is a living document.
The College should continuously monitor and improve the code over the coming
years to ensure it reflects developments in the practice and in professional
regulation thinking. The members of the profession who volunteer to contribute to
the profession’s future will be well positioned to identify required changes to the
code to ensure protection of the public but also practical application of the code.
For example, IPIC has concluded that section 3.4 on concurrent representation as
worded in the code that was subject of the initial consultation is not appropriate
for agency practice12. IPIC recommends that the College study this issue further.
A code of ethics is also a learning document.
12
ThesectionwasthereforedeletedandtheothersectionsofRule3renumberedaccordingly.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
183
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
An objective of self-regulation is to ensure that members of a profession
internalize proper conduct, to create second nature thinking of what is the best
practice in the individual’s day-to-day activities. Already, IPIC’s current code of
ethics is a learning document that incorporates commentary to help agents
understand the code. The revised code adds more commentary, including some
adapted from the Model Code of the Federation of Law Societies. The College
should maintain this approach; its volunteers and staff will likely add more
examples from the practice of members.
2. Shouldthecodeofconductorotherapplicableregulationsclearlydefinewhat
activitiesqualifyaspermittedpracticeinfrontofthepatentortrademarksoffices?
In our June 13, 2016 response to the consultation on the Code of Conduct (see
Annex A), we answered this question as follows by indicating that the Patent Act
and Rules and Trade-marks Act and Regulations already define the activities that
qualify as permitted practice in front of the patent and trademarks offices.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
184
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
DisciplinaryProcess
3. Isthedescribedstructureappropriate?Namely:acomplaintreceiptfunction;a
reviewfunction;aninvestigativefunction;adisciplinarytribunalanditsdecision
powers;and,theappealprocess.Ifnot,howcanitbeimproved?
At the 2003 Annual General Meeting, the members of IPIC voted a resolution
proposing a disciplinary process for an eventual College. This process, which
could be adopted as a by-law of the College, is based on the disciplinary process
of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. It is presented in Section IV of this
submission.
It includes the elements listed above in Question 3, as well as the possibility of
mediation.
Also, as presented in Section IV of this submission, the College could examine
the possibility of establishing a fee dispute resolution mechanism. This would
create an alternative to the full discipline process in dealing with complaints about
fees.
Finally, an advantage of self-regulation is to contribute to creating a culture of
self-reporting of ethical issues and missteps. Already, agents are conditioned to
self-report mistakes to their insurer. The same approach could be taken for
possible breaches of the code of ethics with the purpose of helping all members
learn from the experience of others. It seems that the discipline process would
accommodate such self-reporting but with time, some adjustments may be needed
to the process and to the language of the code of ethics.
4. Howshouldthedisciplinaryframeworkensureopenandtransparentproceedings
whilestillmaintainingtheconfidentialityofprivilegedinformation?
Under the model of self-regulation, it would be possible to implement a discipline
process which has hearings in public. Indeed, public hearings are included at Bylaw 10(8) in the draft Discipline Process proposed by IPIC in 2003 (see Section
IV). As with any proceeding which involves privileged or confidential
information (e.g. in the courts or law society hearings), the process can also
provide for hearings in camera or ban on the publication or release of any
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
185
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
information or document to preserve the client’s privilege or the confidentiality of
information. Again, these protections are specifically provided for in the Draft
Discipline Process at By-law 10(8). The Draft Discipline Process further provides
at By-law 10(9) that those present at the hearing shall be bound to secrecy where
there is an in camera hearing. It is also possible to have part of the hearing in
public with part in camera to protect the privileged and confidential information
while maintaining a public forum.
As part of the transparency of the process, the Draft Discipline Process also
provides for the publication to each member of the regulatory body of the notice
of decisions of the Disciplinary Tribunal or admissions of guilt and acceptance of
recommendation of sanction by members (By-law 14(2)). Where a member is
expelled or suspended, such notice is to be published in a newspaper having
general circulation in the place where the member principally practices in Canada
(By-law 14(3)).
Thus, the Draft Discipline Process provides for a balance so that hearings can be
public and the process transparent but at the same time, privileged and
confidential information can be protected.
In implementing this process, the College could consult the UK regulatory body
for patent and trademark agents, IPReg, about its experience and processes given
that it must also ensure open and transparent proceedings while still maintaining
the privilege in the information. Closer to home, the thirteen law societies, given
their variety in membership size and history, each have their expertise and
experiences that could be helpful to the College.
As we explain in Section IV, the College could call upon investigators with
experience in such matters. Also, the Draft Discipline Process calls for
coordination with other regulators when an agent is a member of another
profession. Therefore, in some cases, the discipline proceedings may be managed
by a law society.
5.Whatremediesshouldbeavailabletothedisciplinarytribunalintheeventofa
breachofthecodeofconduct?
Our proposed disciplinary process, presented in Section IV of this submission,
includes:
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
186
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
•
private admonishment
•
completion of one or more courses of instruction prescribed by the Discipline
Committee
•
a periodic review by a designated member of the correspondence and work
product
•
payment of the legal fees and expenses incurred by the Discipline Committee
•
a reprimand
•
a suspension from the College
•
an expulsion from the College
•
a fine
•
a refresher course or courses with restriction or suspension the individual’s
right to be a member of the College until completion of the course or courses
•
to be supervised by a designated member of the College
•
to be subject to periodic audits of books and records for such period of time
as the Disciplinary Tribunal may fix.
6.Whatmeasuresarenecessarytoensuretheregulatorunderallmodelsisgoverned
bytherulesoffairnessandnaturaljustice,andavoidsconflictsofinterest(realor
perceived)?
Weexplainbelowtheconceptsmentionedinthequestionandtheir
applicabilitytotheadmissionanddisciplinaryprocesses.
Thecontextfortheworkofpatentandtrademarkagentsleadstothe
conclusionthatself-regulationisthebestmodeltoavoidconflictsof
interestbecausethereisamuchgreaterriskofbiaswherethe
regulatorisalsotherights-grantingauthority
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
187
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
The principles of “rules of fairness,” “natural justice”, and “conflicts of interest”
are overlapping.
For a helpful discussion of natural justice and the duty to be fair, see Jones & de
Villars, Principles of Administrative Law13
The term “natural justice” connotes the requirement that
administrative tribunals, when reaching a decision, must do so in a
procedurally fair way. If they err, the superior courts will step in to
quash the decision, by certiorari, or prevent the error from being
made, by prohibition. Such an error is jurisdictional in nature and
renders the decision void.14
Natural justice comprises two main sub-rules. The first is audi alteram
partem, which may be translated as “hear the other side.” This is the requirement
that a person must know the case being made against him or her and be given an
opportunity to answer it. The second main sub-rule is nemo judex in sua causa
debet esse, which may be translated as “no man can be a judge in his own cause.”
This is the rule against bias.15
Historically, principles of natural justice were held to apply only with respect to
judicial or quasi-judicial functions and not to decisions that were legislative or
executive in nature.16 More recently, the concept of “the duty to be fair” has
developed to the extent that it is not necessary to distinguish between judicial and
executive decisions.17
In any event, the duty to be fair (alternatively described as a requirement for
“procedural fairness”18) still comprises the principal elements of audi alteram
partem and the rule against bias19.
13
th
Jones&deVillars,PrinciplesofAdministrativeLaw,5 Edition,2009,Carswell,adivisionof
ThomsonReutersCanadaLimited,Toronto,OntarioatChapters8-10.
14
Ibid.atp.209.
15
Ibid.atp.210.
16
Ibid.atp.210.
17
Ibid.atp.210.
18
Ibid.atp.254.
19
Ibid.atchapters9and10,respectively.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
188
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
The administrative law principles concerning the duty to be fair, and their
application, are complex, and their application to particular aspects of a scheme
for the regulation of agents goes beyond the scope of this consultation.
Nevertheless, it is axiomatic that any scheme for the regulation of agents would
adhere to such principles, whether they be characterized as the principles of
natural justice, the duty to be fair, or procedural fairness.
The duty to be fair arises in connection with the regulation of patent and
trademark agents in two principal areas.
The first is admission of agents to practice by enrolment on the Register of
Patent Agents and List of Trademark Agents. The second concerns disciplinary
action against patent and trademark agents, including e.g. the requirement for
remedial training, censure, a monetary or other penalty, or restrictions on practice
or removal from the register.
Before considering the three proposed regulatory models, it is worthwhile first to
consider the present situation. The requirements for qualification as a patent or
trademark agent appear largely consistent with the duty to be fair given the
rigorous examination requirements needed for enrolment. Patent and trademark
exams are jointly developed by CIPO and IPIC and the examination questions are
thoroughly reviewed and tested. The identity of examination candidates is not
disclosed to the Examining Board and each examination paper is reviewed by at
least two members of the Examining Board. A detailed answer key is developed,
reviewed, and updated in the event additional plausible correct answers are
identified during the examination process. Candidates can obtain their marked
examination papers and the answer key, and candidates may request a review of
their marks. It is an open and objective process.
Turning to the current disciplinary or regulatory scheme, section 16 of the
Patent Act provides:
For gross misconduct or any other cause that he may deem
sufficient, the Commissioner may refuse to recognize any person
as a patent agent or attorney either generally or in any particular
case.
The only process we have found in relation to section 16 of the Act is this
sentence in the description of the Patent Appeal Board:
In regard to such cases the Patent Appeal Board receives any complaints
concerning alleged misconduct by a registered agent, conducts a review of
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
189
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
the matter, and makes recommendations to the Commissioner concerning
any action to be taken.20
It is uncertain what would constitute “gross misconduct” let alone “any other
cause” that the Commissioner may “deem sufficient” as grounds to refuse to
recognize a patent agent either generally or in any particular case. It is unclear
whether a hearing would be held or whether the agent would even receive notice.
This provision is clearly deficient.
Turning to the proposed regulatory models, assuming that the examination
procedure for entry into the profession remains largely in its present form, no new
issues of procedural fairness appear to arise. Notably, in its participation in the
examination process, IPIC has engaged the services of a measure and evaluation
expert. This person could likely continue his work for the College.
With respect to discipline, any of the proposed three regulatory schemes would
provide significant advantages concerning audi alteram partem and the rule
against bias. First, the interim code of conduct published by ISED and IPIC’s
draft revised code of ethics provide detailed guidelines for the conduct of agents
(see e.g. sections 7 to 10). Our proposed disciplinary process includes key
elements missing from the current scheme.
With respect to the rule against bias, Jones & de Villars identify five types of
cases in which arguments concern the presence of a reasonable apprehension of
bias can arise:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
When the decision-maker has a personal financial interest in the outcome
of the matter being decided.
When the decision-maker’s impartiality can be said to be impaired because
of his or her personal relationship with one or more of the parties whose
case is being decided or some other person who has a significant role in
the case.
When the decision-maker has acquired knowledge of or has been involved
in the matter in some capacity other than his or her current capacity as
decision-maker.
When the words or behaviour of the decision-maker form the basis of a
challenge to his or her impartiality.
Where there are institutional arrangements that are said to give rise to a
reasonable apprehension of bias.21
20
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr01971.htmlaccessedonJuly14,
2016
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
190
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
Many of these types of bias (effectively potential or actual conflicts of interest)
can be avoided by ensuring that the disciplinary panel has sufficient training and
diversity of representation, and that individual members of the panel recuse
themselves or are substituted in cases where their participation would give rise to
one of the above types of bias.
For instance, if a member of the profession were participating on a disciplinary
panel, it would not be appropriate for them to participate in the review of a
complaint against a member of that person’s own agency or law firm.
Including members of the public in the disciplinary panel also may help avoid
instances of actual or perceived bias.
On the whole, there is a much greater risk of bias where the regulator is also
the rights-granting authority (i.e. CIPO). For instance, in the draft code of
conduct, Rule 8.1 quite appropriately states that “for greater certainty, an agent
must be courteous and civil and act in good faith with CIPO”. Agents indeed
should be courteous and civil and act in good faith. But if a complaint arises
under this provision, the complaint will presumably arise from within CIPO, and
it would therefore be inappropriate for CIPO to be the regulator administering the
disciplinary process. CIPO cannot properly adjudicate its own complaint against
an agent.
The patent and trademark agency profession are different than some other
federally regulated professions, e.g. Canada Lands Surveyors. Land surveyors do
not petition the regulatory authority as a rights-granting agency. In contrast, the
function of agents before the Patent Office and Trademarks Office contains a
large advocacy component. Never has the Patent Office objected that an inventor
has made his claims too narrow, claiming less than he was entitled to claim. It is
the role of the agent to assist the inventor in obtaining the broadest proper
protection for his invention to which he is entitled, an exercise in zealous
advocacy before the Patent Office. If the agent is constrained by concerns that her
efforts on behalf of the inventor invite disciplinary sanctions (going to her very
livelihood) by the rights-granting authority acting as the regulator of the
profession, the inventor’s ability to obtain the best representation is constrained.
While this relationship with government may be different than that with the
Canada Lands Surveyors, it is similar to the situation of immigration consultants.
In this regard, we note that in its 2003 report, the Advisory Committee on
Regulating Immigration Consultants, appointed by the Minister of Citizenship and
21
Ibid.atp.403-404.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
191
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
Immigration, considered and rejected the option entitled “The Establishment of a
Commissioner of Consultants” saying it was inherently flawed. It provided the
following public interest reason:
In individual cases this will result in conflicts between Immigration
Officers and Visa Officers exercising their discretion with a view to
enforcing the Act and Regulations and consultants representing as
vigorously as they can the interests of the persons whom they are
representing. There would be no appearance of fairness in such a
conflict if it were also the case that the consultant was dependent for his
license to practice, and therefore his livelihood, upon a Commissioner who
reported to the same Minister as the Immigration or Visa Officer. Such a
system therefore would be inherently and irrevocably flawed and is
one that we therefore do not recommend.22 (emphasis added)
Beyond issues of procedural fairness, there is the greater issue of substantive
regulation of the profession. The most significant concerns about agent conduct
will involve matters of competent practice, conflicts of interest in the
representation of clients, misuse of client funds, and the like. These are matters of
professional agency practice and it is the profession itself that is best equipped to
assess whether conduct is appropriate.
22
ReportoftheAdvisoryCommitteeonRegulatingImmigrationConsultantspresentedtotheMinisterof
CitizenshipandImmigration,MinisterofPublicWorksandGovernmentServicesCanada,2003,p.24
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
192
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
GovernanceModels
7 Howdoeseachgovernancemodelbestalignwiththeprinciplesofcost-efficiency,
ensuringtimelyresolutionofissues,andfosteringacompetitivemarketplace?
Bydefinition,professionalregulationrequiresexpertiseaboutthe
practiceoftheprofession.
Self-regulationisthereforethemostcost-efficientmodelbecause
membersoftheprofessiongiveoftheirtimeandenergytoensure
itssuccess.
Forexample,membersofIPICcontributeapproximately$480,000of
theirtimeeachyearforthepreparationandmarkingofthe
admissionexams.
We can illustrate the cost-effectiveness of the different models by looking at two
revenue-expense components of the regulation of agents.
Exams:
CIPO provides $62,000 a year to IPIC under a contract for IPIC’s contribution to
the exams. In return IPIC provides approximately $480,000 in work on the exams.
CIPO’s payment to IPIC comes from the exam fees collected by CIPO which
cover most but maybe not all the exam costs.
Although the consultation paper is silent on the matter, we assume that under
Models One and Two, the agency or board would now pay directly for the
professionals thus incurring approximately $420,000 in additional costs, costs that
would not be incurred under Model Three, self-regulation.
Other operations
We estimate that the College could operate with annual fees by members of about
$500 per licence (patent or trademark agent) (compared to $350 paid currently to
CIPO (or $300 for trademark agents if they pay on-line)).
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
193
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
It is to everyone’s benefit, agents and clients, that the College operate as
efficiently as possible in carrying out its mandate of protecting the public.
With the annual fees of $350/$300, CIPO collects approximately $800,000 from
agents. These funds, apart from covering a possible shortfall in the costs of the
exams, are used to maintain the register of patent agents and the list of trademark
agents.
Based on the costs currently incurred for the maintenance of the lists, adding to
CIPO’s responsibilities the tasks of maintaining a code of conduct, managing the
complaints and discipline process, and administering CPD requirements, would
mean a major increase in annual costs, to be absorbed by the government or IP
applicants, or that will translate into a significant increase in the annual agent fees.
Therefore, our estimate is that the College could assume all regulatory functions
with an annual budget equivalent to the Models One and Two costs of managing
the exams and maintaining the lists.
Estimatedbudgettotals:
Models1and2
?
Examsandlists
Code,complaints,discipline,CPD,etc.
Model3
Exams,lists,code,complaints,discipline,CPD,etc.
Surplustobuildreservefor
majordisciplinecases
An efficient regulatory body which strives to keep costs low for agents – while
ensuring that it acts in the public interest – will foster a competitive marketplace.
Timeliness
Self-regulation – with the combination of volunteer involvement and staff
dedicated to the regulation of the profession – would presumably allow more
timely responses than the two other models as members are already
knowledgeable about practice issues. Lay members would also be involved and
would add some diversity and perspective to the self-regulation model.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
194
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
Furthermore, there is evidence that the complexity of machinery of government is
not suited for the regulation of a profession. For example, changes were made
recently to the regulations regarding the qualification exams. One of these
changes was the simple removal of the obligation to hold these exams in a specific
month (April for the patent exams and October for the trademark exams). CIPO
held a consultation in 2009 and, despite the absence of opposition, the change
came into force only in 2013-14.
8 Whatadditionalmeasuresmightbenecessarytoprotectagainstbarrierstoentry
andmobilityofagents?
Barrierstoentryareaconcernregardingallregulatedprofessions,
generallyaddressedinrecenttimesunderdiscussionsof“fairaccess
topractice”.
IPIC’srecommendationsregardingtheCollegearesuchthatbarriers
willbemonitoredandkepttotheminimumpossiblethatensures
ongoingpublicprotection.
Thisrecommendationissupportedbythehistoryoftheprofession:
membersoftheprofessionhavegivenalotoftimeandenergyto
facilitateentryintheprofessionandIPIChasencouragedfairaccess
byimmigrants.
Protectagainstbarrierstoentry
First, it is important to note that, just as when the Canada Lands Surveyors
became self-regulated, the requirements for admissions are already in place and
have been set by government, not the profession.
Under IPIC’s proposal:
• The College will monitor those barriers and they will be kept to the
minimum possible that ensures ongoing public protection.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
195
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
•
It should put in place some of the recommendations of the Modernizing
the IP Community project:
o The exams should also test on ethics and on certain aspects of
foreign IP law and practice. Both of these elements are meant to
better protect the public and should not make it more difficult to
access the profession.
o Implement a pre-exam. This could be a multiple choice exam that
would help candidates rapidly assess their readiness for the main
exams. It should therefore help access to the profession, not hinder
it.
•
Implementing these changes would be done with the help of an exam
expert just as IPIC currently calls upon the services of such an expert for
its current work on the exams.
•
We do however think that more study is required before implementing the
recommendations from the Modernizing the IP Community report about
increasing fees according to the number of attempts or limiting those
attempts.
•
The College would further work on developing a clear competency-based
curriculum for trainers and students to help ensure that those taking the
exam have the necessary knowledge and skills.
•
It can also work with IPIC to determine if more courses should be
developed to support the curriculum.
•
The College will report annually to the Minister on admissions.
•
Given that standards of entry already exist, and that CIPO holds statistics
on entry into the profession, the Minister will have a baseline to evaluate
the work of the College on entry into the profession.
Ifthepastisanindicatorofthefuture…
The profession has invested a tremendous amount of time and effort, voluntarily,
to facilitate access to the profession:
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
196
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
•
IPIC offers introductory courses in partnership with McGill University
every summer.
•
Offers a patent agent training course that includes a classroom portion
and distance education portion. To increase accessibility to the course, the
classroom portion is now streamed on-line.
•
Offers a trademark agent training course that is completely via Internet.
•
Offers patent and trademark agent tutorials to prepare for the exams.
These are now done via webinars to increase accessibility.
(put brochures in appendix)
Every year, for the above courses, members of the profession give about
1,500 hours of their time (preparing, teaching, and marking exercises) to
essentially train their future competitors.
Furthermore, IPIC has a financial aid policy to assist some of the
candidates (see Annex B).
Exams
And IPIC worked to meet provincial and federal requirements to ensure
that the Patent Agent Training Course tuition fees are tax deductible in
order to facilitate access and ultimately maximize the public’s access to
these professionals.
While the responsibility for the exams rests currently with CIPO, most of
the work is done by members of the profession. In this regard, IPIC is
named in the Patent Rules and Trade-marks Regulations as the
organization that supplies examiners, in addition to CIPO.
We draw two conclusions from this:
•
The government recognized and continues to recognize the
expertise and integrity of the profession with regards to the aspect
of professional regulation that has the most impact on the
economy: the admission. It should do so for the other aspects of
regulation.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
197
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
•
While the volunteers for the exams receive a token honorarium,
most of the time that they give to prepare and mark the exams –
calling upon their knowledge and experience as agents to do so – is
done as a contribution to the profession. The value provided by the
profession to these exams is far larger than the fees paid by
candidates for these exams as illustrated below.
Examsoverthepast10years(estimates)
4 500 000
4 000 000
3 500 000
3 000 000
2 500 000
2 000 000
1 500 000
1 000 000
500 000
0
Value oftimegiven byprofession
Fees paidbycandidates
Mobility
Interprovincial issues are often an important obstacle in the mobility of
professionals. An advantage of a profession under federal jurisdiction is that
mobility of agents between provinces is not an issue.
As for mobility of agents from other countries who immigrate to Canada, IPIC
had recommended in a 2009 submission that the Patent Rules and Trade-marks
Regulations be amended to provide that someone who is registered with the IP
Office in another country and becomes a resident of Canada only has to do one
year, instead of the normal two years, of apprenticeship to be eligible to writing
the exams. This change has been implemented. The College should maintain this
rule and monitor the situation, as well as the guidelines from provincial Fairness
Commissioners, to determine if further changes are required.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
198
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
9 Whatmeasuresarenecessarytoensurethatthegovernancemodeliseffectivein
settingrulesandstandards,creatingincentivesforcompliance,monitoring
behaviours,andmaintainingaqualityagentcommunity?
Ethicalconductisanobjectiveofprofessionalregulationinprotectingthe
public.Fosteringandmaintaininganethicalcultureintheprofessionis
bestachievedbytheprofessionitselfasweillustratebelow.
The following definition found in a few federal and provincial statutes (e.g. the
Insurance Companies Act) is pretty much the extent of government involvement
in the regulation of Canadian actuaries:
“actuary means a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries”
Yet, this is a profession with high standards, few complaints, and recognized
around the world for its quality.
Similarly, patent and trademark agents, despite having few regulatory
requirements past the admission stage, form a profession with high standards, few
complaints, and that is recognized around the world for its quality.
Why?
To paraphrase the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau: A profession, after all, is not
something you build as the pharaohs built the pyramids, and then leave standing
there to defy eternity. A profession is something that is built every day out of
certain basic shared values.
Maintaining a quality agent community is not about setting rules and monitoring
behaviours. It is about members of the profession, those who chose this career,
creating in each other a strong sense of ethics.
The goal of regulating a profession is not about handling complaints and
disciplining agents, it is about preventing complaints by instilling ethical
behaviour. And no one is better than a peer to instill that behaviour.
As one committee member explained after attending a CLEAR symposium (see
Question 11 below for information about CLEAR), “if you consider competence
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
199
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
to be on a bell curve, the focus is on working with the majority to shift the center
of the bell curve to a higher standard, rather than focusing upon stragglers at the
bottom end of the curve.”
The profession has been successful in this regard because of a number of factors
including:
• Adopting a code of ethics in the 1920s
• Participating the admission exams
• The apprenticeship approach to entering the profession
• Many agents belonging to professions with a long history such as lawyers
and engineers
• Agents from other countries with a complete regulatory system moving
to Canada (in particular from the UK)
• Creating many opportunities to teach and to learn
This does not mean that we do not need a code and a discipline process. The
reason that the profession has been asking for self-regulation and the purpose of
creating the College is to sustain the excellence of the profession through all the
elements outlined in this submission (similar to what the Canadian Institute of
Actuaries and the other organization listed under Question 12 below have
accomplished).
In fact, self-regulation is more than just sustaining what already exists.
Implementation of self-regulation for patent and trademark agents will also
contribute to Canada’s innovation agenda by showing entrepreneurs that their
innovation professionals are regulated like the other professionals that they call
upon to grow their business.
10 Howcantheregulatorbestensureopenandtransparentgovernance?
Withself-regulationcomesopennessandtransparencythroughpublic
policiessuchasby-laws,publicmeetings,andpublicreportstothe
Minister.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
200
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
The first reason for this transparency is that in Canada, professional regulatory
bodies are democratic institutions. The College would be governed by the Canada
Not-for-profit Corporations Act and/or the legislation creating the College. This
means, for example, that the Council is accountable to the members and must
report on its activities at the Annual General Meeting.
Second, self-regulation will bring significant improvements over the current
situation in terms of transparency and reporting to the Minister and to the public.
For example, in the current context, as noted under Question 6, there is no clear
published process for removing an agent from the register. The College’s
disciplinary process would likely be in a by-law and thus a public document.
Also, because the regulation of patent and trademark agents is not part of CIPO’s
core functions, it receives little mention in CIPO’s annual reports or business
plans. For example, in the 2014-15 Annual Report, the only reference to the
regulation of agents is at page 18: “Implemented the new regulations regarding
trademark agents, which came into effect on April 1, 2014. New trademark agents
must now pass the qualifying exam before being entered on the list of trademark
agents.” A reader who knows where to look can find the number of candidates for
the exams in the on-line portion of the Annual Report, under statistics for the
Patent Appeal Board.
In contrast, professional regulatory bodies publish annual reports that focus on the
regulation of the profession. The College would provide such a report to the
Minister and make it available to the public.
In this regard, it is useful to look at the Regulations Respecting the Annual
Reports of Professional Orders that are made under Québec’s Professional Code.
These regulations provide a long list of possible elements of an annual report.
They would not be all applicable to the College but give us examples such as:
Thereportofactivitiesoftheboardofdirectorsmustcontain
(1)thenameofthepresident,themethodofthepresident’selectionandthe
dateonwhichthepresidenttookoffice;
(2)alistofdirectorsoftheboardofdirectors,thedateonwhichtheytook
office,indicatingwhethertheyhavebeenelectedorappointedand,forthe
electeddirectors,indicating,ifapplicable,theregionandthesectorof
professionalactivitytheyrepresent;
(3)thenumberofregularandspecialmeetingsoftheboardofdirectors;
(4)alistofemployeesoftheorderandtheirpositions;
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
201
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
(5)thedateoftheannualgeneralmeetingofthemembersoftheorder;and
(6)alistofthemainresolutionsadoptedbytheboardofdirectors.
Thereportofactivitiesofthedisciplinarycouncilmustcontain
(1)alistofmembersofthecouncil;
(2)thenumberofhearingsofthecouncil;
(3)thenumberandnatureofcomplaintsforwhichthehearingbythecouncil
hasbeencompleted,indicatingwhichcomplaintswerelodgedbythesyndicor
assistantsyndicandwhichwerelodgedbyanyotherperson;
(4)thenumberofdecisionsofthecouncilindicating
(a)whichdecisionsauthorizedthewithdrawalofthecomplaint;
(b)whichdecisionsrejectedthecomplaint;
(c)whichdecisionsacquittedtherespondent;
(d)whichdecisionsfoundtherespondentguilty;
(e)whichdecisionsacquittedtherespondentandwhichfoundthe
respondentguilty;
(f)whichdecisionsfoundtherespondentguiltyandimposedapenalty,
specifyingitsnature;and
(g)whichdecisionsimposedapenalty,specifyingitsnature;
(5)thenumberofrecommendationstotheboardofdirectorsaccordingtotheir
natureandthenumberofdecisionsoftheboardofdirectorsrelatingtothose
recommendations;
(6)thenumberofdecisionsrenderedbythecouncilwithin90daysfromthe
timethematterwastakenunderadvisement;
(7)thenumberofdecisionsonconvictionsorpenaltiesappealedtothe
ProfessionsTribunal;and
(8)thenumberofappealsofconvictionsorpenaltiesforwhichthehearingby
theProfessionsTribunalhasbeencompletedandthenumberofdecisions
made.
Thereportofactivitiesrelatingtotheunlawfulpracticeoftheprofession,if
applicable,andunauthorizeduseofareservedtitlemustcontain
(1)thenumberofinquiriescarriedout,indicatingwhichdealtwithunlawful
practice,whichdealtwithunauthorizeduseofareservedtitleandwhichdealt
withbothatthesametime;
(2)thenumberofpenalproceedingsinstituted,indicatingwhichdealtwith
unlawfulpractice,whichdealtwithunauthorizeduseofareservedtitleand
whichdealtwithbothatthesametime;and
(3)thenumberofjudgmentsrendered,indicatingwhichdealtwithunlawful
practice,whichdealtwithunauthorizeduseofareservedtitleandwhichdealt
withbothatthesametime,andindicatingwhichjudgmentsacquittedthe
respondentandwhichfoundtherespondentguilty,andthetotalfinesimposed.
Thereportontheactivitiesofanyothercommitteeestablishedbytheboardof
directorsthatconcernprotectionofthepublicmustcontain
(1)thenameofthecommitteeanditsfunction;
(2)alistofmembersofthecommittee;
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
202
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
(3)thenumberofmeetingsofthecommittee;and
(4)thesummaryoftheactivitiescarriedout.
Theannualreportmustcontain,ifapplicable,
(1)thenumberofpermitsissuedaccordingtocategory;
(2)thenumberofspecialist’scertificatesissuedaccordingtoclass;
(3)thenumberofspecialauthorizationsgrantedandthoserenewed;
(4)thenumberofregistrationsissued;
(5)thenumberofmembersenteredontherollattheendoftheperiodanda
breakdownaccordingto
(a)administrativeregioninaccordancewiththedescriptionandmapof
theboundariesinScheduleItotheDécretconcernantlarévisiondes
limitesdesrégionsadministrativesduQuébec(chapterD-11,r.1);
(b)sex;and
(c)theclassofmembersestablishedforthepurposesofthe
assessment;
(6)theamountoftheannualassessmentandofanyadditionalassessmentto
bepaidbythemembersorcertainclassesofmembers,andthedateonwhich
theymustbepaid;
11 Whatadditionalaccountabilitymechanismsshouldbeconsideredtoensure
fairnessandavoidregulatorycapture?
Oneoftheweaknessesofprofessionalregulationisthatpublicinterest
representativesmaynotknowhowtobeamemberofagoverning
body,norsufficientlyunderstandthebasicsofaprofession’sscopeof
practiceandthetypesofregulationapproachesthatbestworkin
protectingthepublicinterest.Weaddressthisissuebelowby
discussingapproachestotraining.
We propose that the Minister appoint members of the public to the governing
Council of the College.
The Council could make recommendations to the Minister as to its needs in terms
of competencies.
In line with the government’s approach to nominations, the positions could be
advertised like this June 2016 posting by Natural Resources Canada on the
website of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors:
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
203
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
204
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
As noted in the above advertisement and in our proposed disciplinary process, a
member of the public would sit on the Discipline Committee.
A second important element will be to provide training to all members of the Council
about its role in protecting the public interest.
For example, IPIC is a member organization of the Council on Licensure,
Enforcement & Regulation (CLEAR). CLEAR “promotes regulatory excellence
through conferences, educational programs, webinars, seminars and symposia.” It
offers training for regulatory board members. There may be other sources of training
but this would certainly be one that the College could consider.
Part of this training should include review of material prepared by the Ontario,
Manitoba, or Nova Scotia Fairness Commissioners. These offices were created to
(using Ontario as an example) “make sure that everyone who is qualified to practise
in a profession that is regulated in Ontario, in medicine, teaching or accounting for
example, can get a licence to practice here.” An example of useful material is the Fair
Registration Practices Code of the Office of the Manitoba Fairness Commissioner
(see Annex G).
It will also be important to provide training about the work of patent and trademark
agents to the members of the public who will sit on the Council.
12 HowdoesthegovernanceframeworkalignwiththewayIPagentsareregulated
globally?
The College proposal is aligned with the way IP agents are regulated globally because
it will be, as in other countries, a complete regulatory framework, including an
admission process, code of ethics, complaints and discipline process, and professional
requirements like CPD.
Model Three proposed in the consultation paper is similar to how agents are regulated
in the United Kingdom, a self-regulatory body with accountability to government.
The consultation paper mentions the Office of Enrolment and Discipline of the
USPTO as an example of Model One and the Professional Standards Board for Patent
and Trade Mark Attorneys in Australia as an example of Model Two. While they may
be appropriate for those countries, there is no evidence that they would be appropriate
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
205
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
in Canada. These organizations are a function of those countries’ traditions and
approaches to professional regulation. For example, in the United States, government
agencies play a more direct role in the regulation of professions than in Canada. To
consider implementing these examples in Canada would require a comprehensive
analysis of the context and of the results of these systems.
On the other hand, Model Three is well established in Canada with proven results.
Currently, the regulatory systems for patent agents, trademark agents, and licensed
insolvency trustees are anomalies in Canada. We don’t know if there is a reason for
this anomaly for insolvency trustees other than the long time it takes for professions
under federal jurisdiction, compared to those under provincial jurisdiction, to obtain
legislation for professional regulation. But we see no reason why the regulatory body
for patent and trademark agents should be different than these Canadian selfregulatory bodies:
National:
AssociationofCanadaLandsSurveyors
CanadianInstituteofActuaries
ImmigrationConsultantsofCanadaRegulatoryCouncil
Provincial:
AlbertaAssessors'Association
AlbertaCollegeofOccupationalTherapists
AlbertaCollegeofOptometrists
AlbertaCollegeofPharmacists
AlbertaCollegeofSocialWorkers
AlbertaCollegeofSpeech-LanguagePathologistsandAudiologists
AlbertaFuneralServicesRegulatoryBoard
AlbertaHumanEcologyandHomeEconomicsAssociation
AlbertaInstituteofAgrologists
AlbertaLandSurveyors'Association
AlbertaShorthandReportersAssociation
AppliedScienceTechnologistsandTechniciansofBC
ArchitectsAssociationofPrinceEdwardIsland
Architects’AssociationofNewBrunswick
ArchitecturalInstituteofBC
AssociationofBCForestProfessionals
AssociationofBCLandSurveyors
AssociationofInteriorDesignersofNovaScotia
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
206
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
AssociationofManitobaLandSurveyors
AssociationofNewfoundlandLandSurveyors
AssociationofNovaScotiaLandSurveyors
AssociationofOntarioLandSurveyors
AssociationofPrinceEdwardIslandLandSurveyors(APEILS)
AssociationofProfessionalEngineersandGeoscientistsofAlberta
AssociationofProfessionalEngineersandGeoscientistsofBC
AssociationofProfessionalEngineersandGeoscientistsofNewBrunswick
AssociationofProfessionalEngineersandGeoscientistsofSaskatchewan
AssociationofProfessionalEngineersofOntario
AssociationofProfessionalEngineersoftheProvinceofNovaScotia
AssociationofProfessionalGeoscientistsofNovaScotia
AssociationofProfessionalGeoscientistsofOntario
AssociationofRegisteredNursesofNewfoundlandandLabrador
AssociationofRegisteredNursesofPEI
AssociationofRegisteredProfessionalForestersofNewBrunswick
AssociationofSaskatchewanForestryProfessionals
BarreauduQuébec
BCCollegeofAppliedBiology
BCCollegeofChiropractors
BCCollegeofDentalHygienists
BCCollegeofDentalSurgeons
BCCollegeofDentalTechnicians
BCCollegeofDenturists
BCCollegeofDietitiansofBC
BCCollegeofLicensedPracticalNurses
BCCollegeofMassageTherapists
BCCollegeofMidwives
BCCollegeofNaturopathicPhysicians
BCCollegeofOccupationalTherapists
BCCollegeofOpticians
BCCollegeofPharmacists
BCCollegeofPhysicalTherapists
BCCollegeofPhysiciansandSurgeons
BCCollegeofPsychologists
BCCollegeofRegisteredNurses
BCCollegeofRegisteredPsychiatricNurses
BCCollegeofSocialWorkers
BCCollegeofTeachers
BCCollegeofTraditionalChineseMedicinePractitionersandAcupuncturists
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
207
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
BCEmergencyMedicalAssistants
BCInstituteofAgrologists
BCInstituteofCharteredAccountants
BCRegisteredMusicTeachers'Association
BCSocietyofLandscapeArchitects
BCVeterinaryMedicalAssociation
CertifiedGeneralAccountantsAssociationofNovaScotia
CertifiedTechniciansandTechnologistsAssociationofManitoba
CGAAssociationoftheNorthwestTerritories/Nunavut
ChambredeshuissiersdeJusticeduQuébec
ChambredesnotairesduQuébec
CharteredProfessionalAccountantsAlberta
CharteredProfessionalAccountantsBritishColumbia
CharteredProfessionalAccountantsManitoba
CharteredProfessionalAccountantsNewBrunswick
CharteredProfessionalAccountantsOntario
CharteredProfessionalAccountantsPrinceEdwardIsland
CharteredProfessionalAccountantsSaskatchewan
CharteredProfessionalAccountantsNewfoundlandandLabrador
ChiropractorsAssociationofnewBrunswick
Chiropractors'AssociationofSaskatchewan
CMANorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut
College&AssociationofRegisteredNursesofAlberta
CollegeandAssociationofRespiratoryTherapistsofAlberta
CollègedesMédecinsduQuébec
CollegeofAlbertaProfessionalForestTechnologists
CollegeofAlbertaProfessionalForesters
CollegeofAlbertaPsychologists
CollegeofAudiologistsandSpeech–LanguagePathologistsofManitoba
CollegeofAudiologistsandSpeech-LanguagePathologistsofOntario
CollegeofChiropodistsofOntario
CollegeofChiropractorsofOntario
CollegeofDentalHygienistsofManitoba
CollegeofDentalHygienistsofOntario
CollegeofDentalSurgeonsofSaskatchewan
CollegeofDentalTechnologistsofOntario
CollegeofDenturistsofOntario
CollegeofDietitiansofManitoba
CollegeofDietitiansofOntario
CollegeofEarlyChildhoodEducators
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
208
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
CollegeofLicensedPracticalNursesofManitoba
CollegeofLicensedPracticalNursesofNovaScotia
CollegeofMassageTherapistsofOntario
CollegeofMedicalLaboratoryTechnologistsofManitoba
CollegeofMedicalLaboratoryTechnologistsofOntario
CollegeofMedicalRadiationTechnologistsofOntario
CollegeofMidwivesofManitoba
CollegeofMidwivesofNewfoundlandandLabrador
CollegeofMidwivesofOntario
CollegeofNursesofOntario
CollegeofOccupationalTherapistsofNovaScotia
CollegeofOccupationalTherapistsofOntario
CollegeofOpticiansofAlberta
CollegeofOpticiansofOntario
CollegeofOptometristsofBritishColumbia
CollegeofOptometristsofOntario
CollegeofPharmacistsofManitoba
CollegeofPharmacistsofOntario
CollegeofPhysicians&SurgeonsofAlberta
CollegeofPhysiciansandSurgeonsofManitoba
CollegeofPhysiciansandSurgeonsofNewfoundlandandLabrador
CollegeofPhysiciansandSurgeonsofNovaScotia
CollegeofPhysiciansandSurgeonsofOntario
CollegeofPhysiciansandSurgeonsofPEI
CollegeofPhysiotherapistsofNewBrunswick
CollegeofPhysiotherapistsofOntario
CollegeofPhysiotherapistsofPrinceEdwardIsland
CollegeofPodiatricPhysiciansofAlberta
CollegeofPsychologistsofNewBrunswick
CollegeofPsychologistsofOntario
CollegeofRegisteredNursesofManitoba
CollegeofRegisteredNursesofNovaScotia
CollegeofRegisteredPsychiatricNursesofManitoba
CollegeofRespiratoryTherapistsofOntario
CollegeofVeterinariansofOntario
CorporationofTranslators,TerminologistsandInterpretersofNewBrunswick
CosmetologyAssociationofNovaScotia
DentalAssociationofPEI
DentalSpecialistsNewBrunswickDentalSociety
DentalTechniciansAssociationofSaskatchewan
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
209
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
DenturistAssociationofManitoba
DenturistAssociationofNewfoundland&Labrador
DenturistLicensingBoard
DenturistSocietyofSaskatchewan
EngineersGeoscientistsManitoba
EngineersPEI
FuneralandCremationServicesCouncilofSaskatchewan
InstituteofCharteredAccountantsofNovaScotia
InstituteofCharteredAccountantsoftheNorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut
InteriorDesignersAssociationofSaskatchewan
LandSurveyorsAssociationofNewBrunswick
LawSocietyofAlberta
LawSocietyofManitoba
LawSocietyofNewBrunswick
LawSocietyofNewfoundlandandLabrador
LawSocietyofNunavut
LawSocietyofPrinceEdwardIsland
LawSocietyofSaskatchewan
LawSocietyoftheNorthwestTerritories
LawSocietyofUpperCanada
LawSocietyofYukon
LicensedPracticalNursesAssociationofNewBrunswick
LicensedPracticalNursesAssociationofPEI
LicensedProfessionalPlannersAssociationofNovaScotia
LicensingHearingAidPractitionersinNewfoundlandandLabrador
ManitobaAssociationofRegisteredRespiratoryTherapists
ManitobaAssociationsofOptometrists
ManitobaChiropractorsAssociation
ManitobaCollegeofSocialWorkers
ManitobaDentalAssociation
ManitobaNaturopathicAssociation
ManitobaPhysiotherapyAssociation
ManitobaSocietyofOccupationalTherapists
ManitobaVeterinaryMedicalAssociation
MedicalLaboratoryTechnologistsNewBrunswick
MidwiferyRegulatoryCouncilofNovaScotia
NewBrunswickAssociationofDietitians
NewBrunswickAssociationofOccupationalTherapists
NewBrunswickAssociationofSocialWorkers
NewBrunswickAssociationofSpeech-LanguagePathologistsandAudiologists
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
210
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
NewBrunswickDentalAssistants’Association
NewBrunswickDentalSociety
NewBrunswickDentalTechniciansAssociation
NewBrunswickDenturistsSociety
NewBrunswickInstituteofAgrologists
NewBrunswickPharmaceuticalSociety
NewBrunswickPodiatryAssociation
NewBrunswickRealEstateAssociation
NewBrunswickSocietyofCertifiedEngineeringTechniciansandTechnologists
NewBrunswickVeterinaryMedicalAssociation
NewBrunswickAssociationofOptometrists
Newfoundland&LabradorAssociationofArchitects
Newfoundland&LabradorAssociationofOptometrists
Newfoundland&LabradorChiropracticAssociation
Newfoundland&LabradorCollegeOfPhysiotherapists
Newfoundland&LabradorPsychologyBoard
Newfoundland&LabradorDentalAssociation
NewfoundlandandLabradorVeterinaryMedicalAssociation
NewfoundlandandLabradorAssociationofSocialWorkers
NewfoundlandandLabradorCollegeofDietitians
NewfoundlandandLabradorInstituteofAgrologists
NewfoundlandLabradorOccupationalTherapyBoard
NovaScotiaAssociationofArchitects
NovaScotiaAssociationofMedicalRadiationTechnologists
NovaScotiaAssociationofRealEstateAppraisers
NovaScotiaAssociationofSocialWorkers
NovaScotiaBarristers’Society
NovaScotiaCollegeofChiropractors
NovaScotiaCollegeofCounsellingTherapists
NovaScotiaCollegeofDispensingOpticians
NovaScotiaCollegeofMedicalLaboratoryTechnologists
NovaScotiaCollegeofOptometrists
NovaScotiaCollegeofPharmacists
NovaScotiaCollegeofPhysiotherapists
NovaScotiaCollegeofRespiratoryTherapists
NovaScotiaDentalHygienists'Association
NovaScotiaDentalTechniciansAssociation
NovaScotiaDieteticAssociation
NovaScotiaInstituteofAgrologists
NovaScotiaRealEstateCommission
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
211
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
NovaScotiaRegisteredBarbersAssociation
NovaScotiaRegisteredMusicTeachersAssociation
NovaScotiaVeterinaryMedicalAssociation
NursePractitionersNursesAssociationofNewBrunswick
OntarioAssociationofArchitects
OntarioAssociationofCertifiedEngineeringTechniciansandTechnologists
OntarioCollegeofSocialWorkersandSocialServiceWorkers
OntarioCollegeofTeachers
OntarioProfessionalForestersAssociation
OpticiansAssociationofNewBrunswick
OpticiansofManitoba
OrdredesacupuncteursduQuébec
OrdredesadministrateursagréésduQuébec
OrdredesagronomesduQuébec
OrdredesarchitectesduQuébec
Ordredesarpenteurs-géomètresduQuébec
OrdredesaudioprothésistesduQuébec
OrdredeschimistesduQuébec
OrdredesChiropraticiensduQuébec(OCQ)
OrdredesconseillersenressourceshumainesetenrelationsindustriellesagréésduQuébec
Ordredesconseillersetconseillèresd’orientationduQuébec
OrdredesCPAduQuébec
OrdredesdentistesduQuébec
OrdredesdenturologistesduQuébec
OrdredesergothérapeutesduQuébec
OrdredesévaluateursagréésduQuébec
OrdredesgéologuesduQuébec
OrdredeshygiénistesdentairesduQuébec
OrdredesinfirmièresetdesinfirmiersauxiliairesduQuébec(OIIQ)
OrdredesinfirmièresetdesinfirmiersduQuébec(OIIQ)
OrdredesIngénieursduQuébec
OrdredesIngénieursforestiersduQuébec
OrdredesinhalothérapeutesduQuébec
OrdredesmédecinsvétérinairesduQuébec
Ordredesopticiensd'ordonnancesduQuébec
OrdredesoptométristesduQuébec
OrdredesorthophonistesetaudiologistesduQuébec
OrdredespharmaciensduQuébec
OrdredespodiatresduQuébec
OrdredespsychoéducateursduQuébec
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
212
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
OrdredespsychologuesduQuébec
Ordredessage-femmesduQuébec
OrdredestechniciensettechniciennesdentairesduQuébec
Ordredestechnologuesenimageriemédicale,enradio-oncologieetenélectrophysiologiemédicaleduQuébe
OrdredestechnologuesprofessionnelsduQuébec
Ordredestraducteurs,terminologuesetinterprètesagréésduQuébec
OrdredestravailleurssociauxetdesthérapeutesconjugauxetfamiliauxduQuébec
OrdredesurbanistesduQuébec
OrdreprofessionneldelaphysiothérapieduQuébec
OrdreprofessionneldescriminologuesduQuébec
OrdreprofessionneldesdiététistesduQuébec
OrdreprofessionneldessexologuesduQuébec
OrdreprofessionneldestechnologistesmédicauxduQuébec
ParamedicsAssociationofNewBrunswick
PEIAssociationofMedicalRadiationTechnologists
PEICollegeofOptometrists
PEIHairdressersAssociation
PEIVeterinaryMedicalAssociation
Pharmacists’AssociationofNewfoundlandandLabrador
PhysiciansandSurgeonsCollegeofPhysiciansandSurgeonsofNewBrunswick
PhysiotherapyAlberta-College+Association
PrinceEdwardIslandChiropracticAssociation
PrinceEdwardIslandCollegeofPharmacists
PrinceEdwardIslandInstituteofAgrologists
ProfessionalEngineersandGeoscientistsNewfoundland&Labrador
ProvincialDentalBoardofNovaScotia
PsychologicalAssociationofManitoba
RealEstateCouncilofAlberta
RegisteredNursesAssociationofNewBrunswick
RegisteredProfessionalForestersAssociationofNovaScotia
RegisteredPsychiatricNursesAssociationofSaskatchewan
RoyalCollegeofDentalSurgeonsofOntario
SaskatchewanAppliedScienceTechnologistsandTechnicians
SaskatchewanAssociationofArchitects
SaskatchewanAssociationofLicensedPracticalNurses
SaskatchewanAssociationofMedicalRadiationTechnologists
SaskatchewanAssociationofNaturopathicPractitioners
SaskatchewanAssociationofOptometrists
SaskatchewanAssociationofSpeech-LanguagePathologistsandAudiologists
SaskatchewanCollegeofMidwives
SaskatchewanCollegeofOpticians
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
213
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
SaskatchewanCollegeofParamedics
SaskatchewanCollegeofPharmacyProfessionals
SaskatchewanDentalAssistants'Association
SaskatchewanDentalHygienists'Association
SaskatchewanDentalTherapistsAssociation
SaskatchewanDietitiansAssociation
SaskatchewanInstituteofAgrologists
SaskatchewanProfessionalPlannersInstitute
SaskatchewanRegisteredNurses'Association
SaskatchewanSocietyofMedicalLaboratoryTechnologists
SaskatchewanSocietyofOccupationalTherapists
SocietyofCertifiedEngineeringTechniciansandTechnologistsofNovaScotia
SocietyofCertifiedManagementAccountantsofNewfoundlandand
SocietyofManagementAccountantsofNovaScotia
SocietyofMedicalLaboratoryTechnologistsofNewBrunswick
SocietyofNotariesPublicofBC
13 Whatmeasuresarenecessarytoensuretheregulatorisaccountabletothepublic
interest?
• Reporting to the Minister and to the public as outlined under Question 10
• Appointment and training of members of the public as outlined under
Question 11
• Provision in the legislation to allow the Minister to intervene if the College is
not acting in the public interest. In this regard, the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations include an explanation of the first step in the process if
the Minister were to intervene at 13.2(2):
If the ability of the designated body to govern its members in a
manner that is in the public interest so that they provide
professional and ethical representation and advice appears to be
compromised, the body must provide to the Minister — within 10
business days after the day on which the body receives from the
Minister a notice indicating the existence of such a situation and
setting out any information or documents from among those
referred to in paragraphs (1)(c) to (t) that are necessary to assist
the Minister to evaluate whether the body governs its members in a
manner that is in the public interest so that they provide
professional and ethical representation and advice — the
documents or information set out in the notice.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
214
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
14 Whatshouldbethereviewmechanismforthecodeundereachofthemodels?
IPIC recommends that the College maintain an Ethics Committee to monitor trend
and developments that could require changes to the code (such as court decisions,
complaints, insurance claims, and best practices in the self-regulation of
professions).
When judged appropriate, the Committee and the Council would post a revised
code inviting comments from members and from the public. If useful, webinars or
other forms of presentation could be held to explain the changes.
The Committee would then finalize the changes. If the consultation brought
significant changes, then the draft revisions should be reposted for further
consultation.
Once that is finished, the Council would approve the code for vote by the
members and, depending on the College by-laws, the process would end with that
decision or the code could be submitted to a vote by members at the AGM of the
College.
This would be similar to the process currently followed by IPIC: a sub-committee
of the Professional Regulation Committee made revisions, webinars were held in
French and English to explain the changes, the code was available for comments
and was approved by IPIC Council before being proposed for a vote at the AGM.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
215
VIII.QuestionsandAnswers
Conflicts
15 Intheeventofadirectconflictbetweenthecodeofconductforagentsand
anothercodeofconducttheagentisrequiredtofollow(forexample,aprovincial
lawsocietycode),suchthatitwouldbeimpossibletofollowonecodewithout
violatingtheother,whichcodeshouldprevail?
This potential situation has existed since IPIC adopted a code of ethics in the
1920s given that many members of IPIC are patent agents and/or trademark
agents and/or lawyers and/or engineers and/or members of another profession. But
we are not aware of issues arising from this situation. This is likely because of
IPIC has been careful to adopt codes that would not be in conflict with law society
codes.
Also, the purpose of regulation is to protect the public. The best regulation
generates practitioner behaviour as second nature thinking that protecting the
public, and their client, is each individual’s primary purpose. A code of conduct is
merely one of the tools to meeting that goal. Agents, like other professionals,
carefully weigh ethical considerations and think of protecting the public interest
when making decisions. With self-regulation, the profession can collectively
address such issues if they arise (see Question 14) as well as providing guidance
to help agents who must make a decision under such circumstances.
16 Whatmeasures,ifany,arerequiredtoaccountforasituationwhereanactionby
anagent/lawyerviolatesthecodeofconductofmultipleregimes?
As for all professions in Canada, the College should not be formally involved
in the disciplinary process of other regulatory bodies. A self-regulated body
can only be responsible for its own discipline process.
However, as outlined in our proposed disciplinary process, collaboration is
desirable when more than professional body is involved. (see Section IV)
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
216
IX.ContactInformation
MembersofIPICandmembersofthepublicarewelcometosend
commentsorquestionsaboutthisdocumentto
[email protected]
ofCanadaat613-234-0516.
217
Annexes
A
IPIC response to consultation on code of conduct
B
IPIC Financial Aid Policy
C
French version of proposed Code of Ethics
D
French version of proposed discipline process
E
Right-touch Regulation
F
Evaluation of ICCRC
G
Manitoba Fair Registration Practices
Annex A IPIC response to consultation on code of conduct
Consultation: A Governance Framework for IP Agents
Part 1: Code of Conduct
Submission to
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
By the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
June 13, 2016
SubmissioninResponsetotheFirstPartoftheConsultationona
GovernanceFrameworkforIPAgents–theCodeofConduct
Introduction
IPIC
TheIntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada(IPIC)istheprofessionalassociationofpatent
agents,trademarkagentsandlawyerspractisinginallareasofintellectualproperty(IP)law.Our
membershiptotalsover1,700individuals,consistingofpractitionersinlawfirmsandagenciesof
allsizes,solepractitioners,in-housecorporateintellectualpropertyprofessionals,government
personnel,andacademics.Ourmembers’clientsincludevirtuallyallCanadianbusinesses,
universitiesandotherinstitutionsthathaveaninterestinintellectualproperty(e.g.patents,
trademarks,copyrightandindustrialdesigns)inCanadaorelsewhere,andalsoforeign
companieswhoholdintellectualpropertyrightsinCanada.
Theconsultation
IPIC’sconstitutionincludestheobjectiveto“ensurehighlevelsofknowledge,training,and
ethicsinCanadianintellectualpropertypractitioners.”Wethereforeaffordgreatimportanceto
thisconsultationbyInnovation,ScienceandEconomicDevelopmentCanada(ISED)in
conjunctionwiththeCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO).
TheInstitutehasmaintained–andistheonlyorganizationtohavedoneso–acodeofethicsfor
themajorityofCanadianpatentandtrademarkagentsduringthepast90years.Wetherefore
wanttoemphasizethatthemainissueregardingacodeofconductforpatentandtrademark
agentsisnotthelackofsuchacode,butratherthepossibilityofenforcingit.Withregardto
enforcement,therearetwoissues:
•
•
AlthoughIPIChasacodeofethics,becauseitisavoluntaryassociationandnotthe
regulatoroftheprofession,itsabilitytoenforceitislimited.
TheIPICcodeappliestoamajorityofagents(IPICmembers)butnotallregistered
agents.
Wethereforewelcomethesecondpartofthegovernment’sconsultation,thegovernance
model,andwewillrespondwithourproposalforamoderngovernanceframework.
Evenmoreimportantthanenforcingacode,isensuringthatprofessionalsunderstanditand
willinglyabidebythecode.Thepurposeofaregulatorysystemshouldnotbeto“catchinthe
act”agentswhodonotfollowthecodebutrathertoinstillasenseofethicsandhighstandards
ofpracticeinallmembersoftheprofession.IPIChasbeendoingsofor90yearsandwebelieve
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
2
thatanorganizationmanagedbytheprofessionwillbethebestwayofdoingsointhefuture.
ThisapproachhasexistedforprofessionalsinCanadasincebeforeConfederation.
Thecode
Since1926,periodicrevisionshavebeenmadetotheInstitute’scodeofethicsandIPIC’scurrent
codewasadoptedbythemembershipin2001.
Aspartofourethicseducationactivities,weheldawebinarinNovember2011andreceived
suggestionsfrommemberstoupdateourcode,especiallyaboutconflictsgivenSupremeCourt
decisionsonthisissueinrecentyears.
IPIC’sProfessionalRegulationCommitteethencreatedasub-committeewhichlookedatthe
newModelCodeofProfessionalConductoftheFederationofLawSocieties,theUnitedStates
PatentandTrademarkOffice’sRulesofProfessionalConduct,andtheAmericanBarAssociation
ModelRulesofProfessionalConduct.ThecommitteeproposedrevisionstoIPIC’scurrentcode,
andaddedsectionsfromtheFederationofLawSocietiesModelCodetomeettheFederation’s
objectiveofeliminatinganysignificantdifferencesinrulesofconductacrossthecountry.
In2013,CIPOinitiatedtheModernizingtheIPCommunityproject.Toavoidduplicationof
efforts,weprovidedourdraftrevisedcodetotheworkinggroups.Thedraftwasincludedasan
appendixtothereportwiththerecommendationthatallagents(notjustIPICmembers)should
besubjecttoacodebasedonthedraftrevisedIPICcodeandalignedwiththeFederation’s
code.InIPIC’sresponsetothe2014consultationonthatreport,weindicatedthatthiscodehad
notyetbeenadoptedbymembers.
Beforeournextstepwiththisdraft–consultingIPICmemberstowardsadoption–wewantedto
getasenseofhowtheregulationofagentswouldevolveafterthis2014report,withtheidea
thatadoptioncouldbeinthecontextofcreatinganewregulatorybody.Wedidn’texpectthat
thegovernmentwoulditselfholdafurtherconsultationonthecode.Therefore,thedraft
revisedcodethatisthesubjectoftheconsultationhasnotyetbeenadoptedbythemembersof
IPIC.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
3
Recommendations
Weunderstandthegovernment’sdesiretohaveinplaceacodetoguidetheworkofagents
giventhecomingintoforceofprivilegeforcommunicationsbetweenclientsandtheiragents.
Webelievethatthebestapproachwouldbetoadoptacodeforallagentsinthecontextofa
completeregulatoryframework,underaself-regulatorymodel.However,ifthegovernment
prefersaninterimmeasure,werecommendthefollowing:
1.UseIPIC’scurrentCodeofEthics
Thiscodeisappendedtothissubmission.
IPICispursuing,beyondtheJune13deadline,aconsultationofitsmembersonthedraftrevised
codetowardsadoptionattheAnnualGeneralMeetingattheendofSeptember.Therefore,if
thegovernmentweretofollowtheprincipleofusingtheIPICCodeofEthicsinforceandas
amendedfromtimetotime,thenewadoptedcode(whichwilllikelybeverysimilartothecode
thatissubjectoftheconsultation)couldautomaticallyreplacethecurrentcode.
Reasons:
• Unlessthegovernmentintendstoplaceinregulationsthecodeofconduct–whichwe
don’trecommend–usingIPIC’scodecarriesmoreweightbecauseithasbeenadopted
byagroupwidelyrepresentativeoftheprofession.AlreadyIPICisnamedinthePatent
RulesandTrade-marksRegulationsastheorganizationoutsideofCIPOthatsupplies
membersoftheagentexamboards.Ifthegovernmentrecognizesthequalificationof
IPICwithregardtoentryintotheprofession,whynotregardingethics,especiallyasan
interimmeasure?
• Theconsultationpaperraisesquestionsaboutpotentialconflictsbetweencodeswhen
agentsbelongtomorethanoneprofessionalregulatorybody.Wewillanswerthose
questionsinoursubmissiontothesecondpartoftheconsultationastheseissues
includedisciplinequestions.
However,beforeconsideringconflictsbetweendifferentprofessions,thegovernment
mustfirstconsiderconflictswithinthesameprofession.Howwillconflictsberesolvedif
CIPOusesacodethatisdifferentthanIPIC’scode?
• Afirstissueisthattheconsultationpaperdoesnotexplainhowthegovernment
intendstousethiscode.
• AsecondissueisthatagentsagreetoadheretotheIPICcodebybecoming
membersbutthereisnorequirementtoadheretoacodeusedbyCIPO.
• Furtherworkisrequiredonthedraftcode.Forexample,thedraftrevisionputforward
bygovernmentincludessectionsofthe2012ModelCodeoftheFederationofLaw
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
4
Societies.TheFederationhassincemaderevisionstothecodeandiscurrentlyholdinga
consultationonfurtherrevisions.Weneedtostudytheserevisionstodeterminewhich
areapplicabletoacodeforagents.Weintendtodosointhecomingweeks.Other
examplesincludethepossibleadditionoftexttoRule2(Confidentiality)becauseofthe
privilegestatuteandarequiredrevisionexplainedunderthenextrecommendation.
2.RemoveRule3.4pendingfurtherstudy
IfthegovernmentdecidestousethedraftrevisedcodedespiteRecommendation1,weaskthat
theruleandthecommentaryforRule3.4beremoved.However,theheadershouldbekeptto
indicatethattheissueofConcurrentRepresentationisbeingconsideredandanotecouldbe
includedtotheeffectthatthisruleisunderdevelopment.
IPICwillstudythisfurtherandworkondevelopingaruleand/orcommentaryforthistopic.
Reasons:
Tohelpmembersunderstandthisconsultationbygovernmentandthecodethatissubjectof
theconsultation,IPICheldwebinarsonJune3(English)andJune6(French).Wehavereceived
feedbackfrommemberswithseriousconcernsaboutRule3.4.Theconcernsareasmuchforthe
agentsasforinnovatorswhomayloseaccesstotheexpertiseoftheagentthattheycurrently
callupon.
Rule3.4appearstobemodeledonRule3.4-4oftheModelCodeofProfessionalConductofthe
FederationofLawSocietiesofCanada.
IPICbelievesthattheapplicationofRule3.4-4oftheFederationModelCodeisuncertaininthe
contextofpatentandtrademarkagencypractice.Inparticular,thescopeoftheexpression
“competinginterests”isnotclear,andnoelaborationisprovidedintheassociatedcommentary
inthedraftrevisedcode.
Incontrast,theFederation’sModelCode,providesahelpfulexample:
Anexampleisalawfirmactingforanumberofsophisticatedclientsinamattersuchas
competingbidsinacorporateacquisitioninwhich,althoughtheclients’interestsare
divergentandmayconflict,theclientsarenotinadispute.Providedthateachclientis
representedbyadifferentlawyerinthefirmandthereisnorealriskthatthefirmwill
notbeabletoproperlyrepresentthelegalinterestsofeachclient,thefirmmay
representbotheventhoughthesubjectmatteroftheretainersisthesame.Whetheror
notariskofimpairmentofrepresentationexistsisaquestionoffact.
Thereisnocounterpartinpatentortrademarkagencypracticetorepresentinganumberof
clientspresentingcompetingbidsinacorporateacquisition.Equivalentcircumstances,that
mightconstitute“competinginterests”inthecontextofpatentortrademarkagencypractice,
arenotdescribed.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
5
“Thelawofconflictsismainlyconcernedwithtwotypesofprejudice:prejudiceasa
resultofthelawyer’smisuseofconfidentialinformationobtainedfromaclient;and
prejudicearisingwherethelawyer‘softpeddles’hisrepresentationofaclientinorder
toservehisowninterests,thoseofanotherclient,orthoseofathirdperson”:CNv
McKercherLLP2013SCC39at¶23.
Theaboveexampleofcompetingbidsinacorporateacquisitionclearlyinvokesbothformsof
prejudicedescribedinMcKercher.First,thelawfirmwouldknowe.g.thedollarvalueofthebid
eachclientismakingforthetargetcompany—clearlycriticalconfidentialinformation.Second,
thereisasingletargetcompanytoacquire,andonlyoneoftheclientscanprevail—therisksand
consequencesoffavouringoneclient’sinterestsovertheinterestofanotheraresubstantial.
Furtherstudywouldberequiredinordertoassesswhatcircumstancesmightconstitutesimilar
competinginterestsinpatentandtrademarkagencypractice,raisingsignificantissuesof
potentialmisuseofconfidentialinformation,orjeopardizingthelikelihoodofeffective
representation.
Accordingly,IPICrecommendsthatRule3.4bedeletedfromthedraftCode,pendingfurther
study.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
6
Questions
TheconsultationpaperincludesthesequestionsrelatedtotheCodeofConduct:
1 Doesthedraftcodecoveralltherightelements?Keepinginmindthatacodeisa“living
document”thatevolvesastheprofessionandjurisprudenceevolves,webelievethat
itdoescoveralltherightelementsatthistime.
Areanyelementsmissing?Asindicatedabove,somefurtherrevisionsareneededbut
webelievethatnosignificantelementsaremissing.
Areanychangesnecessarybeforeimplementation?Yes–seeRecommendation2.
2 Shouldthecodeofconductorotherapplicableregulationsclearlydefinewhatactivities
qualifyaspermittedpracticeinfrontofthepatentortrademarksoffice?
InCanada,professionalcodesofconductdonotdefinetheactivities(theydon’tdefine
whattheprofessionalspracticebutaddresshowtheypractice).
ThePatentActandRulesandTrade-marksActandRegulationsalreadydefinethe
activitiesthatqualifyaspermittedpracticeinfrontofthepatentandtrademarks
offices.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
7
Conclusion
Creatingamoderngovernanceframeworkforpatentandtrademarkagentsisnotonlya
questionofestablishingrulesandenforcingthem.Itisaboutinstillingethicalbehaviourand
fosteringaculturewheremembersoftheprofessionstrivetoachievehighstandards.
Theprofessionofpatentandtrademarkagentshasmaintainedthosehighethicalstandards.
OneofthecontributingfactorshasbeenthecodeofethicsmaintainedbyIPIC.
Werecommendthat,ifthegovernmentseeksaninterimmeasurebeforetheimplementationof
anewgovernanceframework,itusestheIPICCodeofEthicsinforceandasamendedfromtime
totime.
Afterthatinterimmeasure,theprofessionshouldbepermittedtoimplementthenew
governanceframework.Inthisregard,IPICwillputforward,inresponsetothesecondpartof
theconsultation,aproposalforamoderngovernanceframeworktosustaintheprofession’s
excellenceandprotectthepublicinterest.
IntellectualPropertyInstituteofCanada
8
Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Code of Ethics
(as of March 6, 2001)
Nothing in the Code shall affect the more onerous obligations or rights of the agent with respect
to the agent's obligations under any other statute, regulation or code of ethics.
Definitions
"agent" includes a registered trade-mark agent, a registered patent agent and a member of the
Intellectual Property Institute of Canada and further includes a patent or trade-mark agent trainee
where appropriate in the context of any particular Rule of this Code.
“client” means any natural person or legal entity that takes advice or asks services of the agent or
who seeks such services directly or indirectly on behalf of others.
“member of the Institute” means an individual who has been admitted by the Intellectual Property
Institute of Canada into one of its classes of membership.
FUNDAMENTAL CANON
The most important attribute of a member of the Institute is integrity. This principle is
implicit in this Code of Ethics and in each of the Rules and Commentaries thereunder. Over
and above the possibility of formal sanction under any of the rules in this Code, an agent
must at all times conduct himself or herself with integrity and competence in accordance with
the highest standards of the profession so as to retain the trust, respect and confidence of
members of the profession and the public.
1. COMPETENCE
PRINCIPLE
An agent owes the client a duty to be competent to perform any agency services undertaken on
the client’s behalf.
Rules
1.
An agent must not undertake or continue any matter without honestly feeling competent
to handle it, or able to become competent without undue delay, risk or expense to the client or
without associating with another agent who is competent to handle the matter. An agent must
promptly advise the client whenever it is reasonably perceived that the agent may not be
competent to perform a particular task and whenever practical, provide reference to those known
to the agent as likely to have such competence.
2.
An agent must assume complete professional responsibility for all business entrusted to the
agent, maintaining direct supervision over staff and assistants such as trainees, students, clerks
and legal assistants to whom particular tasks and functions may be delegated.
3.
An agent must maintain appropriate office procedures and systems including without
limitation, systems for meeting the requirements for all deadlines arising from client matters and
for handling and maintaining client affairs without prejudicing client affairs.
4.
An agent should keep abreast of developments in the branches of law wherein the agent’s
practice lies by engaging in study and education.
5.
An agent conducting agency practice other than for an employer must maintain a
professional liability policy from a reputable insurer for at least the amount recommended by the
Institute.
Commentary
Competence in a particular matter involves more than an understanding of the relevant legal
principles: it involves an adequate knowledge of the practice and procedures by which such
principles can be effectively applied.
An agent who practices alone or operates a branch or a part-time office should ensure that all
matters requiring an agent's professional skill and judgment are dealt with directly by an agent
qualified to do the work.
2. CONFIDENTIALITY
PRINCIPLE
An agent has a duty to preserve the confidences and secrets of clients.
Rules
1.
An agent must hold in strict confidence all information concerning the business and affairs
of the client acquired in the course of the professional relationship, and must not divulge such
information unless such disclosure is expressly or impliedly authorized by the client, required by
law or otherwise permitted or required by this Code.
2.
An agent must exercise reasonable care to prevent the agent's employees, associates and
others whose services are utilized by the agent from disclosing or using such confidential
information.
3.
The agent must continue to hold in confidence such information despite conclusion of the
matter or termination of the professional relationship with the client.
4.
An agent must guard against participating in or commenting upon speculation concerning
the client's affairs or business even if certain facts are public knowledge.
5.
An agent must not disclose any information disclosed to the agent in confidence
concerning a client’s business or affairs regardless of its source, other than facts that are a matter
of public record.
2
6.
When disclosure is required by law or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, the
agent must always be careful not to divulge more information than is required.
7.
Disclosure of confidential information to the Institute when required to do so by the
Institute may be justified in order to establish or correct a fee, or to defend the agent or the
agent’s associates or employees against any allegation of malpractice or misconduct, but only to
the extent necessary for such purposes and no more.
Commentary
An agent should take care to avoid inadvertent disclosure to one client of confidential information
concerning or received from another client and should decline employment that might require
such disclosure, unless the first client, after full disclosure, consents.
3. CONFLICTS
PRINCIPLE
In each matter, an agent’s judgment and fidelity to the client’s interest must be free from
compromising influences.
Rules
1.
An agent must not advise or represent both sides of a dispute or potential dispute.
2.
The agent must not act for a party where the agent has confidential information that could
be used to the disadvantage of another client or former client, except with the consent of the other
client or former client, after full disclosure.
3.
The agent must ensure that his or her relationship with the client and any other person or
firm involved in any matter on which the agent is giving advice to the client does not and will not
lead to a situation where there is or is likely to be a conflict between the interests of the client and
the agent.
4.
In the case of a firm of agents where at least one of the agents of the firm has confidential
information that could be used to the disadvantage of another client or former client of the firm,
and the firm acts only for one of the clients, appropriate steps must be taken to maintain such
confidential information and ensure that it is not used to the disadvantage of the client or former
client such that a reasonably informed person would be satisfied that no use of confidential
information would occur. When an agent transfers from one firm to another, the agent and the
new firm must ensure that all reasonable and proper measures are taken to maintain the
confidentiality of information relating to the clients of the former firm, such that a reasonably
informed person would be satisfied that no use of confidential information would occur.
3
5.
Subject to Rule 6 below, the agent must not enter into a business transaction with a
client, or knowingly give to or acquire from the client an ownership, security or other monetary
interest in an intellectual property right related to the agent’s professional advice, unless:
a)
the transaction is a fair and reasonable one in the circumstances and its terms are
fully disclosed to the client in writing in a manner that is reasonably understood by
the client;
b)
the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek independent legal advice about
the transaction, the onus being on the agent to prove that the client's interests were
protected by such independent advice; and
c)
the client consents in writing to the transaction.
6.
When an agent has been retained to prepare or to provide services relating to a new patent
application and the agent conceives an improvement or modification to an invention or a portion
of an invention to be claimed in the application so that the agent reasonably believes himself or
herself to be a co-inventor and proposes to list himself or herself as a co-inventor, the agent must
advise the client to obtain independent professional advice as to:
a)
whether or not naming the agent as a co-inventor is appropriate and justified; and
b)
whether a new agent should be retained to prosecute the application.
7.
The agent must not enter into or continue a business transaction with the client relating to
the agent’s professional advice if:
a)
the client expects or might reasonably be assumed to expect that the agent is
protecting the client's interests; and
b)
there is a significant risk that the interests of the agent and the client may differ.
Commentary
(1)
Business transaction would include circumstances in which an agent is a co-inventor and
retains any interest in the invention, or any other circumstance where an agent acquires an interest
in an intellectual property right of a client.
(2)
When an agent has been retained to prepare a patent application and, in the process of
carrying out this service or an associated service, the agent conceives of an improvement,
modification, or variation that is included in the patent application and that the agent reasonably
believes renders himself a co-inventor who should be named as such in the application, the agent
normally has a duty to assign his rights as a co-inventor to his client without further charge or
4
additional expense to his client who should be considered the rightful owner of the entire
invention described and claimed in the application.
(3)
If an agent accepts employment from more than one client in a matter or transaction and a
conflict subsequently arises between these clients which cannot be resolved by the clients, the
agent should not normally continue to act for any or all of them and the agent may have to
withdraw completely from acting in connection with that matter or transaction.
(4)
Before an agent accepts employment from more than one client in a matter or transaction,
the agent should normally advise the clients that no information received in connection with the
matter from one can be treated as confidential so far as any of the others are concerned.
4. ADVISING CLIENTS
PRINCIPLE
An agent must be both honest and candid when advising clients.
Rules
1.
The agent must give the client a competent opinion based on a sufficient knowledge of the
relevant facts, an adequate consideration of the applicable law, and the agent’s own experience
and expertise.
2.
The agent’s advice must be open and undisguised, and must clearly disclose what the
agent honestly thinks about the merits and probable results.
3.
If it should become apparent to the agent that the client has misunderstood or
misconceived the position or what is really involved, the agent must use reasonable efforts to
explain to the client, the agent’s advice and recommendations.
4.
An agent must reasonably promptly act on the client’s instructions and must reply to all
client inquiries.
5.
An agent must take reasonable steps to advise the client of the costs of obtaining or
seeking any intellectual property protection in Canada or elsewhere recommended by the agent.
6.
An agent must communicate in a timely and effective manner at all stages of the client’s
matter or transaction.
7.
An agent must reasonably promptly inform the client of any material error or omission
with respect to the client’s matter.
5
5. FEES
PRINCIPLE
An agent owes a duty of fairness and reasonableness in his or her financial dealings with the
client.
Rules
1.
An agent must not stipulate for, charge or accept any fee that is not fully disclosed, fair
and reasonable.
2.
An agent must not appropriate any funds under an agent’s control for or on account of
fees without the authority of the client, save as permitted by Rule 7.
3.
An agent must not permit a non-agent to fix any fee to be charged to a client, except
where such person uses a fee schedule, provided that an agent has set the fee schedule and is
responsible for sending the account to the client.
4.
An agent may not show as a disbursement to a third party any sum which is not paid to a
third party.
5.
Save as permitted by Rule 6 or unless the client has consented, an agent must not accept
from or pay to anyone other than the client a commission or other compensation related to the
agent’s professional employment in a matter.
6.
An agent shall not divide a fee with another agent or a lawyer who is not a partner or
associate unless:
(a) the client consents either expressly or impliedly to the employment of the other agent
or the lawyer; and
(b) the fees are divided in proportion to the work done and responsibilities assumed.
7.
Money held by an agent to the credit of a client may not be applied to fees incurred by the
client unless an account has been rendered to the client.
8.
An agent must clearly identify on each statement of account if requested by the client the
amount attributable to fees and the amount attributable to disbursements and other charges.
Commentary
Factors which may determine that the amount of an account is a fair and reasonable fee in a given
case include, but are not limited to, the following:
6
a)
the nature of the matter, including its difficulty and urgency; its importance to the
client; its monetary value; and the need for special skills or services;
b)
the time and effort expended;
c)
the results obtained;
d)
the customary charges of other agents of equal standing in the locality in similar
matters and circumstances;
e)
the likelihood, if made known to the client, that acceptance of the retainer will
result in an agent’s inability to accept other work;
f)
the experience and ability of the agent;
g)
any estimate given by the agent;
h)
whether the fee is contingent on the outcome of the matter;
i)
the client’s prior consent to the fee and the sophistication of that client; and
j)
the direct costs incurred by the agent in providing the services.
6. WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES
PRINCIPLE
Having agreed to act in a matter, an agent owes a duty to the client not to withdraw services
except for good cause. If withdrawal is required or permissible, the agent must do so only
upon notice that is reasonable in the circumstances.
Rules
1.
An agent must withdraw when:
a)
the client persists in instructing the agent to act contrary to professional ethics;
b)
the client persists in instructions that the agent knows will result in the agent’s
assisting the client to commit a crime or fraud;
c)
the agent is unable to act competently or with reasonable promptness; or
d)
the agent’s continued service to client would violate the agent’s obligations with
respect to conflict of interest.
7
2.
An agent may withdraw when justified by the circumstances. Circumstances that may
justify, but not require, withdrawal include the following:
3.
a)
the client fails after reasonable notice to provide funds on account of fees or
disbursements in accordance with the agent’s reasonable request;
b)
the client’s conduct in the matter is dishonourable or motivated primarily by
malice;
c)
the client is persistently unreasonable or uncooperative, and makes it unreasonably
difficult for the agent to perform services effectively;
d)
the agent is unable to locate the client or to obtain proper instructions;
e)
there is a serious loss of confidence between agent and client; or
f)
the agent is unable to continue with the agent’s practice or retires from such
practice.
An agent may withdraw if the client consents.
4.
If an agent withdraws or is discharged from a matter, the agent must endeavour to avoid
foreseeable prejudice to the client and must also cooperate with a successor agent if one is
appointed.
5.
If an agent withdraws or is discharged from a matter and is in receipt of an official
communication on the matter to which a response must be filed to avoid abandonment, the agent
must endeavour to report the official communication in a timely manner to the former client in
order to avoid prejudice to the former client and to permit the former client to take appropriate
steps to safeguard his or her rights in the matter.
6.
Upon withdrawal or dismissal, an agent must promptly render a final account and must
account to the client for money and property received from the client.
7. DUTY TO THE PROFESSION
PRINCIPLE
An agent must assist in maintaining the standards of the profession and should participate in
its organizations and activities.
Rules
1.
An agent must conduct himself or herself in a professional manner.
2.
An agent must refrain from conduct that brings discredit to the profession.
8
3.
All correspondence and remarks by an agent addressed to or concerning another agent,
whether inside or outside of the agent’s firm or concerning another firm, or the Institute, must be
fair, accurate and courteous.
4.
An agent must reasonably respond on a timely basis and in a complete and appropriate
manner to any communication from the Institute.
5.
In connection with an agent’s practice, an agent must not discriminate against any person
on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age or
mental or physical disability.
6.
An agent should not undertake to act for a client if he is not comfortable, for justifiable
reasons, with undertaking the requested task or job for that particular client or he does not agree
with the instructions from the client to such an extent that the instructions will impair the agent’s
ability to perform his or her services in accordance with these Rules.
7.
In connection with an agent’s practice, an agent must not sexually harass a colleague, staff
member, client or other person.
8.
An agent has a professional duty to meet proper financial obligations in relation to the
agent’s practice.
9.
An agent who hires a person with the understanding that he or she will provide
instruction, guidance and teaching of patent agency or trade-mark agency practice to that person,
must do his or her best to provide such instruction, guidance and teaching.
10.
An agent must report to the Institute any conduct of which the agent has personal
knowledge and which in the agent’s reasonable opinion, acting in good faith, raises a serious
question of whether another agent is in breach of this Code.
8. DUTY TO MEMBERS
PRINCIPLE
An agent’s conduct toward other agents must be characterized by courtesy and good faith.
Rules
1.
An agent must not engage in sharp practice and must not take advantage without fair
warning of a mistake on the part of another agent not going to the merits or involving sacrifice of
the client’s rights.
2.
An agent must avoid unjustifiable or uninformed criticism of the competence, conduct,
advice or charges of other agents.
9
3.
An agent should agree to reasonable requests by another agent for extensions of time,
waivers of procedural formalities, and similar accommodations unless the client’s position would
be materially prejudiced or unless to do so would be contrary to the client’s instructions.
4.
An agent must answer with reasonable promptness all professional letters and
communications from other agents which require an answer.
5.
When an agent leaves a firm to practice elsewhere, neither the agent nor the firm must
exercise or attempt to exercise undue influence or harassment upon the client to influence the
clients’ decision as to who will represent the client.
6.
While the agent is employed, the agent must not solicit business from the agent’s
employer’s clients or prospective clients on his or her own account, without the knowledge of the
agent’s employer.
7.
The same courtesy and good faith must characterize the agent’s conduct to other persons
representing themselves.
9. ADVERTISING
PRINCIPLE
An agent may advertise service and fees, or otherwise solicit work, provided that the
advertisement is
a)
not false or misleading;
b)
in good taste, and
c)
not likely to bring the profession into disrepute.
Rules
1.
An agent must not use any description that suggests that the agent is any one of the
following:
a)
a patent agent
b)
a trade-mark agent
c)
a barrister
d)
a solicitor
10
e)
a notary entitled to practice in the Province of Quebec
when in fact the agent is not such a person.
2.
The agent may indicate that his or her practice is restricted to a particular area, or may
indicate that the agent practices in a certain area if such is the case.
3.
The agent must not indicate by way of advertisement, letterhead, or otherwise, that he or
she has a professional office at a named location when in fact such is not the case.
Commentary:
The use of phrases such as “John Doe and Associates”, or “John Doe and Company” and “John
Doe and Partners” is improper unless there are in fact, respectively, two or more other agents
associated with John Doe in practice or two or more partners of John Doe in the firm.
10. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE
PRINCIPLE
An agent owes a duty to assist in preventing the unauthorized practice of persons or entities,
not authorized under the relevant intellectual property statutes or respective provincial law
society providing advice and services concerning the relevant intellectual property statutes.
Rules
1.
An agent should not, without the approval of the Institute, employ in any capacity having
to do with the practice of Patent or Trade-mark Agency or both, an agent who is under
suspension as a result of disciplinary proceedings, or a person who has been struck from the
Register or has been permitted to resign while facing disciplinary proceedings and has not been
reinstated.
2.
Professional advice is not to be given by unauthorized persons, whether in the agent's
name or otherwise.
3.
An agent must not aid or assist a person who is practicing as a patent agent or trade-mark
agent in an unauthorized manner.
Commentary
It is in the interest of the public and the profession that persons who are not properly qualified,
and who are immune from control or management or discipline, not be permitted to offer patent
and trade-mark agency services to members of the public.
11
Please Note:
At a Special General Meeting of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada held in the Westin
Hotel, Ottawa, on March 6, 2001, the Members (formerly known as Fellows) passed the
following resolutions with regard to the IPIC Code of Ethics:
a.
b.
A resolution that it shall be a breach of the new Code of Ethics for any member to
deliberately, or through lack of reasonable care, to fail to abide by the provisions of this
Code of Ethics; and
A resolution that the following current provisions of the previous IPIC Code of Ethics
which have been effective since November 2, 1996 shall continue in effect until these
provisions are amended by further resolution or amendment to the by-laws of the IPIC:
DISCIPLINE
ETHICS SUB-COMMITTEE
1.
2.
Council shall appoint from amongst its members a sub-committee to be known as the Ethics
Sub-Committee to which Sub-Committee shall be referred all apparent breaches of the Code of
Ethics which shall come to the attention of Council.
It shall be the duty of the Ethics Sub-Committee to investigate each apparent breach of the Code
of Ethics which is referred to it and to report back to Council:
(a) whether, following appropriate investigation, it appears that such apparent breach of the Code of
Ethics has in fact occurred, and
(b) the steps which it recommends to Council for dealing with such apparent breach.
Upon receipt of the report of the Ethics Sub-Committee, Council shall decide whether or not such
breach warrants disciplinary action.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY COUNCIL
1.
2.
3.
4.
Disciplinary action shall be initiated by serving upon the member concerned a statement in
writing of the acts or omissions which it is alleged constitute a breach of the Code of Ethics and
the section or sections of the Code of Ethics which are alleged to have been breached.
The member shall have the right to submit an answer in writing to Council within a time to be
stated in the statement referred to in paragraph 1 or such further time as the member may
request and Council permit as being reasonably necessary for the preparation of his or her
answer.
In the event that no such written answer is received or that such written answer does not in the
opinion of Council satisfactorily dispose of the matter, Council may summon the member to
appear before a special meeting of Council either in person or, if such member so desires, by
representative to explain the member’s conduct.
Subsequent to such appearance of the member before Council or in default of such appearance,
Council may, by the affirmative vote of at least six members of Council forming a majority of
Council, discipline such member by: -
12
(a) admonishment or reprimand delivered orally in the presence of the member or in writing,
(b) suspension for such period and on such terms as Council deems appropriate, such suspension
and the terms of condition thereof to be notified to the member by notice in writing, or
(c) expulsion from the Institute, such expulsion and the reasons therefor to be notified to the
member by notice in writing together with the reasons for such expulsion.
Notice of such admonishment, reprimand, suspension or expulsion and the reasons therefor may,
at the discretion of Council, be published and Council may, in its discretion, withhold the name
of the member concerned from the Notice, provided, however, (i) that such Notice shall not be
published unless the member shall have been advised at the time that the member is disciplined
that there will be publication, (ii) that there shall be no publication until the time for appeal as
provided in the By-Laws has expired and, (iii) that, in the event of an appeal, there shall be no
publication other than in a notice of meeting until the appeal has been determined.
MISCELLANEOUS
1.
In the case of a non-resident member, if there is any conflict between the standards of conduct
set forth in this Code and the standard of professional conduct obtaining among reputable patent
and trade mark agents in the member’s own country, compliance by the member with the
standards obtaining in the member’s own country but not with the standards prescribed herein
shall not be deemed to be unprofessional conduct unless, after due investigation, Council by a
majority vote at a meeting duly called for the purpose, finds that the conduct of the member
reflects discredit on the Institute or its members.
2.
Any member may ask Council for a ruling as to whether any publication which the member’s firm
uses, publishes or proposes to use or publish or any conduct in which the member or the
member’s firm engages or proposes to engage complies with this Code, and Council may rule
thereon.
3.
Council may, from time to time issue memoranda on practising ethics which shall be published in
the Canadian Intellectual Property Review or other publication of the Institute for the guidance of
the members.”
13
Annex B
IPIC Financial Aid Policy
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INSTITUTE OF CANADA
FINANCIAL AID POLICY
Financial aid to participate in IPIC professional development activities is
available as follows:
A reduction of the registration fees is available for allAnnualMeetings,the
Trade-markAgentTrainingCourse,theTutorials,andothereventsselected
byIPICCouncilasfollows:
Incomeupto$15,000 -upto75%discount
Income$15,000to$30,000 -upto50%discount
Incomeabove$30,000 -Nodiscount
AreductionoftheregistrationfeesisavailableforthePatentAgent
TrainingCourseandtheTrade-markAgentExaminationPrepCourseas
follows:
Incomeupto$25,000 -upto75%discount
Income$25,000to$50,000 -upto50%discount
Incomeabove$50,000 -Nodiscount
Tobenefitfromthispolicy,theapplicantmustpaytheregistrationfees
usingapersonalchequeorpersonalcreditcardandcannotbereimbursed
byanemployer.
TheExecutiveDirectormaysetalimitastothenumberofapplicantswho
canbenefitfromareductionforeachevent.
Applicantsseekingfinancialaidtoattendaprofessionaldevelopment
activityarerequiredtostatetheirannualincome.Applicationsaretobe
submittedtotheExecutiveDirectorforapproval.Thispolicyreliesonan
honour-basedsystemandmaybeamendedifthereappearstobeabuse.
ApprovedSeptember6,2005,AmendedSeptember16,2008,November26,
2008,June4,2010,April9,2013
Annex C
French version of proposed Code of Ethics
Institut de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada
Code de déontologie – Version révisée (ébauche)
Texte proposé – 24 août 2016
Note à l’intention du lecteur :
Le point de départ de ce code révisé est le code de déontologie en vigueur à l’IPIC, adopté
en 2001, qui est lui-même une évolution des codes antérieurs remontant jusqu’aux années 1920
et qui visait à être harmonisé avec les codes types pour les avocats. Bon nombre des principes
des codes de déontologie pour les avocats sont également applicables à la pratique des agents de
brevets et de marques de commerce. En outre, de nombreux agents de brevets et de marques de
commerce sont également avocats, et il est souhaitable que les codes de déontologie soient aussi
cohérents que possible.
Les révisions sont fondées sur le Code type de déontologie professionnelle de mars 2016 de la
Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada. En faisant ces révisions, le Comité
sur la réglementation professionnelle de l’IPIC a aussi examiné les règles de conduite
professionnelle de l’United States Patent and Trademark Office (qui sont elles-mêmes fondées
sur le code type de l’American Bar Association).
L’IPIC tient à souligner le travail exceptionnel de la Fédération des ordres professionnels de
juristes du Canada pour l’élaboration de son code type. Lorsque pertinent, nous avons choisi
d’utiliser le plus possible ce code type pour satisfaire l’objectif de la Fédération concernant
l’élimination de toute différence appréciable dans les règles de conduite en vigueur à travers le
pays.
Les membres du Conseil de l’IPIC et du Comité sur la réglementation professionnelle de
l’Institut vous invitent à contribuer à la prochaine révision du Code de déontologie en leur
envoyant vos commentaires et suggestions par courriel à l’adresse [email protected].
TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Définitions et règle fondamentale ........................................................................................... 4
1. Compétence....................................................................................................................... 6
2. Confidentialité................................................................................................................... 8
3. Conflits.............................................................................................................................. 13
4. Qualité du service ............................................................................................................. 29
5. Honoraires ......................................................................................................................... 32
6. Retrait de l’agent ............................................................................................................... 35
7. Devoirs envers l’Institut et la profession .......................................................................... 39
8. Communications avec l’Institut, l’OPIC et les autres ....................................................... 41
9. Publicité ............................................................................................................................ 45
10. Pratique non autorisée…………………………………………………….................... ... 47
11. Discipline .......................................................................................................................... 48
3
Institut de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada
Code de déontologie
(Texte proposé le 24 août 2016)
Définitions
« agent » désigne toute personne physique qui est un agent de marques de commerce agréé et/ou
un agent de brevets et qui est membre de l’Institut de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada. Il
désigne aussi un agent de brevets ou de marques de commerce en formation, lorsque cela est
approprié dans le contexte de toute règle du Code.
« client » signifie toute personne qui :
(a) consulte un agent et pour le compte de qui l’agent rend ou accepte de rendre des
services de brevets ou de marques de commerce; ou
(b) après avoir consulté l’agent, conclut raisonnablement que l’agent a accepté de rendre
des services de brevets ou de marques de commerce en son nom;
et cela comprend un client d’un cabinet où l’agent est un associé ou collaborateur, peu
importe que l’agent traite les affaires du client ou non.
« OPIC » signifie l’Office de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada.
« Conseil » signifie l’organe directeur de l’Institut dont les membres sont élus de temps à autre.
« cabinet » signifie un cabinet à propriétaire unique, une personne morale, un partenariat, une
société à responsabilité limitée ou une société professionnelle.
« Institut » signifie l’Institut de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada.
« membre de l’Institut » signifie toute personne admise par l’Institut de la propriété intellectuelle
du Canada dans l’une des catégories de membres de l’Institut.
« profession » signifie la profession de l’agent.
4
RÈGLE FONDAMENTALE
L’intégrité est la qualité fondamentale du membre de l’Institut. Ce principe est inhérent au
Code ainsi qu’aux règles et commentaires qui y sont énoncés. Outre qu’il peut faire l’objet
d’une sanction formelle en vertu de l’une ou l’autre règle du Code, un agent doit en tout
temps faire preuve d’intégrité et de compétence conformément aux normes les plus élevées de
la profession de façon à conserver la confiance et le respect des membres de la profession et
du public.
5
1. COMPÉTENCE
PRINCIPE DIRECTEUR
Un agent a envers son client le devoir d’avoir la compétence requise pour fournir les services
demandés, et il doit fournir tous les services entrepris au nom d’un client conformément à la
norme d’un agent compétent.
Règle 1
1.1
Un agent ne doit pas entreprendre ou poursuivre une affaire s’il n’est pas véritablement
convaincu d’avoir les compétences requises ou s’il n’est pas en mesure d’acquérir ces
compétences sans occasionner au client des délais, des risques ou des frais indus ou sans
s’associer avec un autre agent compétent en la matière. Un agent doit rapidement
informer le client lorsqu’il est suffisamment clair qu’il ne possède pas les compétences
requises pour exécuter une tâche donnée et, lorsque cela est possible, il dirige le client
vers les personnes qui, selon lui, possèdent les compétences voulues.
1.2
Un agent doit assumer l’entière responsabilité professionnelle de toutes les affaires qui lui
sont confiées ainsi que superviser le personnel et les assistants, notamment les stagiaires,
les étudiants, les commis et les assistants, à qui certaines tâches ou fonctions précises
peuvent être déléguées.
1.3
Un agent doit tenir à jour les méthodes et les systèmes administratifs appropriés, y
compris, sans s’y limiter, les systèmes lui permettant de respecter les échéances
auxquelles donnent lieu les affaires qui lui sont confiées par les clients et de traiter et
tenir à jour les dossiers des clients, sans leur porter préjudice.
1.4
Un agent doit se tenir informé des progrès réalisés dans les secteurs du droit associés à sa
pratique en faisant les études requises et en s’informant.
1.5
Un agent pratiquant pour une personne autre qu’un employeur doit contracter une
assurance responsabilité professionnelle auprès d’une compagnie d’assurance reconnue
pour un montant au moins égal à celui que recommande l’Institut.
Commentaire
L’agent agréé, en vertu du titre qu’il porte, est présumé avoir les connaissances, les aptitudes et
les compétences requises pour exercer sa profession. Par conséquent, le client peut présumer que
l’agent a les aptitudes et la capacité nécessaires pour régler adéquatement toutes les affaires qu’il
entreprend au nom du client. La compétence est fondée sur des principes déontologiques et
6
juridiques. La présente règle aborde les principes déontologiques. La compétence est plus qu’une
affaire de compréhension des principes; il s’agit de comprendre adéquatement la pratique et les
procédures selon lesquelles ces principes peuvent s’appliquer de manière efficace. Pour ce faire,
l’agent doit se tenir au courant des faits nouveaux dans tous les domaines de propriété
intellectuelle relevant de ses compétences.
En décidant si l’agent a fait appel aux connaissances et habilités requises dans un dossier
particulier, les facteurs dont il faudra tenir compte incluent :
(1)
la complexité et la nature spécialisée du dossier;
(2)
l’expérience générale de l’agent;
(3)
la formation et l’expérience de l’agent dans le domaine;
(4)
le temps de préparation et d’étude que l’agent est en mesure d’accorder au dossier;
et
(5)
s’il est approprié et faisable de renvoyer le dossier à un agent dont les compétences
sont reconnues dans le domaine en question ou de s’associer avec l’agent ou de le
consulter.
L’agent doit veiller à ce que toutes les questions nécessitant des compétences et le jugement
professionnel d'un agent soient traitées directement par un agent qualifié pour faire le travail.
Le client pourrait demander à l’agent ou s’attendre à ce que l’agent donne son avis sur des
questions qui ne sont pas en lien avec l’invention, telles que les aspects économiques, politiques
ou sociaux de l’affaire ou la stratégie à adopter. Dans bien des cas, l’expérience de l’agent sera
telle que le client pourra tirer profit de ses opinions sur ces questions. L’agent qui exprime ses
opinions sur de telles questions doit, s’il y a lieu et dans la mesure nécessaire, signaler tout
manque d’expérience ou de compétence dans le domaine particulier et doit faire nettement la
distinction entre un conseil en brevets ou marques de commerce et un conseil qui ne l’est pas.
7
2. CONFIDENTIALITÉ
PRINCIPE DIRECTEUR
Un agent a le devoir de protéger les renseignements confidentiels et les secrets de ses clients.
Règle 2
2.1
Un agent est tenu de maintenir la plus grande confidentialité relativement aux
renseignements qui concernent les affaires et les activités de son client et dont il prend
connaissance au cours de la relation professionnelle. Il ne doit divulguer aucun de ces
renseignements à moins que le client ne l’ait expressément ou implicitement autorisé à le
faire, que la loi ou un tribunal ne l’exige ou que le Code ne le permette ou ne l’exige.
Commentaire
Afin de favoriser une communication ouverte entre le client et l’agent, il est important
que le client ait l’assurance pleine et entière que tous les renseignements communiqués à
l’agent demeureront strictement confidentiels.
Il importe de distinguer la présente règle de la protection statutaire à l’égard des
communications orales ou écrites entre le client et l’agent. La règle déontologique a une
plus grande portée et s’applique peu importe la nature ou la source des renseignements ou
le fait que ces renseignements pourraient être connus d’autres personnes.
2.2
Un agent doit prendre des précautions raisonnables pour garantir la confidentialité de ces
renseignements.
Commentaire
En général et à moins que la nature de l’affaire ne l’exige, l’agent ne doit pas divulguer
l’information selon laquelle une personne a fait appel à ses services pour une affaire
déterminée ou une personne l’a consulté au sujet d’une affaire déterminée, peu importe si
une relation agent-client a été établie entre eux.
L’agent doit veiller à ne pas divulguer à un client des renseignements confidentiels
concernant un autre client ou obtenus de cet autre client et doit refuser d’agir si le mandat
exige une telle divulgation.
8
L’agent doit prendre les mesures nécessaires pour éviter de divulguer par inadvertance
des renseignements confidentiels d’un client en travaillant dans des endroits publics. Par
exemple, lorsque l’agent est en voyage, il doit prendre des précautions raisonnables pour
s’assurer que les renseignements confidentiels du client ne soient pas vus ou entendus par
une tierce partie.
Dans certaines circonstances, on peut déduire que le client a autorisé une divulgation. Par
exemple, il faut sous-entendre qu’un agent peut, à moins d’indication contraire du client,
divulguer les affaires du client aux associés, collaborateurs, membres du personnel
administratif et autres employés de son cabinet. Cette autorisation implicite de
divulgation impose toutefois à l’agent l’obligation de bien faire comprendre à ces
personnes l'importance de ne rien divulguer (durant et après leur emploi). De plus, cette
autorisation exige de l’agent qu’il prenne toutes les précautions raisonnables pour
empêcher ces personnes de divulguer ou d’utiliser des renseignements qu'il est lui-même
tenu de garder confidentiels.
2.3
Un agent doit continuer à préserver la confidentialité des renseignements malgré le fait
que l’affaire soit terminée ou que la relation professionnelle avec le client ait pris fin.
Commentaire
L’agent a une obligation de confidentialité envers tous ses clients, habituels ou
occasionnels, sans exception. Cette obligation demeure valide après la fin de la relation
professionnelle et subsiste indéfiniment après la fin du travail de l’agent pour le compte
de son client.
2.4
Un agent doit se garder d’étayer ou de commenter toute conjoncture ayant trait aux
affaires ou aux activités de son client, même si certains faits sont de notoriété publique.
2.5
Un agent ne doit pas divulguer les renseignements confidentiels qui lui sont
communiqués et qui ont trait aux activités ou aux affaires d’un client, peu importe la
source de ces renseignements, à l’exception des faits qui sont de notoriété publique.
2.6
Lorsque des renseignements doivent être divulgués en vertu d’une loi ou d’une
ordonnance d’un tribunal, un agent doit toujours faire en sorte de ne pas divulguer plus de
renseignements que cela est nécessaire.
9
2.7
Un agent peut communiquer des renseignements confidentiels à un avocat pour obtenir
un avis juridique ou déontologique concernant l’orientation que l’agent entend donner à
l’affaire.
2.8
S’il est allégué qu’un agent ou ses associés, collaborateurs ou employés :
(a) ont commis une infraction criminelle concernant les affaires d’un client;
(b) sont responsables civilement à l’égard d’un dossier qui concerne les affaires d’un
client;
(c) ont commis des actes de négligence professionnelle; ou
(d) sont impliqués dans des actes d’inconduite professionnelle ou de conduite indigne
d’un agent,
l’agent peut divulguer des renseignements confidentiels pour se défendre contre les
allégations, mais ne doit pas divulguer plus que ce qui est exigé.
2.9
Un agent est également tenu d’une obligation de confidentialité envers toute personne qui
demande conseil ou de l'aide au sujet d’une affaire faisant appel aux connaissances
professionnelles de l’agent, même s'il ne produit pas un compte rendu ou n’accepte pas de
représenter cette personne. Une relation agent et client est souvent établie sans formalité.
Un agent doit être prudent lorsqu'il accepte des renseignements confidentiels sans
formalité ou de façon préliminaire puisque le fait de posséder ces renseignements pourrait
empêcher l’agent d'agir ultérieurement pour une autre partie dans la même affaire ou une
affaire connexe. (voir la règle 3 - Conflits)
2.10
Un agent doit éviter les conversations et autres communications indiscrètes, même avec
son conjoint ou sa famille, au sujet des affaires d’un client et doit rester à l’écart de tout
commérage à ce sujet même si le client n’est pas nommé́ ou autrement identifié. De
même, un agent ne doit pas répéter des commérages ou des renseignements qu’il entend
par hasard ou qui lui sont rapportés au sujet des affaires et des activités du client.
Abstraction faite de la morale ou du bon goût, un entretien indiscret entre agents qui
serait entendu par un tiers capable de deviner ce dont il s'agit risque de porter préjudice
au client. De plus, le respect que ce tiers porte à ces agents et à la profession s'en trouvera
probablement diminué. Bien que la règle ne s’applique pas aux faits de notoriété
publique, un agent doit se garder d'alimenter ou de commenter toute conjecture relative
aux affaires ou aux activités de ses clients.
2.11
Un agent peut divulguer des renseignements confidentiels pour établir ou recouvrer ses
honoraires, mais ne doit pas divulguer plus que ce qui est exigé́ .
10
2.12
Un agent peut divulguer des renseignements confidentiels dans la mesure de ce qui est
raisonnablement nécessaire pour détecter et régler des conflits d’intérêts découlant du
changement d’emploi de l’agent ou de changements apportés à la composition ou à la
propriété d’un cabinet, mais uniquement si les renseignements divulgués ne
compromettent pas le privilège du secret professionnel ou ne portent pas autrement
préjudice au client.
Commentaire
Pour tenir compte des intérêts du client à entretenir une relation avec l’agent qu’il a choisi
et à protéger les confidences du client, les agent de différents cabinets pourraient avoir à
échanger certains renseignements dans le but de détecter et de régler des conflits
d’intérêts, de telles situations surviennent par exemple lorsqu’un agent envisage de
s’associer à un autre cabinet, lorsque deux cabinets ou plus envisagent une fusion ou
lorsqu’un agent envisage l’achat d’un cabinet.
Dans de telles situations (voir la règle 3.6 sur les conflits découlant d’un changement de
cabinet), la règle 2.12 permet aux agents et aux cabinets de divulguer des renseignements
restreints. Ce type de divulgation ne se ferait que suite à des discussions exhaustives
concernant la nouvelle relation.
Cet échange de renseignements entre les cabinets doit se faire de façon compatible avec
les obligations qu’ont l’agent changeant de cabinet et le nouveau cabinet, de protéger les
confidences du client et les renseignements protégés par le secret professionnel et d’éviter
tout préjudice au client. Il s’agit normalement d’aucun renseignement autre que le nom
des personnes et des entités en cause. Selon les circonstances, les renseignements peuvent
inclure un bref sommaire des questions générales qui sont en cause et l’information
permettant de déterminer si la représentation est terminée.
Les renseignements doivent être divulgués au nombre le plus restreint possible d’agents
dans le nouveau cabinet, de préférence à un seul agent dans le nouveau cabinet tel qu’un
agent désigné en matière de conflits. Les renseignements devraient toujours être
divulgués uniquement dans la mesure de ce qui est raisonnablement nécessaire pour
détecter et régler des conflits d’intérêts pouvant découler de la nouvelle relation
éventuelle.
Puisque la divulgation se fait à la condition qu’elle serve uniquement à vérifier s’il y a
des conflits lorsque des agents changent de cabinet et à établir des mesures de mise à
l’écart, la divulgation doit être accompagnée d’un engagement de la part du nouveau
cabinet, soit :
11
(a) de limiter l’accès aux renseignements divulgués;
(b) de ne pas utiliser les renseignements à des fins autres que pour détecter et
régler des conflits; et
(c) de retourner, détruire ou conserver dans un endroit sûr et de façon
confidentielle les renseignements fournis après avoir établi des mesures
convenables de protection de la confidentialité.
Le consentement du client à la divulgation de ces informations peut être spécifiquement
abordé dans un accord entre l'agent et le client. Dans certains cas, cependant, en raison de
la nature du dispositif de l’accord, l'agent changeant de cabinet et le nouveau cabinet
peuvent être tenus d'obtenir le consentement du client pour cette communication ou la
divulgation de toute information complémentaire sur le client. Cela est particulièrement le
cas lorsque la divulgation pourrait compromettre le privilège du secret professionnel ou
pourrait porter préjudice au client (par exemple, le fait qu’un client corporatif souhaite
obtenir des conseils de diligence raisonnable relatif à une prise de contrôle qui n'a pas été
annoncé publiquement).
12
3. CONFLITS
PRINCIPE DIRECTEUR
Dans tous les cas, le jugement d’un agent et sa fidélité à l’égard des intérêts du client doivent
être libres de toute influence compromettante.
Règle 3
Conflit d’intérêts
3.1
Un agent ne doit pas agir au nom d’une partie lorsqu’il y a un risque sérieux que l’intérêt
personnel de l’agent ou ses devoirs envers un autre client, un ancien client ou une tierce
personne nuisent de façon appréciable à la loyauté de l’agent envers la partie ou à la
représentation de la partie par l’agent (ci-après appelé « conflit d’intérêts »), sauf lorsque
cela est permis par le Code.
Commentaire
Tel que défini dans les présentes règles, un conflit d’intérêts se présente lorsqu’il y a un
risque sérieux que l’intérêt personnel de l’agent ou ses devoirs envers un autre client, un
ancien client ou une tierce personne nuisent de façon appréciable à la loyauté de l’agent
envers un client ou à la représentation du client par l’agent. Le risque doit être plus
qu’une simple possibilité; le mandat doit poser un réel risque sérieux pour l’obligation de
loyauté ou la représentation du client. Les intérêts d’un client peuvent être sérieusement
mis en péril si le jugement de l’agent et sa liberté d’agir au nom de son client ne sont pas
autant que possible à l’abri de tout conflit d’intérêts.
Un client doit être assuré de pouvoir compter sur la loyauté sans réserve de l’agent sans
que la relation entre l’agent et le client se détériore. Une situation où la représentation
d’un client par l’agent est directement contraire aux intérêts légaux immédiats d’un autre
client pourrait causer un tort irréparable à la relation entre l’agent et le client. Un client
pourrait être en droit de craindre que l’agent ne poursuive pas la représentation par égard
pour l’autre client, et un client actuel pourrait être en droit de se sentir trahi si l’agent
représente un client dont les intérêts légaux sont contraires aux siens. L’interdiction
d’agir dans de telles circonstances, à moins d’avoir le consentement des clients, permet
d’éviter ces situations et protège la relation agent et client.
L’agent a un devoir d’engagement qui l’empêche de laisser tomber un client
sommairement et subitement pour contourner les règles sur les conflits d’intérêts. Le
13
client pourrait, à juste titre, se sentir trahi si l’agent cesse d’agir pour son compte dans le
but d’éviter un conflit d’intérêts.
L’agent doit voir si un conflit d’intérêts existe, non seulement au début du mandat, mais
également tout au long de celui-ci, puisque de nouvelles circonstances ou des nouveaux
renseignements pourraient entraîner ou mettre au jour un conflit d’intérêts. Par
conséquent, les facteurs dont l’agent doit tenir compte pour déterminer s’il y a conflit
d’intérêts comprennent :
(1)
si les intérêts légaux sont immédiats;
(2)
si les intérêts légaux sont directement contraires;
(3)s’il s’agit d’une question de fond ou de procédure;
(4)
la relation temporelle entre les dossiers;
(5)
l’importance de la question pour les intérêts immédiats et à long terme des
clients en question; et
(6)
les attentes raisonnables du client lorsqu’il engage l’agent pour l’affaire ou
la représentation en question.
Exemples de conflits d’intérêts
Les exemples suivants sont destinés à fournir des illustrations de circonstances qui
peuvent donner lieu à des conflits d'intérêts. Les exemples ne sont pas exhaustifs :
(1)
L’agent agit contre une personne dans une affaire alors qu’il représente cette
personne dans une autre affaire.
(2)
L’agent, un collaborateur, un associé de son cabinet ou un membre de sa famille a
un intérêt financier personnel dans les affaires d’un client ou dans une affaire pour
laquelle on demande à l’agent d’agir au nom d’un client, telle qu’une participation
à une coentreprise avec un client.
Nota : L’agent qui est propriétaire d’un petit nombre d’actions d’une société cotée
en bourse n’aurait pas forcément de conflit d’intérêts en agissant pour la société
puisque le fait de posséder ces actions pourrait n’avoir aucune influence nuisible
sur le jugement de l’agent ou sa loyauté envers le client.
(3)
L’agent a une relation sexuelle ou personnelle et intime avec un client.
14
Nota : Une telle relation pourrait être en conflit avec l’obligation de l’agent de
donner des conseils professionnels neutres et objectifs au client. Dans le cas d’une
telle relation, il pourrait être difficile de déterminer si certains renseignements ont
été obtenus durant la relation entre l’agent et le client, et la relation pourrait mettre
en péril le droit du client à la confidentialité de tous les renseignements qui
concernent ses affaires. Dans certaines circonstances, la relation pourrait
permettre l’exploitation du client par son agent. Si l’agent est membre d’un
cabinet et conclut qu'un conflit existe, le conflit n'est pas attribué au cabinet, mais
pourrait être éliminé si un autre agent du cabinet, qui n’a pas de telle relation avec
le client, s’occupait du dossier du client.
(4)
L’agent ou son cabinet agit pour une société publique ou privée et l’agent en est
un des administrateurs.
Nota : Ces deux rôles peuvent causer un conflit d’intérêts ou d’autres problèmes
parce qu’ils risquent de :
(a)
nuire au jugement indépendant et aux obligations fiduciaires de l’agent dans
l’un ou l’autre des rôles;
(b)
empêcher de distinguer les conseils donnés dans un rôle ou l’autre;
(c)
rendre l’agent ou la firme inhabile à représenter l’organisme; ou
(d)
compromettre le privilège du secret professionnel.
(5)
Un agent dépose une demande de brevet pour le compte d'un client et le même
agent ou un associé ou collaborateur du cabinet dépose une protestation contre la
demande de brevet.
(6)
Un agent dépose une demande de marque de commerce et le même agent ou un
associé ou collaborateur du cabinet dépose une opposition à la marque de
commerce.
(7)
Un agent fournit des conseils, en ce qui concerne le caractère exécutoire d'un
brevet que l'agent a rédigé ou traité, à une partie adverse au titulaire du brevet.
Exception
3.2
Un agent ne doit pas représenter un client dans une affaire lorsqu’il y a un conflit
d’intérêts, à moins d’avoir le consentement exprès ou implicite de tous les clients, et
l’agent peut raisonnablement croire qu’il est en mesure de représenter chaque client sans
15
qu’il y ait risque sérieux d’effet négatif sur la représentation de l’autre client ou la loyauté
envers l’autre client.
(1)
Le consentement exprès doit être donné en toute connaissance de cause et en toute
liberté après la divulgation de l’existence du conflit d’intérêts.
(2)
Le consentement peut être implicite et n’a pas à être donné par écrit si toutes les
conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(a)
le client est un gouvernement, une institution financière, une société cotée
en bourse ou une entité d’envergure similaire;
(b)
les affaires n’ont aucun lien entre elles; et
(c)
l’agent ne détient aucun renseignement confidentiel pertinent d’un client
pouvant raisonnablement avoir une incidence sur l’autre client.
Commentaire
Divulgation et consentement
La divulgation est une exigence essentielle à l’obtention du consentement d’un client et
résulte de l’obligation de franchise envers le client. Lorsqu’il n’est pas possible de faire
une divulgation adéquate au client en raison de la confidentialité des renseignements d’un
autre client, l’agent doit refuser d’agir.
Divulgation signifie la divulgation juste et intégrale de tous les renseignements qui
s’appliquent à la décision d’une personne, laquelle divulgation est faite dans un délai
suffisant qui permet à la personne de prendre une décision libre et de bonne foi. La
divulgation signifie également le fait de prendre des mesures raisonnables pour s’assurer
que les renseignements divulgués sont compris. L’agent doit ainsi aviser le client des
circonstances pertinentes et des façons raisonnablement prévisibles dont le conflit
d’intérêts pourrait nuire aux intérêts du client. Ces renseignements incluent les relations
de l’agent avec les parties et tout intérêt dans l’affaire ou lié à l’affaire.
Bien que cette règle n’exige pas qu’un agent conseille à un client d’obtenir un avis
juridique indépendant au sujet du conflit d’intérêts, l’agent devrait le recommander dans
certains cas, par exemple si le client est vulnérable ou sans expérience.
Consentement à l’avance
16
L’agent peut être en mesure de demander qu’un client consente à l’avance aux conflits
qui pourraient survenir plus tard. Puisque l’applicabilité de ce consentement est
généralement déterminée par la mesure dans laquelle le client comprend raisonnablement
les risques importants que comporte le consentement, plus l’explication est détaillée pour
décrire les types de représentations futures pouvant se produire et les conséquences
nuisibles réelles et prévisibles de ces représentations, plus il est probable que le client
comprendra comme il le faut. Un consentement général inconditionnel sera normalement
inapplicable parce qu’on ne peut raisonnablement pas s’attendre à ce que le client
comprenne les risques importants en cause. Si le client a l’habitude d’utiliser les services
de l’agent en question et est raisonnablement bien informé au sujet du risque de conflit, il
est plus probable qu’un tel consentement sera applicable, particulièrement si, par
exemple, le client est représenté par un conseiller indépendant pour donner son
consentement et le consentement se limite aux futurs conflits sans rapport au dossier qui
fait l’objet de la représentation.
Bien que ce ne soit pas une condition préalable au consentement à l’avance, il est
conseillé dans certaines circonstances de recommander au client d’obtenir un avis
juridique indépendant avant de décider s’il veut donner son consentement. Le
consentement à l’avance doit être consigné, dans une lettre présentant le mandat, par
exemple.
Consentement implicite
Dans des cas restreints, le consentement peut être implicite plutôt qu’expressément
accordé. Et dans certains cas, un client ne peut raisonnablement s’attendre à ce que la
loyauté de l’agent ou du cabinet soit sans réserve et que l’agent ou le cabinet s’abstienne
d’agir contre le client dans des dossiers sans rapport. Pour déterminer si les attentes du
client sont raisonnables, il faut tenir compte de la nature de la relation entre l’agent et le
client, des conditions du mandat et des dossiers qui sont en cause. Les gouvernements, les
banques à charte et les entités qui pourraient être considérés comme des consommateurs
avertis de services d’agent peuvent accepter que les agents agissent contre eux dans des
dossiers sans rapport lorsqu’il n’y a aucun risque de mauvais usage de renseignements
confidentiels. Plus le client est averti en tant que consommateur de services d’agent, plus
on pourra présumer qu’il y a consentement. La simple nature du client n’est toutefois pas
suffisante pour permettre de présumer qu’il y a consentement implicite; les dossiers ne
doivent avoir aucun lien entre eux, l’agent ne doit pas avoir de renseignements
confidentiels d’un client qui puissent avoir une incidence sur l’autre client et on doit
pouvoir raisonnablement conclure que le client a accepté d’un commun accord que
l’agent pourrait agir contre lui dans de telles circonstances.
17
Différend
3.3
Un agent ne doit pas représenter des parties adverses dans un litige.
Commentaire
Si on permettait à l’agent d’agir pour des parties adverses dans de telles circonstances,
même avec le consentement, l’avis, le jugement et la loyauté de l’agent envers un client
nuiraient de façon appréciable aux mêmes obligations envers l’autre ou les autres clients.
Mandats communs
3.4
(1)
Avant d’agir dans une affaire ou une transaction pour plus d’un client, un agent
doit aviser chacun des clients que :
(a)
on lui a demandé d’agir pour les deux parties ou pour toutes les parties;
(b)
aucun renseignement reçu d’un client au sujet de l’affaire ne peut être
considéré comme confidentiel à l’égard des autres clients, à moins que
les clients instruisent autrement;
(c)
si un conflit surgit et ne peut être réglé, il ne peut continuer de
représenter les deux parties ou toutes les parties et aura peut-être à se
retirer complètement de l’affaire.
(2)
Si un agent entretient une relation continue avec un client qu’il représente
régulièrement, il doit, avant d’accepter de représenter ce client et un autre client
dans une affaire ou une transaction, en aviser l’autre client et lui recommander
d’obtenir un avis juridique indépendant au sujet du mandat commun.
(3)
Lorsque l‘agent a avisé les clients conformément aux règles 3.4(1) et 3.4(2) et les
parties acceptent que l’agent les représente, l’agent doit obtenir leur
consentement. Ce consentement doit être confirmé dans un document distinct pour
chaque client.
(4)
Sauf exceptions prévues à la règle 3.4(5), si une question litigieuse se présente
entre les clients qui ont consenti à un mandat commun :
(a)
l’agent ne doit pas leur donner des conseils sur la question litigieuse et doit :
18
i.
ii.
(b)
(5)
renvoyer les clients à d’autres agents; ou
informer les clients qu’ils ont la possibilité de régler la question
litigieuse au moyen de négociations directes auxquelles l’agent ne
participe pas et recommander que les clients obtiennent chacun un
avis juridique indépendant.
l’agent doit se retirer du mandat commun si la question litigieuse n’est pas
réglée.
Sous réserve de la présente règle, si les clients consentent à un mandat commun et
acceptent également que l’agent continue de représenter un des clients au cas où
une question litigieuse se présente, l’agent peut alors conseiller ce client au sujet
de la question litigieuse et doit renvoyer l’autre ou les autres clients à un autre
agent.
Commentaire
Concernant le paragraphe 3.4(1)
Bien que la présente règle n’oblige pas l’agent à conseiller aux clients d’obtenir un avis
juridique indépendant avant d’accepter un mandat commun, l’agent devrait, dans certains
cas, recommander une telle consultation pour s’assurer que le consentement du client à
l’égard du mandat commun est éclairé, sincère et donné librement. Cela est
particulièrement vrai si l’un des clients est moins expérimenté ou plus vulnérable que
l’autre.
Concernant le paragraphe 3.4(3)
Même lorsque toutes les parties donnent leur consentement, l’agent ne devrait pas
représenter plus d'un client s’il est probable qu'une affaire litigieuse se présente entre eux
ou que leurs intérêts, leurs droits ou leurs obligations divergent au fur et à mesure que
l'affaire évolue.
Concernant le paragraphe 3.4(4)
Si une question litigieuse se présente entre toutes les parties ou certaines d’entre elles
après qu’elles aient donné leur consentement à un mandat de représentation conjointe, il
n’est pas obligatoirement interdit à l’agent de leur donner des conseils sur des questions
non litigieuses.
Concernant le paragraphe 3.4(5)
19
La règle ne dispense pas l’agent de l’obligation d'obtenir le consentement des clients si
une question litigieuse se présente et qu’il y a ou qu’il risque d’y avoir un conflit
d'intérêts, ou si la question litigieuse oblige l’agent à agir contre un des clients.
Lorsque l’agent s’engage à exécuter un mandat de représentation conjointe, il doit
préciser que, en cas de question litigieuse, il sera dans l’obligation de complètement
cesser d’agir à moins que, au moment où la question litigieuse se présente, toutes les
parties consentent à ce que l’agent continue de représenter l’une d’entre elles. Un
consentement donné avant qu’une telle situation ne se produise pourrait être sans effet
puisque la partie n’aura pas tous les renseignements pertinents au moment de donner son
consentement.
Agir contre d’anciens clients
3.5
(1)
(2)
À moins que l’ancien client donne son consentement, un agent ne doit pas agir
contre un ancien client :
(a)
dans la même affaire;
(b)
dans une affaire connexe;
(c)
dans toute autre affaire si l’agent a obtenu, en représentant l’ancien client,
des renseignements confidentiels qui pourraient porter préjudice à ce client.
Lorsqu’un agent a déjà agi pour un ancien client et a obtenu des renseignements
confidentiels pertinents dans une nouvelle affaire, un autre agent (l’« autre
agent ») du cabinet de l’agent peut agir dans la nouvelle affaire contre l’ancien
client si :
(a)
l’ancien client consent à ce que l’autre agent agisse pour lui; ou
(b)
le cabinet a :
(i)
(ii)
pris des mesures raisonnables pour empêcher toute divulgation de
renseignements confidentiels de l'ancien client par l'agent à tout
autre agent, tout autre membre ou employé du cabinet, ou toute
autre personne dont les services ont été retenus par l'agent ou le
cabinet dans la nouvelle affaire; et
averti l’ancien client de l'agent, à la demande du client, des mesures
prises.
20
Commentaire
Concernant le paragraphe 3.5(1)
La règle interdit à l’agent de remettre en question le travail effectué durant le mandat ou
de miner la position du client relative à un point qui était central durant le mandat. Il n’est
pas inapproprié que l’agent agisse contre un ancien client dans une toute nouvelle affaire
n’ayant aucun lien avec les tâches que l’agent a accomplies auparavant pour ce client, si
les renseignements confidentiels obtenus antérieurement ne concernent nullement cette
affaire.
Conflits découlant d’un changement de cabinet
3.6
(1)
(2)
Les paragraphes 3.6(2) à (5) s’appliquent lorsqu’un agent passe d’un cabinet
(« ancienne cabinet ») à un autre (« nouveau cabinet ») et que l’agent qui change
de cabinet ou le nouveau cabinet sait, au moment du changement, ou découvre
plus tard que :
(a)
il est raisonnable de croire que l'agent qui change de cabinet a des
informations confidentielles portant sur l’affaire du nouveau cabinet pour
son client; ou
(b)
le nouveau cabinet représente un client et l’ancien cabinet représente son
client (« ancien client ») dans la même affaire ou dans une affaire connexe;
(c)
les intérêts de ces clients dans cette affaire sont en conflit; et
(d)
l’agent qui change de cabinet détient réellement des renseignements
pertinents concernant l’affaire.
Si l’agent qui change de cabinet détient réellement des renseignements
confidentiels pertinents au sujet d’une affaire concernant l’ancien client et que ces
renseignements peuvent causer un préjudice à l’ancien client s’ils sont
communiqués à un membre du nouveau cabinet, le nouveau cabinet doit cesser de
représenter son client dans cette affaire à moins que :
(a)
l’ancien client ne consente à ce que le nouveau cabinet continue de
représenter son client; ou
(b)
le nouveau cabinet a :
21
(i)
(ii)
(3)
pris des mesures raisonnables pour empêcher toute divulgation de
renseignements confidentiels de l'ancien client par l'agent à tout autre
agent, tout autre membre ou employé du cabinet, ou toute autre
personne dont les services ont été retenus par l'agent ou le cabinet
dans la nouvelle affaire; et
averti l’ancien client de l'agent, à la demande du client, des mesures
prises.
À moins que l’ancien client n’y consente :
(a)
l’agent qui change de cabinet mentionné dans la règle 3.6(2) ne doit en
aucune façon participer au mandat confié à le nouveau cabinet par son client
dans l’affaire ou divulguer des renseignements confidentiels concernant
l’ancien client, à l’exception de ce qui est permis par la règle 2.12;
(b) aucun membre du nouveau cabinet ne doit discuter du mandat confié au
nouveau cabinet par son client ou du mandat confié à l’ancienne firme par
l’ancien client dans l’affaire avec l’agent qui change de cabinet, à
l’exception de ce qui est permis par la règle 2.12.
(4)
Un agent doit faire preuve de diligence raisonnable pour s’assurer que chaque
membre et employé de son cabinet et toute autre personne à qui l’agent a fait
appel :
(a)
se conforme aux paragraphes 3.6(1) à (4); et
(b)
ne divulgue pas des renseignements confidentiels concernant des clients du
cabinet ou de tout autre cabinet où cette personne a travaillé.
Commentaire
Il faut distinguer l’obligation qu’impose la présente règle au sujet des renseignements
confidentiels de l’obligation morale générale de garder strictement confidentiel tous les
renseignements concernant les activités et les affaires d’un client obtenus dans le cadre de
la relation professionnelle. L’obligation imposée par la présente règle s’applique sans
égard à la nature ou à la source des renseignements ou au fait que d’autres personnes
peuvent les connaître.
Concernant le paragraphe 3.6(1)
22
La règle vise la connaissance réelle. La connaissance présumée n’entraîne pas
l’inhabilité.
Les cabinets comptant plusieurs bureaux : La règle assimile à un seul cabinet les entités
telles qu’une personne morale ayant des services de propriété intellectuelle régionaux
distincts et un cabinet interprovincial. Plus l’autonomie de chaque service ou bureau est
grande, plus il devrait être facile pour le nouveau cabinet en cas de conflit, d’obtenir le
consentement de l’ancien client ou de démontrer qu’il devrait, dans l’intérêt public,
continuer de représenter son client dans l’affaire.
Concernant le paragraphe 3.6(2)
Questions à prendre en considération : Lorsqu’un cabinet (« nouveau cabinet ») envisage
d’engager un agent ou un agent en formation (« agent qui change de cabinet ») d’un autre
cabinet, l’agent qui change de cabinet et le nouveau cabinet doivent déterminer, avant le
changement, si des conflits d’intérêts en résulteront. Des conflits peuvent se présenter
concernant les clients de l’ancien cabinet et concernant les clients d’un cabinet où l’agent
changeant de cabinet a déjà travaillé.
Lorsqu’ils déterminent si l’agent qui change de cabinet détient des renseignements
confidentiels, l’agent qui change de cabinet et le nouveau cabinet doivent prendre soin de
ne pas divulguer les renseignements confidentiels d’un client au cours de l’entrevue avec
l’agent qui change de cabinet ou de tout autre processus de recrutement. Voir la règle
2.12 qui prévoit qu'un agent peut divulguer des informations confidentielles dans la
mesure où l'agent croit raisonnablement que ce soit nécessaire pour identifier et résoudre
les conflits d'intérêts lorsque des agents transfèrent entre cabinets.
Mesures raisonnables à prendre pour assurer la protection de renseignements
confidentiels
Il est impossible de prévoir un ensemble de « mesures raisonnables » qui conviendrait à
chaque cas. Le nouveau cabinet qui compte prendre des mesures raisonnables doit plutôt
faire preuve de jugement professionnel pour déterminer quelles mesures s’imposent pour
s’assurer qu’aucun renseignement confidentiel obtenu de l’ancien client ne sera divulgué
à un membre du nouveau cabinet. De telles mesures pourraient inclure des mesures de
mise à l’écart établies correctement et au moment opportun.
Les lignes directrices qui suivent constituent une liste de contrôle des facteurs pertinents
dont il faut tenir compte. Il suffira peut-être d’adopter une partie des lignes directrices
23
dans certains cas, alors que dans d’autres, l’adoption de toutes ces lignes directrices ne
suffira peut-être pas.
Il existe deux situations dans lesquelles le nouveau cabinet doit envisager de prendre des
mesures raisonnables pour s’assurer que les renseignements confidentiels obtenus d’un
ancien client ne sont pas communiqués à un membre du nouveau cabinet, soit :
(a)
lorsque l’agent qui change de cabinet détient réellement des renseignements
confidentiels concernant l’ancien client, lesquels renseignements peuvent
causer un préjudice à l’ancien client s’ils sont communiqués à un membre
du nouveau cabinet; et
(b)
lorsque le nouveau cabinet n’est pas certain que l’agent qui change de
cabinet détient réellement de tels renseignements confidentiels, mais tient à
s’assurer qu’aucune divulgation ne se produira à tout membre du nouveau
cabinet de l'information confidentielle de l'ancien client dans l’éventualité
où il est établi plus tard que l’agent qui a changé de cabinet détenait
réellement de tels renseignements confidentiels.
Lignes directrices
1.
L’agent mis à l’écart ne doit en aucune façon participer au mandat confié au
nouveau cabinet par son client dans l’affaire.
2.
L’agent mis à l’écart ne doit pas discuter de l’affaire en cours ou de tout
renseignement concernant la représentation de l’ancien client (les deux
pouvant être identiques) avec aucun autre membre du nouveau cabinet.
3.
Aucun membre du nouveau cabinet ne doit discuter de l’affaire en cours ou
du mandat antérieur avec l’agent mis à l’écart.
4.
L’affaire en cours doit faire l’objet de discussions uniquement au sein du
groupe restreint qui y travaille.
5.
Les dossiers du client actuel, y compris les fichiers informatiques, doivent
être matériellement isolés du système de classement ordinaire du nouveau
cabinet. Ils doivent également être clairement désignés et accessibles
uniquement aux agents et au personnel de soutien de la nouvelle firme qui
travaillent à l’affaire ou qui doivent y avoir accès pour d’autres raisons
précises et approuvées.
24
6.
Aucun membre du nouveau cabinet ne doit montrer à l’agent mis à l’écart
des documents concernant le mandat en cours.
7.
Les mesures prises par le nouveau cabinet pour mettre à l’écart l’agent qui
change de cabinet doivent être énoncées dans une politique écrite qui est
expliquée à tous les associés, collaborateurs et membres du personnel de
soutien du cabinet. Cette politique doit être accompagnée d’un
avertissement indiquant que toute dérogation à la politique entraînera des
sanctions pouvant aller jusqu’au renvoi.
8.
Les membres concernés du cabinet doivent fournir une confirmation écrite
précisant qu’ils se sont conformés et qu’ils continueront de se conformer à
tous les éléments du processus de mise à l’écart.
9.
Le nouveau cabinet doit documenter les mesures prises pour dépister l'agent
qui change de cabinet; le moment où ces mesures ont été mises en place (le
plus tôt sera le mieux); et doit informer le personnel de soutien des mesures
prises.
10.
Le bureau ou le poste de travail de l’agent mis à l’écart et celui des membres
de son personnel de soutien doivent être situés loin des bureaux ou des
postes de travail des agents et du personnel de soutien qui travaillent à
l’affaire.
11.
L’agent mis à l’écart doit faire appel aux services de collaborateurs et
membres du personnel de soutien autres que ceux qui travaillent à l’affaire
en cours.
12.
Les cabinets comptant plusieurs bureaux doivent envisager de confier
l’affaire à des agents travaillant dans un autre bureau.
Concernant le paragraphe 3.6(4)
Agents et personnel de soutien : La règle vise à réglementer les agents et les agents en
formation qui changent de cabinet. Elle impose également aux agents une obligation
générale de faire preuve de diligence raisonnable dans la surveillance des membres non
agents du personnel pour s’assurer qu’ils respectent la règle et l’interdiction de divulguer
des renseignements confidentiels obtenus de clients de la firme de l’agent et de clients
d’un autre cabinet où ils ont déjà travaillé.
25
Certains membres non agents du personnel ont couramment un accès illimité au dossier
des clients et y consacrent beaucoup de temps de travail. C’est pourquoi ils peuvent
connaître des renseignements confidentiels au sujet d’un client. Si un tel membre du
personnel quitte une firme pour travailler dans un autre cabinet et que la nouvelle firme
agit pour un client dont les intérêts s’opposent à ceux du client à qui appartient le dossier
auquel le membre du personnel a contribué, il est raisonnable de conclure que des
renseignements confidentiels pourraient être partagés à moins que des mesures soient
prises pour mettre ce membre du personnel à l’écart. Il incombe à l’agent/au cabinet de
s’assurer que le membre du personnel pouvant avoir des renseignements confidentiels qui
peuvent porter préjudice aux intérêts du client de l’ancien cabinet, s’ils sont divulgués, ne
participe pas au dossier du client du nouveau cabinet et n’a accès à aucun renseignement
concernant ce dossier.
Opérations commerciales avec des clients
3.7
(1)
(2)
Sous réserve des paragraphes 3.7(2) et 3.7(3) ci-dessous, un agent ne doit pas
prendre part à une opération commerciale avec un client ou donner sciemment au
client ou acquérir de celui-ci un droit de propriété, un titre de placement ou tout
autre intérêt financier d’un droit de propriété intellectuelle lié aux conseils
professionnels qu’il donne, à moins que :
(a)
l’opération ne soit juste et raisonnable et que les conditions en soient
entièrement communiquées au client par écrit, d’une façon pouvant être
raisonnablement comprise par le client;
(b)
le client n’ait obtenu un avis juridique indépendant relativement à
l’opération ou qu’il n’ait expressément renoncé à son droit d’obtenir un avis
juridique indépendant, l’agent ayant le fardeau de prouver que les intérêts de
son client ont été protégés par cet avis juridique indépendant; et
(c)
le client ne consente par écrit à cette opération.
Lorsque l’agent se voit confier le mandat de préparer ou de fournir des services
ayant trait à une nouvelle demande de brevet et que l’agent conçoit une
amélioration ou une modification à une invention ou à une portion d’une
invention faisant l’objet d’une revendication dans la demande, de telle sorte que
l’agent croit raisonnablement être un co-inventeur et qu’il propose de s’inscrire
26
comme co-inventeur, l’agent doit conseiller au client d’obtenir un avis
professionnel indépendant afin de déterminer :
(3)
(4)
(a)
s’il est approprié et justifié de nommer l’agent comme co-inventeur; et
(b)
si un nouvel agent doit recevoir le mandat de poursuivre le processus de
demande de brevet.
Lorsque l’agent se voit confier le mandat de fournir des services ayant trait à une
nouvelle demande de marque de commerce et que l’agent crée lui-même la
marque de commerce ou qu’il contribue à sa création de façon considérable,
l’agent doit conseiller au client d’obtenir un avis professionnel indépendant afin
de déterminer :
(a)
si l’agent peut détenir les droits ou une partie des droits relativement à cette
marque de commerce; et
(b)
si un nouvel agent doit recevoir le mandat de poursuivre le processus de
demande de marque de commerce.
Si un client compte payer les services de l’agent en cédant à celui-ci une action,
une participation ou un autre intérêt dans un bien ou une entreprise, autre qu’un
intérêt non substantiel dans une entreprise cotée en bourse, l’agent doit
recommander, mais n’est pas tenu d’exiger, que le client obtienne un avis
juridique indépendant avant d’accepter le mandat.
Commentaire
Concernant le paragraphe 3.7(1)
L’agent doit refuser le mandat quand une transaction avec un client comporte un risque
sérieux que l’intérêt personnel de l’agent nuise de façon appréciable à la loyauté de
l’agent envers un client ou à la représentation du client par l’agent, à moins d’avoir le
consentement du client et à moins que l’agent puisse raisonnablement croire qu’il est en
mesure d’agir pour le client sans nuire à son devoir de loyauté ou de représentation. Si
l’agent décide de ne pas divulguer l’intérêt en conflit (c’est-à-dire son propre intérêt) ou
s’il ne peut le faire sans manquer à son obligation de confidentialité, il doit refuser le
mandat.
27
L’agent ne doit pas accepter sans réserve la décision d’un client qui lui demande d’agir. Il
doit tenir compte du fait que, s’il accepte le mandat, son obligation première sera envers
son client. Si l’agent ne sait pas avec certitude s’il sera en mesure d’accorder la priorité
aux intérêts du client, il doit refuser le mandat.
Concernant le paragraphe 3.7(4)
La rémunération payée à un agent par un client en échange du travail d’agent effectué par
l’agent pour le client ne donne pas lieu à un conflit d’intérêts.
28
4. QUALITÉ DU SERVICE
PRINCIPE DIRECTEUR
Lorsqu’il donne des conseils à un client, un agent doit être honnête et franc et doit donner au client
tous les renseignements qu’il possède et qui pourraient avoir une incidence sur les intérêts du client
dans le dossier.
Règle 4
4.1
Un agent doit donner au client des conseils compétents fondés sur une connaissance
suffisante des faits pertinents, un examen adéquat des lois applicables ainsi que son
expérience et ses compétences.
4.2
Les conseils d’un agent doivent être sincère et directs et doivent clairement refléter
l’opinion de l’agent sur le bien-fondé et les résultats probables.
Commentaire
À l'occasion, l’agent doit être ferme avec son client. Être ferme, sans être impoli, n'est pas
une infraction à la règle. Dans ses communications avec le client, l’agent pourrait être en
désaccord avec le client ou être préoccupé par la position du client au sujet de l’affaire, et
pourrait ainsi donner des conseils qui ne plairont pas au client. Une telle situation pourrait
légitimement exiger une discussion ferme et animée avec le client. L’agent ne doit pas
cacher au client des faits qu’il sait être pertinents au mandat.
4.3
Si un agent croit que le client a mal compris ou mal interprété sa position ou l’enjeu réel,
il doit déployer des efforts raisonnables pour fournir des éclaircissements concernant ses
conseils et ses recommandations au client.
Commentaire
L’agent doit communiquer de façon efficace avec le client. L'efficacité de cette
communication peut varier selon la nature du mandat, les besoins et les connaissances du
client, ainsi que la nécessité pour le client de prendre des décisions éclairées et donner
des directives.
4.4
Un agent doit s'assurer de s’occuper d’une affaire dans un délai raisonnable et il doit
répondre à toutes les questions du client.
29
4.5
Un agent doit prendre des mesures raisonnables pour informer le client des coûts associés
à l’acquisition ou le processus d’acquisition de toute propriété intellectuelle ou à une
demande de protection au Canada ou ailleurs selon les recommandations de l’agent.
Commentaire
Avant ou dans un délai raisonnable après le début d’un mandat, l’agent doit donner au
client autant de renseignements que possible par écrit concernant les honoraires et
débours et les intérêts, selon ce qui est raisonnablement possible compte tenu des
circonstances, incluant les modalités de calcul qui permettront de fixer les honoraires.
L’agent doit confirmer par écrit à son client la teneur de toute discussion concernant les
honoraires, au fur et à mesure de la progression de l’affaire. L’agent peut réviser
l’estimation initiale des honoraires et des débours.
4.6
Un agent doit communiquer de manière efficace et opportune au cours de toutes les
étapes du mandat ou du déroulement de l’affaire du client.
Commentaire
En exigeant un service consciencieux, appliqué et efficace, on demande que l’agent ne
néglige rien pour offrir un service à point nommé au client. L’agent doit respecter les
dates d'échéance à moins de fournir une explication raisonnable et s'assurer que la
situation ne nuira pas au client. Peu importe si une échéance est prescrite, l’agent doit
poursuivre une affaire sans délai en communiquant avec son client et en lui faisant part
de tout nouveau développement de l'affaire. En l'absence de tel développement, la
communication avec le client devrait être entretenue selon les attentes du client.
4.7
Un agent ne devrait pas accepter de représenter un client s’il ne se sent pas à l’aise, pour
des raisons justifiables, d’entreprendre la tâche ou le travail que requiert ce client ou s’il
n’est pas en accord avec les instructions du client au point que ces instructions
restreindront l’habileté de l’agent à exécuter sa tâche ou son travail conformément au
Code.
4.8
Un agent doit informer le client, avec une promptitude raisonnable, de toute omission ou
erreur importante relative à l’affaire du client.
Commentaire
30
Si l’agent découvre, dans le dossier dont un agent est responsable, une erreur ou une
omission qui porte ou pourrait porter préjudice au client et qui ne peut être corrigée
facilement, il doit :
(a)
informer le client de l’erreur ou l’omission dans les plus brefs délais sans
prendre en charge la responsabilité civile;
(b)
recommander au client d’obtenir un avis juridique indépendant concernant
cette affaire; et
(c)
aviser le client que compte tenu des circonstances, il se peut qu’il ne soit
plus en mesure de le représenter.
31
5. HONORAIRES
PRINCIPE DIRECTEUR
Un agent a l’obligation d’être juste et raisonnable dans ses transactions financières avec le
client.
Règle 5
5.1
Un agent ne doit pas demander ou accepter des honoraires ou des débours, y compris des
intérêts, à moins qu’ils soient justes et raisonnables et qu’ils aient été divulgués en temps
opportun.
5.2
Sous réserve de la règle 5.1 (ci-dessus), un agent peut conclure une entente par écrit,
conformément à la loi applicable, prévoyant que tous les honoraires ou une partie de
ceux-ci dépendent de l’affaire pour laquelle l’agent doit fournir ses services.
5.3
Un agent ne doit pas prélever ses honoraires à même des fonds placés sous son contrôle
pour payer des honoraires en tout ou en partie, sans la permission du client, à l’exception
de ce qui est autorisé par la présente règle. Les sommes détenues par l’agent pour le
crédit du client ne peuvent pas être appliquées à des honoraires engagés par le client à
moins qu’un état de compte ait été transmis au client.
5.4
Un agent ne doit pas autoriser quiconque n’est pas un agent, à fixer des honoraires à
demander au client, sauf si la personne utilise un barème d’honoraires. Ce barème doit
cependant avoir été établi par l’agent et l’agent doit être responsable de l’envoi du
compte au client.
5.5
Dans un relevé de compte remis au client, un agent doit indiquer clairement et
séparément les montants qui correspondent à des honoraires et ceux qui correspondent à
des débours. Il ne peut pas présenter à titre de débours à un tiers toute somme non versée
à un tiers.
5.6
Si le client y consent, les honoraires afférents à l’une ou l’autre affaire peuvent être
séparés avec un autre agent ou un avocat qui n’est pas associé ou collaborateur dans le
même cabinet que l’agent, à la condition que les honoraires soient divisés
proportionnellement au travail effectué et aux responsabilités assumées.
5.7
Si un agent renvoie une affaire à un autre agent ou professionnel parce que cet autre agent
ou professionnel possède les compétences et aptitudes requises pour s’occuper de cette
affaire et si l’affaire n’a pas été renvoyée à cet autre agent ou professionnel en raison d’un
32
conflit d’intérêts, l’agent faisant le renvoi peut accepter, et l’autre agent ou professionnel
peut payer, une commission pour renvoi pourvu que :
5.8
(a)
la commission soit raisonnable et n’augmente pas le montant total des
honoraires demandés au client; et
(b)
le client en soit informé et y consente.
Si un agent exige un paiement avant de commencer le travail pour le client, il doit
confirmer par écrit avec le client le montant et l’objet du paiement ainsi que les
conséquences d’un retard concernant le paiement de même que les conséquences d’un
retard du travail, y compris une éventuelle perte de droits.
Commentaire
Les facteurs pouvant servir à déterminer que le montant d’un acompte représente des honoraires
justes et raisonnables dans un cas donné englobent, sans s’y limiter, les éléments suivants :
(a)
le temps et les efforts requis et consacrés à l’affaire;
(b)
la nature de l’affaire, y compris son degré de difficulté et d’urgence, son importance
pour le client et sa valeur financière de même que toutes les autres circonstances
spéciales, notamment le report de paiement et l’incertitude entourant le montant
accordé;
(c)
les compétences ou services particuliers requis et fournis, s’il y a lieu;
(d)
les résultats obtenus;
(e)
les honoraires habituellement facturés par d’autres agents de compétence égale dans
la localité pour des affaires semblables et dans des circonstances semblables;
(f)
la probabilité, si le client en a été informé, que l’agent ne puisse accepter d’autre
travail s’il accepte le mandat du client;
(g)
toute entente pertinente entre l’agent et le client;
(h)
l’expérience et les aptitudes de l’agent;
(i)
toute estimation ou échelle d’honoraires donnée par l’agent;
(j)
le fait que les honoraires soient liés ou non à l’issue de l’affaire;
(k)
le consentement préalable du client relativement aux honoraires; et
(l)
les coûts directs engagés par l’agent pour fournir les services requis.
33
Avant le mandat ou dans un délai raisonnable après le début d’un mandat, l’agent doit donner au
client autant de renseignements que possible par écrit concernant les honoraires et débours et les
intérêts, selon ce qui est raisonnablement possible compte tenu des circonstances, y compris les
modalitées de calcul qui permettront de fixer les honoraires.
L’agent doit être en mesure de fournir des explications concernant le calcul des honoraires et des
débours demandés au client. Si des circonstances inhabituelles ou imprévisibles pouvant avoir
une incidence importante sur le montant des honoraires ou des débours surviennent, l’agent doit
rapidement expliquer la situation au client.
En ce qui concerne les honoraires conditionnels (voir l’alinéa j) ci-dessus et la règle 5.2), bien
que l’agent puisse généralement mettre fin à la relation professionnelle avec un client et ne plus
offrir ses services conformément aux présentes règles (règle 6, section suivante), des conditions
particulières s’appliquent lorsqu’un mandat est établi conformément à une entente d’honoraires
conditionnels. Dans de telles circonstances, l’agent a implicitement pris le risque de ne pas être
rémunéré si l’issue du mandat est infructueuse. Par conséquent, l’agent ne peut pas se retirer
d’un mandat pour les raisons énoncées à l’alinéa 6.2(a) et liées aux honoraires, à moins que le
contrat d’honoraires conditionnels écrit ne prévoie expressément que l’agent a le droit de le faire
et dans quelles circonstances il peut le faire.
34
6. RETRAIT DE L’AGENT
PRINCIPE DIRECTEUR
Un agent ne peut se retirer d’une affaire que pour des motifs valables et après en avoir
convenablement avisé le client.
Règle 6
6.1
6.2
Un agent doit se retirer d’une affaire lorsque :
(a)
le client persiste à lui demander d’agir de façon contraire à l’éthique
professionnelle;
(b)
le client persiste à lui demander d’agir d’une façon qui, selon lui, aide le
client à commettre un acte criminel ou frauduleux;
(c)
il ne possède pas les compétences requises ou il n’est pas en mesure d’agir
avec une promptitude raisonnable; ou
(d)
le fait de continuer de représenter le client l’empêcherait d’honorer ses
obligations en matière de conflit d’intérêts.
Un agent peut se retirer d’une affaire lorsque les circonstances le justifient. Les
circonstances pouvant justifier, sans toutefois nécessiter, son retrait d’une affaire sont
notamment les suivantes :
(a)
le client, après avoir reçu un préavis raisonnable, ne verse pas une provision
pour honoraires ou débours conforme à une demande raisonnable de l’agent;
(b)
la conduite du client dans l’affaire est déshonorante ou motivée
principalement par la malveillance;
(c)
le client persiste à agir de façon déraisonnable ou à ne pas collaborer, faisant
en sorte que l’agent a énormément de difficulté à fournir des services
efficaces;
(d)
l’agent est incapable de trouver le client ou d’obtenir des directives
appropriées;
(e)
une grave perte de confiance survient entre l’agent et le client; ou
(f)
l’agent est incapable de pratiquer ou se retire de la pratique.
35
6.3
Un agent peut se retirer d’une affaire si le client y consent.
6.4
Si un agent se retire d’une affaire ou s’il s’en dessaisit, il doit s’efforcer d’éviter de
causer au client tout préjudice prévisible et il doit aussi collaborer avec l’agent qui lui
succédera, le cas échéant.
6.5
Si un agent se retire d’une affaire ou s’il s’en dessaisit et qu’il reçoit une communication
officielle relativement à l’affaire et pour laquelle une réponse doit être donnée pour éviter
un abandon, il doit s’efforcer de joindre rapidement l’ancien client pour l’informer de
cette communication officielle afin d’éviter de lui causer un préjudice et de lui permettre
de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour préserver ses droits.
6.6
Lorsqu’un agent se retire d’une affaire ou s’en dessaisit, il doit promptement soumettre
au client un état de compte final et lui présenter un rapport relativement aux sommes et
aux biens reçus du client.
6.7
Avant d’accepter de représenter un client, le nouvel agent doit être convaincu que
l’ancien agent s’est retiré de l’affaire ou qu’il en a été dessaisi par le client.
Commentaire
Un élément essentiel du préavis raisonnable est la signification au client, à moins que l’agent ne
soit pas en mesure de savoir où se trouve le client après avoir fait des efforts raisonnables. Il
n’existe pas de règle stricte pour déterminer ce qui constitue un préavis raisonnable avant le
retrait d’une affaire, et le moment où l’agent pourra cesser d’agir suite à la signification du retrait
dépend de toutes les circonstances pertinentes. Le principe directeur veut que l’agent protège de
son mieux les intérêts de son client et n’abandonne pas son client à une étape critique ou à un
moment où son retrait placerait le client dans une position désavantageuse. En règle générale, le
client doit disposer de suffisamment de temps pour trouver un autre agent et le mettre au courant
de l’affaire. Il doit notamment pouvoir indiquer le changement d’agent au bureau concerné de
l’OPIC. L’agent ne doit rien négliger pour s’assurer de se retirer en temps opportun dans le
processus de suivi de la demande, conformément à ses obligations. Le bureau concerné de
l’OPIC, les parties adverses, les agents étrangers et les autres intervenants directement concernés
doivent également être avisés du retrait de l’agent.
À moins que le premier client n’y consente, l’agent ne doit pas laisser tomber de façon
expéditive et inattendue un client pour éviter le conflit d’intérêts auquel donnerait lieu
l’acceptation d’un nouveau mandat avec un second client. À noter que la divulgation de
l’existence d’un conflit d’intérêts est une exigence essentielle à l’obtention du consentement du
premier client. Lorsqu’il n’est pas possible de communiquer l’information voulue au premier
36
client en raison de la confidentialité des renseignements du second client, l’agent doit refuser
d’offrir des services au second client.
La dissolution du cabinet d’un agent ou le fait qu’un agent quitte un cabinet pour exercer ailleurs
entraîne généralement la fin de la relation du client avec un ou plusieurs des agents concernés.
Dans une telle situation, la plupart des clients préfèrent faire appel aux services de l’agent qu'ils
considéraient comme responsable de leur dossier avant le changement. Cependant, le client a le
dernier mot et les agents n’agissant plus pour ce client doivent se conformer aux principes
énoncés dans la présente règle et, en particulier, tenter de réduire au minimum les frais engagés
et éviter de nuire au client. Puisque les intérêts du client passent avant tout, la décision de
continuer à retenir les services de l’agent doit être prise par le client sans qu’il ne soit influencé
ou harcelé par l’agent ou le cabinet de l’agent. En outre, l’agent et le cabinet qui se retirent, ou
l’un des deux, pourraient être tenus d’aviser les clients par écrit que l’agent se retire et de leur
indiquer les solutions possibles, soit de continuer de faire appel aux services de l’agent qui se
retire, continuer de faire appel aux services du cabinet de l’agent ou engager un nouvel agent et
un nouveau cabinet.
Lorsque l’agent est dessaisi ou se retire d’une affaire, il doit :
(a)
aviser le client par écrit :
(i)
qu’il se retire de l’affaire;
(ii)
des raisons, s’il y a lieu, de son retrait; et
(iii) dans le cas d’une audience, que le client devrait s’attendre à ce que
l’audience commence à la date prévue et que celui-ci devrait trouver un
autre agent sans tarder;
(b)
remettre ou faire remettre au client tous les documents et biens auxquels le client a
droit;
(c)
sous réserve de toutes conditions fiduciaires applicables, donner au client tous les
renseignements nécessaires au sujet de l’affaire;
(d)
rendre compte de tous les fonds du client qu’il détient ou qu’il a administrés et
notamment rembourser toute rémunération à laquelle il n’a pas droit pour ses
services;
(e)
produire sans délai le compte de ses honoraires et débours impayés;
(f)
collaborer au transfert du dossier avec l’agent qui lui succède de façon à réduire
au minimum les frais engagés par le client et à éviter de lui nuire; et
37
(g)
respecter les règlements applicables de l’OPIC ou des bureaux concernés.
Si l’agent qui est dessaisi d’une affaire ou qui s’en retire fait partie d’un cabinet, le client doit
être avisé que l’agent et le cabinet n’agissent plus pour lui.
L’obligation de rendre les documents et les biens est assujettie à une entente entre l’agent et le
client. Dans le cas où plusieurs parties réclameraient ces documents ou ces biens, l’agent doit
prendre toutes les mesures requises pour amener les parties à une entente.
Lorsque l’agent initial est appelé à collaborer avec le nouvel agent, il doit généralement fournir
tous les dossiers concernant des demandes et des brevets/marques de commerce, mais il ne doit
pas divulguer les renseignements confidentiels qui n’ont aucun lien direct avec l’affaire sans le
consentement écrit du client.
L’agent qui représente plusieurs parties dans une affaire ou un dossier et qui cesse d’agir pour
une ou plusieurs d’entre elles doit collaborer avec l’agent ou les agents qui le remplaceront dans
la mesure exigée par les règles, et il doit tenter d’éviter toute rivalité malséante, réelle ou
apparente.
Il convient parfaitement que l’agent prenant la relève incite fortement le client à régler ou à
protéger tout compte non réglé de l’ancien agent, ou à prendre des mesures raisonnables à cette
fin, surtout si ce dernier s’est retiré de l’affaire pour un motif valable ou en a été dessaisi pour
des raisons arbitraires. Toutefois, si une affaire est en cours ou imminente, ou si le client risque
de subir un préjudice, l’existence d’un compte en souffrance ne doit pas empêcher l’agent
prenant la relève de représenter le client.
38
7. DEVOIRS ENVERS L’INSTITUT ET LA PROFESSION
PRINCIPE DIRECTEUR
Un agent doit contribuer au maintien des normes de la profession dans ses rapports avec
l’Institut et les membres de la profession en général. La conduite de l’agent envers les autres
agents doit être empreinte de courtoisie et de bonne foi.
Règle 7
7.1
Un agent doit se conduire de manière professionnelle.
7.2
Un agent ne doit pas se conduire de manière à discréditer la profession.
7.3
Un membre de l’Institut doit répondre rapidement à toute correspondance provenant de
l’Institut et concernant sa conduite. Sa réponse doit être complète et appropriée.
7.4
Un agent a le devoir d’honorer les obligations financières relatives à l’exercice de sa
profession d’agent.
7.5
Un agent doit signaler à l’Institut toute conduite dont il a personnellement connaissance
et qui, de l’avis raisonnable de cet agent agissant de bonne foi, laisse sérieusement croire
qu’un autre agent déroge au Code.
7.6
Un agent doit encourager un client qui porte plainte contre un agent présumé malhonnête
à signaler les faits à l’Institut dans les meilleurs délais.
7.7
Un agent assume toute la responsabilité professionnelle des affaires qui lui sont confiées
et doit encadrer directement le personnel et les adjoints à qui il délègue des tâches et des
fonctions particulières.
7.8
Un agent qui supervise un agent en formation doit donner à ce dernier une formation
sérieuse et lui permettre de se familiariser avec le travail et d’y participer. La formation
doit permettre à l’agent en formation d’acquérir les connaissances requises et
l’expérience des aspects pratiques du travail des agents de brevets et de marques de
commerce ainsi que de bien comprendre les traditions et l’éthique de la profession.
7.9
En ce qui a trait à l’exercice de la profession d’agent, un agent ne doit faire preuve de
discrimination envers qui que ce soit.
39
7.10
En ce qui a trait à l’exercice de la profession d’agent, un agent ne doit se livrer à aucune
forme de harcèlement, sexuel ou autre, envers qui que ce soit.
7.11
(a)
Lorsqu’un agent (« agent qui change de cabinet ») quitte un cabinet (« ancien
cabinet ») pour pratiquer dans un nouveau cabinet, ni l’agent ni l’ancien cabinet
ne doivent exercer ou tenter d’exercer de pression excessive ou de harcèlement
auprès de clients de l’ancien cabinet qui avaient confié des mandats à l’agent qui
change de cabinet dans le but d’influencer la décision de ces clients quant à la
personne qui les représentera.
(b)
Lorsque l’agent est un employé, il ne doit pas solliciter de mandat pour son propre
compte auprès des clients actuels ou potentiels de son employeur, sans que son
employeur en soit informé.
40
8. COMMUNICATIONS AVEC L’INSTITUT, L’OPIC ET LES AUTRES
PRINCIPE DIRECTEUR
La conduite d’un agent envers les autres agents doit être empreinte de courtoisie et de bonne
foi.
Règle 8
8.1
(1)
Un agent doit être courtois et poli et agir de bonne foi envers toutes les personnes
avec lesquelles il traite dans l’exercice de ses fonctions. Il est entendu qu’un agent
doit être courtois et poli et agir en toute bonne foi envers les représentants de
l’OPIC.
(2)
Toute la correspondance et toutes les remarques adressées par un agent à un autre
agent ou le concernant, que ce soit à l’intérieur ou à l’extérieur du cabinet de
l’agent ou concernant un autre cabinet, l’OPIC ou l’Institut, doivent être
équitables, exactes et courtoises.
(3)
Un agent doit éviter toute pratique déloyale et ne doit pas profiter d’étourderies,
d’irrégularités ou d’erreurs ou agir sans avertissement formel dans un tel cas, si
ces étourderies, irrégularités ou erreurs ne touchent pas le fond de l’affaire ou ne
portent pas atteinte aux droits du client.
(4)
Un agent doit éviter de critiquer sans fondement la compétence, la conduite, les
conseils et le travail d’autres agents, mais il doit être prêt, lorsqu’on le lui
demande, à conseiller et représenter un client relativement à une plainte qui
concerne un autre agent.
(5)
Un agent doit accepter les demandes raisonnables concernant des dates
d’audience, des reports de délai, des abandons de formalités de procédure et
autres accommodations de ce type, à moins que cela ne cause préjudice à la
position de son client ou que ce ne soit contraire aux instructions du client.
Commentaire
L’intérêt public exige que les dossiers confiés à un agent soient traités de manière
efficace et sans délai. Cette exigence pourra être respectée si, entre autres, l’agent agit de
façon courtoise et équitable envers les autres. L’agent qui se comporte autrement fait du
tort au client et, en dérogeant à la règle, il ne pourra remplir ses fonctions adéquatement.
41
Toute hostilité qui pourrait exister ou être engendrée entre clients, particulièrement dans
le cadre de procédures d’opposition, ne devrait jamais influencer les agents dans leur
conduite ou leur comportement les uns envers les autres ou envers les parties. Si les
agents agissant dans une affaire entretiennent un sentiment d’animosité les uns envers les
autres, des facteurs émotifs risquent de brouiller leur jugement et gêner le déroulement de
l’affaire.
8.2
(1)
Dans l’exercice de sa profession, un agent ne doit pas envoyer une lettre ou
communiquer autrement avec un client, un autre agent ou toute autre personne de
façon injurieuse, déplaisante ou autrement incompatible avec le ton approprié
d’une communication professionnelle de la part d’un agent.
(2)
Un agent doit répondre dans un délai raisonnable à toutes les lettres et les
communications qui lui sont adressées par l’OPIC qui demandent une réponse. Un
agent doit de plus respecter tous ses engagements avec ponctualité.
(3)
Sous réserve de la règle 8.2(4), si une personne est représentée par un agent ou un
avocat dans une affaire, un autre agent ne doit pas, sauf par l’entremise ou avec le
consentement de l’agent ou avocat de cette personne :
(a)
entrer en contact, communiquer ou traiter avec la personne au sujet de
l’affaire en question; ou
(b)
tenter de négocier ou de parvenir à un compromis directement avec la
personne.
(4)
Un agent qui n’est pas concerné par une affaire peut donner une deuxième opinion
au sujet de cette affaire à la personne qui est représentée par un agent.
(5)
Un agent engagé pour agir dans une affaire concernant une personne morale ou un
organisme représenté par un agent ou un avocat ne doit pas s’adresser à un
dirigeant ou un employé de l’organisme :
(a) qui a le pouvoir de lier l’organisme;
(b) qui surveille, dirige ou consulte régulièrement l’agent de l’organisme; ou
(c) dont les intérêts sont directement en jeu dans l’affaire en question,
au sujet de cette affaire, à moins d’avoir le consentement de l’agent ou avocat
représentant l’organisme ou à moins que ce contact soit autorisé ou exigé par la
42
loi. Aux fins de la présente règle, l’expression « autre organisme » englobe les
partenariats, les associations, les syndicats, les groupes non constitués en société,
les ministères et les organismes gouvernementaux, les tribunaux, les organismes
de réglementation et les entreprises individuelles.
Commentaire
La règle 8.2(3) s’applique aux communications avec une personne, qu’elle soit ou non
une des parties à une action formelle en justice, à un contrat ou à des négociations, et qui
est représentée par un agent dans une affaire avec laquelle les communications ont un
lien. Un agent peut communiquer avec une personne représentée à propos d’une question
qui ne concerne pas l’affaire en question. Cette règle n’empêche pas les parties à une
instance de communiquer directement entre eux.
L’interdiction de communiquer avec une personne représentée s’applique uniquement
lorsque l’agent sait, ou devrait savoir selon les circonstances, que la personne est
représentée dans l’affaire faisant l’objet de la discussion.
La règle 8.2(4) vise les circonstances où un client peut vouloir obtenir une deuxième
opinion d’un autre agent. Il se peut que l’agent ait besoin de faits obtenus uniquement en
consultant le premier agent intervenant dans l’affaire. L’agent doit informer le client de
ce fait et, lorsqu’il y a lieu, consulter le premier agent à moins d’indication contraire de la
part du client.
La règle 8.2(5) interdit à un agent représentant une autre personne ou entité de
communiquer avec des personnes qui participent vraisemblablement au processus
décisionnel relativement à cette affaire pour une personne morale ou un autre organisme.
Si un représentant ou un employé de l’organisme est représenté par un agent dans cette
affaire, le consentement de cet agent suffit aux fins de la présente règle. Un agent peut
communiquer avec des employés ou des représentants au sujet de questions qui ne
concernent pas le dossier.
8.3
Lorsqu’un agent s’adresse, au nom de son client, à une personne qui n’est pas
représentée, l’agent doit :
(a)
conseiller vivement à cette personne de faire appel à un agent indépendant;
43
(b)
bien faire comprendre à cette personne qu’il ne se chargera pas de protéger ses
intérêts;
(c)
bien faire comprendre à cette personne qu’il agit uniquement dans l’intérêt du
client; et
(d) faire preuve envers la personne non représentée de la même courtoisie et de la
même bonne foi qu’envers les autres agents ou les agents en formation.
Commentaire
Si une personne non représentée demande à l’agent de donner un avis ou d’intervenir
dans l’affaire, l’agent doit tenir compte des considérations énoncées à la règle sur les
conflits concernant un double mandat.
8.4
Un agent qui reçoit un document concernant la représentation du client d’un autre agent
et sait ou devrait savoir que le document a été envoyé par inadvertance doit aviser
l’expéditeur dans les plus brefs délais. Aux fins de la présente règle, le terme
« document » comprend les courriels ou autres communications transmises par voie
électronique qui peuvent être lus ou convertis en version lisible.
Commentaire
Les agents reçoivent parfois des documents envoyés ou produits, par erreur, par une
partie adverse ou son agent. Si un agent sait ou devrait raisonnablement savoir qu’un tel
document a été envoyé par inadvertance, il est tenu d’aviser l’expéditeur dans les
meilleurs délais afin de permettre à cette personne de prendre les mesures de protection
nécessaires.
Certains agents peuvent décider de retourner un document sans le lire lorsque, par
exemple, ils apprennent que le document a été envoyé à la mauvaise adresse avant même
de le recevoir. La décision de retourner un tel document volontairement est une question
de jugement professionnel qui est normalement laissé à la discrétion de l’agent à moins
qu’une loi applicable l’oblige à le faire.
44
9. PUBLICITÉ
PRINCIPE DIRECTEUR
Un agent peut annoncer ses services et ses honoraires ou solliciter du travail de toute autre
manière, à la condition que la publicité :
(1)
ne soit pas mensongère, ne prête pas à confusion ou ne soit pas trompeuse, ou
qu’elle ne risque pas d’induire en erreur, de prêter à confusion ou de tromper;
(2)
soit de bon goût;
(3)
ne soit pas susceptible de discréditer la profession; et
(4)
soit vraie, exacte et vérifiable.
Règle 9
9.1
Un agent ne doit laisser faussement entendre que lui ou une autre personne de son cabinet
possède des diplômes ou des titres professionnels que lui ou l’autre personne ne possède
pas.
Commentaire
Les clients sont souvent à la recherche d’un agent ayant une certaine expérience ou
certaines compétences. Ces clients ne doivent pas être trompés par l’agent qui prétend
que lui ou d’autres membres de son cabinet possèdent des compétences qu’ils n’ont pas.
9.2
La publicité faite par un agent peut être conçue de façon à ce que les renseignements qui
y sont donnés aident la clientèle potentielle à choisir un agent ayant les compétences et
les connaissances appropriées pour une affaire en particulier. L’agent peut indiquer que
sa pratique se restreint à un secteur en particulier ou qu’il pratique dans un certain
domaine, si tel est le cas. Dans toutes les circonstances, les déclarations faites doivent
être exactes (dont la véracité peut être démontrée) et ne doivent pas être trompeuses.
9.3
Un agent ne doit pas indiquer dans une annonce, un en-tête de lettre ou autrement que son
bureau est situé à telle adresse lorsqu’en fait tel n’est pas le cas.
45
9.4
Un agent peut annoncer les honoraires demandés pour ses services, à condition que :
(a)
la publicité indique de façon suffisamment précise les services offerts en échange
de chacun des honoraires annoncés;
(b)
la publicité indique si d’autres montants, tels que les débours et les taxes, sont en
sus; et
(c)
l’agent respecte rigoureusement les honoraires annoncés dans toutes les
circonstances applicables.
Commentaire
L’emploi d’expressions comme « Pierre Untel et collaborateurs » ou « Pierre Untel et
compagnie » et « Pierre Untel et associés » est incorrect à moins que, dans les faits, deux
agents ou plus soient associés à Pierre Untel ou deux associés ou plus pratiquent avec
Pierre Untel.
46
10. PRATIQUES NON AUTORISÉES
PRINCIPE DIRECTEUR
Un agent a le devoir d’aider à prévenir toute pratique non autorisée par des personnes ou des
groupes en tant qu’agents de brevets ou de marques de commerce.
Règle 10
10.1
Un agent ne doit pas, sans l’autorisation expresse de l’Institut, par l’entremise du Conseil,
engager pour exercer quelque fonction que ce soit ayant trait à la pratique d’agent de
brevets, d’agent de marques de commerce ou des deux, un agent suspendu à la suite de
procédures disciplinaires ou une personne rayée du tableau ou autorisée à démissionner
alors qu’elle faisait face à des procédures disciplinaires et qui n’a pas été réhabilitée. Il ne
doit pas non plus partager des bureaux, conclure un partenariat ou s’associer avec cet
agent ou cette personne ou retenir ses services.
10.2
Un agent ne doit pas aider ou assister une personne qui pratique à titre d’agent de brevets
ou d’agent de marques de commerce si cette personne n’est pas autorisée à le faire.
10.3
Un agent qui a été suspendu à la suite de procédures disciplinaires ou la personne qui a
été rayée du tableau ou qui a été autorisée à démissionner alors qu’elle faisait face à des
procédures disciplinaires et qui n’a pas été réhabilitée ne doit pas :
(a)
(b)
10.4
exercer la profession d’agent de brevets ou de marques de commerce, selon
le cas; ou
se présenter comme une personne autorisée à exercer la profession d’agents
de brevets ou de marques de commerce, selon le cas, ou affirmer qu’elle est
autorisée à le faire.
Un membre de l'Institut qui n'est pas un agent ne doit pas se présenter comme un agent,
que ce soit en annonçant son adhésion à l'Institut ou autrement.
Commentaire
Il est de l’intérêt du public et de la profession que les personnes qui ne possèdent pas les
qualifications requises et qui ne sont pas soumises à des mesures de contrôle, de gestion
ou de discipline ne soient pas autorisées à offrir au public des services d’agent de brevets
ou d’agent de marques de commerce.
47
11. DISCIPLINE
Sous-comité de déontologie
11.1
Le Conseil nomme parmi ses membres un sous-comité connu sous le nom de Souscomité de déontologie auquel sont renvoyés tous les cas de dérogation apparente au Code
de déontologie qui sont portés à l’attention du Conseil.
Le Sous-comité de déontologie examine chaque cas de dérogation apparente au Code de
déontologie qui lui est adressé et fait rapport au Conseil :
(a)
(b)
s’il appert, à la suite d’un examen appropriée, qu’une telle dérogation
apparente au Code de déontologie a effectivement eu lieu; et
sur les mesures qu’il recommande au Conseil relativement à cette
dérogation apparente.
Dès réception du rapport du Sous-comité de déontologie, le Conseil décide si une telle
dérogation justifie ou non une mesure disciplinaire.
Mesures disciplinaires prises par le Conseil
11.2
La mesure disciplinaire est entreprise par l’envoi au membre de l’Institut concerné d’un
avis écrit énumérant les actes ou omissions qui sont présumés constituer une dérogation
au Code de déontologie ainsi que l’article ou les articles du Code de déontologie qui sont
présumés ne pas avoir été respectés.
Le membre de l’Institut peut présenter au Conseil une réponse écrite dans le délai précisé
dans l’avis dont il est question au paragraphe 1 ou dans le délai supplémentaire demandé
par le membre de l’Institut et autorisé par le Conseil comme étant raisonnablement
nécessaire pour préparer sa réponse.
Si aucune réponse écrite n’est reçue ou si la réponse écrite ne permet pas, selon le
Conseil, de régler la question de façon satisfaisante, le Conseil peut convoquer le membre
à une réunion extraordinaire du Conseil. Le membre peut se présenter à cette réunion en
personne ou s’y faire représenter, s’il le désire, afin de donner des explications sur sa
conduite.
À la suite de la comparution du membre de l’Institut devant le Conseil ou de son défaut
de comparaître, le Conseil peut, par le vote en ce sens d’au moins six (6) membres du
48
Conseil formant une majorité au Conseil, imposer à ce membre de l’Institut l’une des
sanctions disciplinaires suivantes :
(a)
une réprimande ou un avertissement adressé au membre oralement ou par
écrit;
(b)
la suspension du membre pour la période et selon les conditions que le
Conseil juge appropriées, une telle suspension et les détails y afférents
devant être signifiés au membre par avis écrit; ou
(c)
l’expulsion du membre de l’Institut, une telle expulsion et les motifs la
justifiant devant être signifiés au membre par un avis écrit.
L’avis d’un tel avertissement ou d’une telle réprimande, suspension ou expulsion et les
motifs justificatifs peuvent, à la discrétion du Conseil, être publiés et le Conseil peut, à sa
discrétion, taire le nom du membre concerné, à condition (i) qu’un tel avis ne soit pas
publié à moins que le membre n’ait été avisé, au moment où la sanction disciplinaire lui
a été imposée, qu’il y aura publication, (ii) qu’il n’y ait aucune publication avant que le
délai d’appel prévu par le règlement administratif ne soit expiré, et (iii), s’il y a appel,
qu’aucune publication autre que dans un avis d’assemblée ne soit faite, jusqu’à ce
qu’une décision ait été rendue en appel.
Divers
11.3
Dans l’éventualité où surviendrait un conflit entre les normes de conduite prévues dans le
Code et les normes de conduite professionnelle applicables à tout agent de brevets ou de
marques de commerce de bonne réputation dans le propre pays du membre, un membre
de l’Institut non résident ayant eu une conduite contraire aux normes prescrites aux
présentes, mais conforme aux normes de conduite applicables dans le pays du membre,
n’est en aucun temps réputé avoir eu une conduite non professionnelle ou dérogatoire, à
moins que le Conseil, à la suite d’un examen appropriée, n’établisse à la majorité des
voix obtenues à une réunion convoquée en bonne et due forme à cette fin que la conduite
du membre discrédite l’Institut ou ses membres.
Tout membre de l’Institut peut demander au Conseil de se prononcer afin de déterminer
si un document que le cabinet du membre utilise ou publie ou se propose d’utiliser ou de
publier ou si la conduite présente ou projetée du membre ou de son cabinet sont
conformes au Code, et le Conseil peut statuer sur la question.
49
Le Conseil peut, de temps à autre, formuler des avis relatifs à la déontologie qui seront
publiés à l’intention des membres dans la Revue canadienne de propriété intellectuelle ou
dans toute autre publication de l’Institut.
50
Annex D
French version of proposed discipline process
Pour soutenir l’excellence :
Un cadre moderne de gouvernance
pour les agents de brevets
et de marques de commerce
Détails d’un possible processus
disciplinaire
Note importante:
Les règlements en matière de discipline présentés dans les pages
suivantes furent préparés dans le contexte de la proposition d’Ordre
des agents de brevets et de marques de commerce. Ces règlements
furent présentés aux membres de l’IPIC en 2003. Lors de l’assemblée
générale annuelle de la même année, les membres votèrent en faveur
de l’adoption de ces règlements par l’Ordre lors de sa création.
Ce qui suit est le texte tel qu’il fut adopté en 2003. S’il devait être
utilisé, le texte devrait évidemment être modifié pour refléter la réalité
du régime de réglementation qui aura été choisi. Il devrait peut-être
aussi être mis à jour.
2
RÈGLEMENTS EN MATIÈRE DE DISCIPLINE POUR L’ORDRE DES
AGENTS DE BREVETS ET DE MARQUES DE COMMERCE
(Proposés par l’Institut de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada1)
Interprétation
Règlement 1
Dans ces Règlements,
(1) « agent » inclut, là où le contexte le justifie, un agent de marques de commerce
inscrit, un agent de brevets inscrit et un membre de l’Ordre, ainsi qu’un stagiaire en
voie de devenir un agent de marques de commerce ou de brevets;
(2) « client » signifie une personne physique ou morale qui obtient conseil ou
demande les services d’un agent ou qui recherche ses services, de façon directe ou
indirecte, pour le compte d’autres personnes;
(3) « Code de déontologie » signifie le code de déontologie adopté par l’Ordre et en
vigueur de temps à autre;
(4) « Conseil » signifie l’organe directeur de l’Ordre;
(5) « défendeur » signifie un membre contre qui une plainte est logée ou une
accusation est portée;
(6) « Directeur général » signifie le Directeur général de l’Ordre;
(7) « équipe d’enquêteurs » signifie une équipe d’enquêteurs nommés
conformément au Règlement 4(7);
(8) « infraction » signifie une violation du Code de déontologie ou des Règlements;
(9) « membre de l’Ordre » ou « Membre » signifie un individu qui a été admis à
l’Ordre dans l’une quelconque des catégories de membres;
(10) « organisme bilatéral » signifie le barreau d’une province, le Barreau du
Québec ou toute autre association qui régit les avocats exerçant leur profession
dans les territoires au Canada;
(11) « Règlements » signifie les règlements de l’Ordre en vigueur de temps à autre;
(12) « Tribunaux d’appel » signifie la Cour fédérale du Canada, la Cour fédérale
1
Ces règlements sont une adaptation de ceux de l’Institut canadien des actuaires. Nous en
remercions l’ICA.
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
3
d’appel du Canada et la Cour suprême du Canada.
Nomination des Comités et des groupes de candidats
Règlement 2
(1) Le Conseil nomme un Comité de discipline pour les fins du Règlement 3. Les
membres du Comité de discipline incluront une personne provenant du grand
public qui sera nommée par le Procureur général du Canada.
(2) Le Conseil nomme chaque année un groupe de candidats, afin de former un
Tribunal de discipline, qui sera composé d’au moins quinze (15) membres de
l’Ordre ayant accepté en principe d’être disponibles pour devenir membres d’un
Tribunal de discipline. Le Président, le Président élu, le Président sortant et les
membres du Conseil ne peuvent siéger comme membres du groupe de candidats.
Le Conseil nomme chaque année deux (2) membres du groupe de candidats à titre
de Président et de Vice-président du groupe de candidats.
(3) Le Conseil peut former des groupes de travail pour étudier des questions en
matière de discipline.
Discipline des Membres
Règlement 3
Compétence du Comité de discipline
(1) Le Comité de discipline de l’Ordre est chargé de toutes les questions de
discipline concernant les membres de l’Ordre ainsi que d’offrir conseils et appui et
de former les Membres en matière de discipline. Le Comité de discipline traite de :
(a) toute plainte alléguant qu’un membre de l’Ordre a commis une
infraction;
(b) toute demande de renseignements portant sur la conduite d’un membre
de l’Ordre.
Composition et quorum
(2) Le Comité de discipline est composé d’au moins dix (10) membres, dont un (1)
Président. Le quorum de ce Comité est de cinq (5) membres, sauf s’il faut tenir un
vote pour porter des accusations contre un membre, auquel cas le quorum est de
sept (7) membres.
(3) Le Directeur général de l’Ordre s’assure que les dossiers du Comité de
discipline sont conservés.
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
4
Président sortant est membre d’office
(4) Un membre du Conseil ne peut siéger à titre de membre du Comité de
discipline, sauf le Président sortant qui est membre d’office et qui détient un droit
de vote. Le Président sortant ne peut agir comme Président du Comité de
discipline.
Conflit d’intérêts
(5) Les membres du Comité de discipline doivent refuser de participer à toute
affaire à l’égard de laquelle ils estiment être en position de conflit d’intérêts. Si le
Président est en position de conflit d’intérêts, un autre Président est nommé par les
autres membres du Comité de discipline.
Réunions
(6) Les membres du Comité de discipline tiennent des réunions sur une base
trimestrielle, mais ces réunions peuvent être plus fréquentes, si nécessaire. Chaque
décision du Comité de discipline est prise à la majorité des membres présents à la
réunion. En cas de partage égal des voix, la proposition est considérée comme
rejetée. Seuls les membres du Comité de discipline et les personnes invitées par le
Président du Comité de discipline peuvent assister aux réunions du Comité de
discipline.
Confidentialité des délibérés
(7) Sous réserve des exceptions prévues dans les Règlements, les délibérés du
Comité de discipline et de toute équipe d’enquêteurs, y compris les dossiers et les
procès-verbaux, sont confidentiels, à moins que le Comité de discipline n’en décide
autrement dans une situation particulière.
(8) Toute personne présente à une réunion du Comité de discipline est tenue de
respecter la confidentialité des délibérés et de toute information obtenue
relativement à une telle réunion, sous forme verbale ou écrite, qu’elle ait été
obtenue avant, pendant ou après une telle réunion.
Dépôt d’une plainte
Règlement 4
(1) Toute personne ou tout Membre peut loger une plainte et le Directeur général
reçoit toute telle plainte.
Compétence
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
5
(2) Le Comité de discipline détermine s’il a, en vertu du Règlement 15, compétence
en ce qui concerne la plainte ou l’information reçue. Si le Comité décide qu’un
organisme bilatéral devrait se charger de la question, le Directeur général transmet
la plainte ou l’information à cet organisme. Si cet organisme refuse de se charger
de la question, le Comité maintient sa compétence face à la plainte ou à
l’information reçue conformément aux Règlements.
Entente de confidentialité
(3) Une fois la plainte reçue, le Directeur général demande promptement que le
plaignant consente par écrit à garder confidentiel tout renseignement transmis au
plaignant de façon confidentielle au sujet des clients et des détails de nature
confidentielle concernant l’exercice de la profession par le membre de l’Ordre ou
de la décision du Comité de discipline d’imposer une réprimande privée à un
membre de l’Ordre conformément au Règlement 8(6). Si le plaignant refuse ou
omet de transmettre cette entente écrite, le Comité de discipline ne remet à ce
plaignant que les renseignements autorisés par les Règlements.
Renseignements du plaignant
(4) Avant de déterminer s’il est possible qu’une infraction ait été commise par un
membre de l’Ordre, le Comité de discipline peut obtenir du plaignant des
renseignements additionnels au sujet de la plainte.
Réponse du membre de l’Ordre
(5) Avant de déterminer s’il est possible qu’une infraction ait été commise par un
membre de l’Ordre, le Comité de discipline doit remettre une copie de la plainte au
membre de l’Ordre ainsi que tout renseignement additionnel obtenu conformément
au Règlement 5(3). Dans les trente (30) jours suivant cette remise ou tout autre
délai plus long que le Comité de discipline juge convenable selon les circonstances,
le membre de l’Ordre peut transmettre une réponse écrite relativement à la plainte
ou transmettre toute autre explication écrite qui peut être justifiée dans les
circonstances.
Rejet de la plainte
(6) Lorsque, sur la foi de tous les renseignements obtenus, le Comité de discipline
est d’avis que le membre de l’Ordre n’a pas commis d’infraction, il rejette la
plainte et informe dans un délai raisonnable et par écrit le membre et le plaignant
de cette décision. Le Comité de discipline remet au membre de l’Ordre une copie
de la plainte qui a été déposée.
Plainte référée à une équipe d’enquêteurs
(7) Lorsque, sur la foi de tous les renseignements obtenus, le Comité de discipline
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
6
est d’avis qu’un membre a commis une infraction, il réfère la plainte à une équipe
d’enquêteurs. Le Comité de discipline informe le défendeur et le plaignant dans les
trente (30) jours de cette décision.
Maintien de la compétence de l’Ordre
(8) Un membre de l’Ordre qui perd son statut de Membre ou qui cesse
volontairement d’être membre de l’Ordre, demeure soumis à la compétence du
Comité de discipline, pour les actes ou les omissions dont il a pu se rendre
coupable pendant qu’il était membre de l’Ordre.
L’équipe d’enquêteurs
Règlement 5
Nomination d’une équipe d’enquêteurs
(1) Lorsque le Comité de discipline confie une plainte à une équipe d’enquêteurs en
vertu du Règlement 4(7), il nomme une équipe d’enquêteurs pour mener une
enquête sur cette plainte. Cette équipe d’enquêteurs est composée d’au plus trois
(3) personnes. Un membre du Conseil ou un membre de l’Ordre qui est en conflit
d’intérêts ne peut être membre d’une équipe d’enquêteurs.
Rapport et réponse du défendeur
(2) Une équipe d’enquêteurs mène une enquête dans les trois (3) mois de sa
nomination et prépare un rapport des constatations de son enquête dans les quatre
(4) mois de sa nomination. Ce rapport est remis au Comité de discipline. Une fois
que le Comité de discipline a accepté le rapport, il en remet un exemplaire au
défendeur. Dans les trente (30) jours suivant cette remise ou tout autre délai plus
long que le Comité de discipline juge convenable selon les circonstances, le
défendeur peut présenter au Directeur général une réponse écrite au rapport de
l’équipe d’enquêteurs ou toute autre explication écrite qui peut être justifiée dans
les circonstances.
Interrogatoires par l’équipe d’enquêteurs
(3) Dans la préparation de son rapport, une équipe d’enquêteurs peut demander les
renseignements qu’elle juge opportuns dans les circonstances. Elle interroge le
défendeur et le plaignant et elle peut interroger tout autre membre de l’Ordre ou
personne pouvant détenir des renseignements pertinents. Toute personne interrogée
par une équipe d’enquêteurs, y compris le défendeur, peut être assistée ou
représentée par un conseiller juridique.
Production de documents
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
7
(4) Au cours de son enquête, une équipe d’enquêteurs peut exiger la production de
tout livre, document, dossier ou autre communication écrite pertinente aux fins de
l’enquête et qui peut être en la possession ou sous le contrôle d’un membre de
l’Ordre, y compris du défendeur.
Collaboration à l’enquête
(5) Est coupable d’une infraction tout membre de l’Ordre qui :
(a) entrave de quelque façon que ce soit le travail d’une équipe
d’enquêteurs ou de l’un de ses membres dans l’exercice de ses fonctions
en vertu des Règlements;
(b) omet de répondre dans un délai de trente (30) jours à une demande de
renseignements d’une équipe d’enquêteurs;
(c) trompe une équipe d’enquêteurs ou l’un de ses membres par la
dissimulation ou par des déclarations mensongères;
(d) refuse de fournir un renseignement ou de produire un document suite à
une demande de renseignements; ou
(e) refuse qu’une copie d’un document pertinent soit faite.
Décisions du Comité de discipline
Règlement 6
Décisions
(1) Après avoir examiné le rapport d’une équipe d’enquêteurs et la réponse
transmise par le défendeur, le cas échéant, le Comité de discipline :
(a) rejette la plainte;
(b) procède à la médiation du différend entre le membre de l’Ordre et le
plaignant, dans le cas où le Comité de discipline serait d’avis que le
différend ne nécessite pas une audition devant le Tribunal de discipline;
(c) procède à suivre la procédure visant une réprimande privée;
(d) applique une sanction au membre de l’Ordre conformément au
Règlement 9; ou
(e) réfère la plainte au Tribunal de discipline dans le cas où le Comité de
discipline serait d’avis que la plainte est assez grave pour justifier une
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
8
audition devant le Tribunal de discipline conformément au Règlement 10.
Rejet de la plainte
(2) Si le Comité de discipline rejette la plainte, il en informe le défendeur et le
plaignant dans les trente (30) jours suivant ce rejet. L’avis est transmis par écrit et
précise les motifs du rejet. Le plaignant peut interjeter appel auprès du Tribunal de
discipline et dépose sa demande d’audition devant le Tribunal de discipline dans les
soixante (60) jours de la remise de l’avis de rejet.
Rejet et lettre d’avis
(3) Si le Comité de discipline rejette la plainte, il peut transmettre une lettre de
conseils au défendeur, qui peut inclure tout matériel éducatif ou conseil que le
Comité de discipline juge appropriés dans les circonstances. Le Comité de
discipline ne divulgue la lettre d’avis qu’au défendeur et n’en garde aucune copie.
Accusation portée contre un membre de l’Ordre
(4) Si le Comité de discipline estime qu’une plainte est fondée et que les
dispositions des Règlements 6(1)(b) et 6(1)(c) ne sont pas appropriées, il porte alors
une accusation à l’encontre du défendeur et la réfère au Tribunal de discipline pour
audition. Le Comité de discipline informe le défendeur et le plaignant dans les
trente (30) jours de cette décision.
Médiation
Règlement 7
Nomination d’un médiateur
(1) Si le Comité de discipline estime qu’eu égard à la gravité relative de la question
et aux intérêts du public et de l’Ordre, la plainte est fondée mais qu’elle peut être
résolue par la médiation à intervenir entre le membre de l’Ordre et le plaignant, le
Comité de discipline nomme un médiateur. Le médiateur est un membre de l’Ordre
ou une autre personne choisie par le membre de l’Ordre et le plaignant et dont le
choix est approuvé par le Comité de discipline.
Résolution par le médiateur
(2) Le médiateur rencontre le plaignant et le défendeur. Si une solution est trouvée,
le médiateur consigne cette solution par écrit. Une fois que le Comité de discipline
accepte cette solution, cette dernière est transmise au défendeur et au plaignant,
dans les trente (30) jours de cette acceptation.
Échec de la médiation
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
9
(3) Si le médiateur ne peut résoudre les différends qui existent entre le défendeur et
le plaignant, la question est référée au Comité de discipline qui en disposera
conformément aux Règlements 6(1)(c), (d) ou (e).
Réprimande
Règlement 8
Renvoi pour une réprimande privée
(1) Si le Comité de discipline estime qu’eu égard à la gravité relative de la question
et aux intérêts du public et de l’Ordre, la plainte est fondée, mais que les procédures
en vertu des Règlements 6(1)(d) ou (e) ne sont pas appropriées, il porte une
accusation et la réfère à trois (3) membres du Comité de discipline choisis par le
Président du Comité de discipline, pour des procédures visant l’imposition d’une
réprimande privée. Ces trois (3) membres ne doivent pas avoir agi comme membres
de l’équipe d’enquêteurs.
(2) Le Comité de discipline remet l’accusation et un avis écrit des procédures visant
l’imposition d’une réprimande privée au défendeur dans les trente (30) jours de la
décision de porter accusation.
Présence du membre de l’Ordre pour discuter de l’accusation
(3) Dans les soixante (60) jours de cette remise ou tout autre délai plus long que le
Comité de discipline juge convenable selon les circonstances, le défendeur assiste
personnellement à une réunion informelle avec les représentants du Comité de
discipline afin de discuter de l’accusation.
(4) Si le défendeur refuse ou omet, sans excuse raisonnable, de se présenter à la
réunion informelle, le Comité de discipline peut référer l’accusation portée contre
le défendeur à un Tribunal de discipline pour une audition et en informe par écrit le
défendeur et le plaignant dans les trente (30) jours de cette décision.
(5) Le défendeur a l’occasion de répondre à l’accusation lors de la réunion
informelle. Le défendeur peut être représenté par un conseiller juridique à cette
réunion.
Rejet de l’accusation ou réprimande privée
(6) Après avoir analysé la réponse donnée par le défendeur, les membres du Comité
de discipline décident s’il y a lieu de rejeter l’accusation ou d’imposer une
réprimande privée. Ils informent aussitôt le défendeur de leur décision de rejeter
l’accusation ou lui imposent une réprimande privée en personne. Dans les quinze
(15) jours de la décision, ils la confirment au défendeur par écrit et, sous réserve du
Règlement 4(2), en donnent avis par écrit au plaignant. L’avis est fait par écrit et
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
10
précise les raisons du rejet de l’accusation. En cas de rejet de l’accusation, le
plaignant a le droit d’interjeter appel devant le Tribunal de discipline. Le plaignant
dépose sa demande d’audition devant le Tribunal de discipline dans les soixante
(60) jours de la remise de l’avis de rejet de l’accusation.
(7) La confirmation écrite d’une réprimande privée contient un résumé des faits,
l’accusation portée contre le défendeur, les motifs de la décision ainsi qu’une copie
de toute réponse écrite et de tout document fournis par le défendeur lors de la
réunion informelle. Cette confirmation écrite est signée par les trois (3) membres
du Comité de discipline.
Confidentialité de la réprimande privée pendant cinq (5) ans
(8) Le Comité de discipline s’assure qu’une copie de la confirmation écrite de la
réprimande privée est versée dans un dossier confidentiel pendant une période de
cinq (5) ans suivant la date de sa signature, après quoi elle est détruite. Une
réprimande privée n’est pas divulguée à quiconque, sauf aux personnes suivantes :
(a) sous réserve du Règlement 4(3), le plaignant;
(b) les membres du Comité de discipline, dans la mesure nécessaire à
l’exercice de leurs fonctions; ou
(c) le Tribunal de discipline dans le cadre d’une audition ultérieure à
l’encontre du défendeur, pourvu que l’infraction alléguée sous examen par
le tribunal soit de nature semblable à la question ayant fait l’objet de la
réprimande privée.
Accusation et recommandation d’une sanction
Règlement 9
Pouvoirs du Comité
(1) Si le Comité de discipline estime qu’eu égard à la gravité relative de la question
et aux intérêts du public et de l’Ordre, la plainte est fondée, mais que les procédures
en vertu des Règlements 7 et 10 ne sont pas appropriées, il porte une accusation et
recommande une ou plusieurs des sanctions suivantes :
(a) l’obligation de suivre un ou plusieurs cours de formation prescrits par le
Comité de discipline;
(b) la vérification périodique des livres et des dossiers du défendeur;
(c) la révision périodique de la correspondance et du travail du défendeur;
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
11
(d) le paiement des honoraires et des dépenses d’ordre juridique engagés par
le Comité de discipline;
(e) les mesures correctrices ou de redressement que le Comité de discipline
juge à propos.
Aveu de culpabilité
(2) Le Comité de discipline remet l’accusation et sa recommandation d’une
sanction au défendeur. Dans les trente (30) jours suivant cette remise ou tout autre
délai plus long que le Comité de discipline juge convenable selon les circonstances,
le défendeur avoue sa culpabilité et accepte la recommandation ou refuse de le
faire.
(3) Si le défendeur avoue sa culpabilité et accepte la recommandation d’une
sanction, par écrit, il doit se conformer aux conditions prescrites et le plaignant est
informé, par écrit et dans un délai raisonnable, de l’aveu de culpabilité et de
l’acceptation de la recommandation d’une sanction.
Renvoi à un tribunal pour audition
(4) Si le défendeur ne se conforme pas à la recommandation d’une sanction ou à ses
conditions, ou s’il refuse d’accepter la recommandation d’une sanction dans les
trente (30) jours mentionnés au paragraphe (2) ci-dessus, le Comité de discipline
réfère l’accusation portée contre le défendeur à un Tribunal de discipline pour
audition et informe le défendeur dans un délai raisonnable et par écrit de cette
décision. Le Comité de discipline informe le plaignant par écrit de cette décision
dans les trente (30) jours suivant la décision.
Tribunal de discipline : audition d’une accusation
Règlement 10
Nomination du Tribunal
(1) Le Président du groupe de candidats afin de former un Tribunal de discipline
nomme un Tribunal de discipline chargé d’entendre l’accusation portée contre un
membre de l’Ordre. Si le Président du groupe de candidats est en position de conflit
d’intérêts ou ne peut nommer un Tribunal de discipline pour d’autres raisons, le
Vice-président du groupe de candidats nomme un Tribunal de discipline
conformément à ce Règlement. Un Tribunal de discipline est composé de trois (3)
membres dont deux (2) sont membres du groupe de candidats. Le troisième
membre, qui est un juge à la retraite ou une autre personne provenant du grand
public, est le Président du Tribunal de discipline.
Membres du Tribunal
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
12
(2) Dans l’éventualité où deux (2) membres du Tribunal de discipline ne peuvent
être recrutés au sein du groupe de candidats, le Président ou le Vice-président du
groupe de candidats peut nommer un membre de l’Ordre à titre de membre du
Tribunal de discipline. Le Président, le Président sortant, les membres du Conseil,
les membres du Comité de discipline et les membres de l’équipe d’enquêteurs qui
ont mené l’enquête au sujet de la plainte déposée contre le défendeur et le Président
et le Vice-président du groupe de candidats ne peuvent siéger comme membres
d’un Tribunal de discipline.
Médiation
(3) Le Comité de discipline et le défendeur peuvent engager un médiateur avant la
date d’audition, selon des conditions établies conjointement entre eux. Le
médiateur est une personne impartiale dont le rôle est d’aider les parties à
communiquer de bonne foi entre elles et, lorsque ceci est opportun, d’aider et
d’encourager les parties à s’entendre sur une déclaration des faits, une pénalité
recommandée et sur toute autre soumission ou document pouvant ensuite être
présenté au Tribunal de discipline pour fins d’examen.
Parties à l’audition
(4) Le défendeur est partie à l’audition. Le Comité de discipline est partie à
l’audition et est chargé de la poursuite devant le Tribunal de discipline. Le
plaignant peut être assigné à témoigner et à fournir de la preuve à l’audition
conformément aux règles de pratique et de procédure prévues au Règlement 10(11).
Droit à un conseiller juridique
(5) Une partie comparaissant devant un Tribunal de discipline a le droit d’être
assistée ou représentée par un conseiller juridique.
Avis de l’audience
(6) Le Directeur général donne aux parties et à leurs conseillers juridiques, s’ils
sont connus, un préavis d’au moins quinze (15) jours de la date, de l’heure et de
l’endroit de toute audience d’un Tribunal de discipline, à moins qu’une date
d’audience ne soit fixée pendant une audience en présence de toutes les parties.
Environ quinze (15) jours avant le début de l’audience du Tribunal de discipline, le
Directeur général publie un avis destiné au grand public et aux membres de l’Ordre
de la manière qu’il détermine. Cet avis inclut la date, l’heure et l’endroit de
l’audience du Tribunal de discipline ainsi qu’un résumé de l’accusation, sans
mentionner le nom du Membre faisant l’objet d’une accusation.
Absence du défendeur
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
13
(7) Un Tribunal de discipline peut tenir une audition en l’absence du défendeur si
ce dernier ne comparaît pas à la date, à l’heure et à l’endroit fixés dans l’avis.
Audience publique
(8) Sous réserve de ce qui est prévu aux présentes, toute audience d’un Tribunal de
discipline est publique. Néanmoins, de sa propre initiative ou sur demande, le
Tribunal de discipline peut, à sa discrétion, ordonner qu’une audience ait lieu à huis
clos ou interdire la publication ou la communication de tout renseignement ou
document qu’il indique pour protéger le secret professionnel, la vie privée ou la
réputation d’une personne ou l’intérêt de l’ordre public.
Audience à huis clos
(9) Lorsqu’une audience à huis clos est ordonnée, toutes les personnes présentes à
l’audience sont personnellement tenues au secret, sous réserve du droit des
membres du Comité de discipline et des membres du Tribunal de discipline, tel que
décrit ci-après, d’être informés des procédures dans la mesure nécessaire à
l’exercice de leurs fonctions.
Parties, conseillers juridiques et témoins
(10) Un Tribunal de discipline entend les parties, leurs conseillers juridiques et
leurs témoins, peut enquêter sur les faits pertinents et peut convoquer toute
personne pour témoigner sur ces faits. Les parties peuvent interroger ou contreinterroger les témoins. Un membre de l’Ordre qui témoigne devant un Tribunal de
discipline est tenu de répondre à toutes les questions. La preuve résultant de ces
témoignages est confidentielle et ne peut être utilisée contre une personne devant
une cour de justice.
Procédure et pratique
(11) La pratique et la procédure adoptées par un Tribunal de discipline sont régies
par les règles de pratique et de procédure d’un Tribunal de discipline de l’Ordre que
l’Ordre peut adopter de temps à autre. Un Tribunal de discipline peut adopter des
règles de procédure ou de pratique qui ne sont pas incompatibles avec les
Règlements ou les règles de pratique et de procédure d’un Tribunal de discipline,
pour la tenue d’une audition et, selon le besoin, l’exercice de ses fonctions.
Suspension durant l’enquête
(12) Le Comité de discipline peut demander à un Tribunal de discipline d’ordonner
la suspension du défendeur pendant la durée de l’enquête.
Décès ou incapacité d’un membre du Tribunal
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
14
(13) Si le décès d’un membre d’un Tribunal de discipline survient avant qu’une
décision ne soit rendue, ou si, pour quelque raison que ce soit, un membre d’un
Tribunal de discipline est incapable d’exercer ses fonctions à quelque étape que ce
soit du processus, les autres membres du Tribunal de discipline, au terme d’un délai
de dix (10) jours après que les parties ont été informées par le Directeur général du
décès ou de l’incapacité de ce membre, poursuivent l’audition de l’accusation et
rendent une décision, à moins qu’au cours de cette période de dix (10) jours, une
partie ait demandé qu’un nouveau membre soit nommé conformément au
Règlement 10(1). Si une telle demande est faite, le Tribunal de discipline
nouvellement constitué procède de la manière dont les parties auront convenu ou
selon les directives du Tribunal de discipline advenant qu’aucune entente n’a été
conclue entre les parties.
Tribunal de discipline : décisions
Règlement 11
Décision
(1) Après qu’un Tribunal de discipline a entendu les parties, leur preuve et toute
autre preuve pertinente, il rend alors sa décision dans les quatre-vingt-dix (90) jours
suivant la date de la fin de l’audition.
Pouvoirs
(2) Un Tribunal de discipline décide en première instance, à l’exclusion de toute
autre cour ou tribunal, si le défendeur est coupable ou non d’une infraction.
Dossier de l’audition
(3) Le Directeur général s’assure que le dossier de l’audition et la décision du
Tribunal de discipline sont versés dans une chemise spéciale. Cette chemise
constitue la preuve prima facie de son contenu.
Décision par écrit
(4) Un Tribunal de discipline consigne sa décision par écrit, avec motifs et opinions
minoritaires, le cas échéant. La décision porte la signature de tous les membres du
Tribunal de discipline. Si le Tribunal de discipline décide que la publication ou la
communication de certains renseignements ou documents est interdite, sa décision
écrite comprend ce fait et les motifs de cette décision.
Décision envoyée aux parties
(5) Un Tribunal de discipline envoie sa décision à toutes les parties dans les dix
(10) jours après que cette décision a été rendue. Le Comité de discipline informe le
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
15
plaignant, par écrit et dans un délai raisonnable, de la décision rendue par le
Tribunal de discipline.
Audition sur la pénalité
(6) Si le défendeur a été reconnu coupable, les parties peuvent alors se faire
entendre sur la pénalité par le Tribunal de discipline, dans les trente (30) jours
suivant la décision du Tribunal de discipline à l’effet que le défendeur est coupable
ou non d’une infraction. Le Tribunal de discipline rend une décision sur la pénalité
dans les quinze (15) jours suivant la fin de l’audition sur la pénalité.
Frais
(7) Un Tribunal de discipline a le pouvoir d’ordonner qu’une des parties acquitte la
totalité ou une partie des honoraires et des dépenses du conseiller juridique de
l’autre partie engagés pour commencer et compléter le processus disciplinaire.
Décision sur la pénalité
(8) Le Tribunal de discipline envoie sa décision quant à la pénalité à toutes les
parties dans les dix (10) jours après que cette décision a été rendue. Le Comité de
discipline informe le plaignant, par écrit et dans un délai raisonnable, de cette
décision du Tribunal de discipline.
Tribunal de discipline : pénalités
Règlement 12
Choix de pénalités
(1) Un Tribunal de discipline impose à un membre de l’Ordre reconnu coupable
d’une infraction une des pénalités suivantes, à l’égard d’un ou de plusieurs chefs
d’accusations :
(a) une réprimande;
(b) une suspension de l’Ordre;
(c) une expulsion de l’Ordre.
Un Tribunal de discipline peut aussi imposer une amende à un membre de
l’Ordre reconnu coupable d’une infraction, à l’égard d’un ou de plusieurs
chefs d’accusation.
Cours de recyclage
(2) Un Tribunal de discipline peut également exiger qu’un Membre reconnu
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
16
coupable d’une infraction suive un ou plusieurs cours de recyclage et que le droit
de cette personne d’être membre de l’Ordre soit restreint ou suspendu jusqu’à ce
que ces cours soient achevés.
(3) Un Tribunal de discipline peut également exiger qu’un membre de l’Ordre soit
supervisé par un autre membre de l’Ordre par le biais d’une révision des demandes,
des avis et de la correspondance et de toute autre manière que le Tribunal de
discipline peut déterminer et pour la période de temps qu’il fixe.
Vérifications
(4) Un Tribunal de discipline peut exiger qu’un membre de l’Ordre se soumette à
des vérifications périodiques de ses livres et de ses dossiers pendant une période de
temps qu’il fixe.
Conditions
(5) Un Tribunal de discipline peut fixer les conditions des pénalités qu’il impose.
Mise en œuvre des pénalités
(6) La pénalité imposée par un Tribunal de discipline est mise en œuvre dès
l’expiration du délai d’appel, à condition qu’aucun avis d’appel ne soit déposé,
conformément aux conditions indiquées dans les Règlements, à moins que le
Tribunal de discipline n’ordonne la mise en œuvre provisoire de la décision dès sa
réception par le défendeur.
Paiement d’une somme d’argent
(7) Lorsqu’une décision d’un Tribunal de discipline oblige une partie à remettre
une somme d’argent au titre des frais ou d’une amende, ou les deux, le défendeur
doit payer la somme en question à l’Ordre ou l’Ordre doit payer la somme en
question au défendeur dans les dix (10) jours suivant l’expiration du délai d’appel à
condition qu’aucun avis d’appel ne soit déposé, à moins que le Tribunal de
discipline n’ordonne autrement. Si la partie ne règle pas la somme dans le délai
imparti, cette partie est assujettie à des frais d’intérêt, au taux préférentiel de la
Banque du Canada majoré de deux (2) points de pourcentage, ainsi qu’à des frais
de perception. Si la partie est membre de l’Ordre, ce Membre est automatiquement
suspendu de l’Ordre jusqu’à ce que toutes les sommes aient été réglées
intégralement.
Appel
Règlement no 13
Avis d’appel
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
17
(1) Une partie comparaissant devant un Tribunal de discipline peut déposer un avis
d’appel d’une décision rendue par le Tribunal de discipline par laquelle le
défendeur est trouvé non coupable de l’accusation, dans le délai prévu dans la Loi
sur la Cour fédérale à compter de la réception de cette décision. Si le Tribunal de
discipline rend une décision selon laquelle le défendeur est reconnu coupable d’une
accusation, une partie peut déposer un avis d’appel de cette décision ou de la
décision quant à la pénalité, dans le délai prévu dans la Loi sur la Cour fédérale à
compter de la réception de la décision quant à la pénalité.
(2) Une partie signifie et dépose son avis d’appel conformément à la Loi sur la
Cour fédérale et aux Règles de la Cour fédérale. Le Comité de discipline informe
par écrit le plaignant dans une période de temps raisonnable des avis ainsi déposés,
le cas échéant.
Publication des décisions et des rapports
Règlement no 14
Transmission de la décision au Conseil
(1) Le Directeur général transmet au Conseil l’aveu de culpabilité et l’acceptation
de la recommandation de la sanction ou la décision d’un Tribunal de discipline
dans les dix (10) jours après que l’aveu et l’acceptation ont été faits ou que la
décision du Tribunal a été rendue.
Avis de la décision
(2) Le Directeur général s’assure qu’un avis est préparé de l’aveu de culpabilité et
de l’acceptation de la recommandation de la sanction ou de la décision du Tribunal
de discipline, à condition qu’aucun avis d’appel n’ait été déposé, ou d’une décision
de la Cour fédérale du Canada. L’avis comprend :
(a) le nom du membre de l’Ordre;
(b) la principale adresse où le membre de l’Ordre exerce sa profession;
(c) la spécialité de la profession qu’exerce le membre de l’Ordre, le cas
échéant;
(d) l’accusation;
(e) la date et un résumé de l’aveu de culpabilité et de l’acceptation de la
recommandation d’une sanction ou de la décision; et
(f) en cas de suspension ou d’expulsion, le titre « Avis de suspension de
l’Ordre » ou « Avis d’expulsion de l’Ordre », selon le cas.
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
18
Publication de l’avis
(3) Sous réserve des dispositions des Règlements 14(4), 14(5) et 14(6), le Directeur
général s’assure qu’un avis à l’intention de chaque membre de l’Ordre est publié.
Dans le cas d’une suspension ou d’une expulsion, le Directeur général publie un
résumé de l’avis dans un journal à distribution générale à l’endroit où le membre de
l’Ordre exerce généralement sa profession au Canada. La publication de l’avis est
faite :
(a) dans les soixante (60) jours après que le Conseil a reçu l’aveu de
culpabilité et l’acceptation de la recommandation d’une sanction;
(b) dans les soixante (60) jours suivant l’expiration du délai d’appel, à
condition qu’aucun avis d’appel n’ait été déposé; ou
(c) dans les soixante (60) jours après qu’une décision finale de la Cour
fédérale du Canada et les décisions en appel de cette décision, le cas
échéant, ont été rendues.
Exceptions
(4) Un Tribunal de discipline peut ordonner que les exigences susmentionnées pour
la publication de l’avis soient modifiées. Cependant, dans le cas de suspension ou
d’expulsion, un Tribunal de discipline ne peut pas modifier l’exigence que le nom
du Membre et la sanction imposée soient publiés à l’intention de chaque membre
de l’Ordre dans les soixante (60) jours suivant l’expiration du délai d’appel, à
condition qu’aucun avis d’appel n’ait été déposé, ou dans les soixante (60) jours
après qu’une décision finale de la Cour fédérale du Canada et les décisions en appel
de cette décision, le cas échéant, ont été rendues.
Pouvoirs du Conseil
(5) Dans le cas d’une décision selon laquelle aucune suspension ou expulsion n’est
ordonnée, le Conseil peut restreindre les exigences susmentionnées ayant trait à la
publication de l’avis, mais le Conseil ne peut pas :
(a) modifier une directive donnée par un Tribunal de discipline en vertu du
Règlement 14(4); ou
(b) modifier l’exigence que le nom du membre de l’Ordre et la sanction
imposée soient publiés à l’intention de chaque membre de l’Ordre.
Non-publication de l’avis
(6) Dans le cas d’une décision selon laquelle un membre est reconnu non coupable
d’une accusation, aucun avis relatif à cette accusation n’est publié si le membre de
l’Ordre en avise le Directeur général dans les trente (30) jours suivant l’expiration
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
19
du délai d’appel, à condition qu’aucun avis d’appel n’ait été déposé, ou dans les
trente (30) jours après que la décision finale de la Cour fédérale du Canada et les
décisions en appel de cette décision, le cas échéant, ont été rendues.
Rapport annuel au Conseil
(7) Le Directeur général doit présenter au Conseil un rapport annuel sur les
activités du Comité de discipline, les Tribunaux de discipline et les Tribunaux
d’appel. Le rapport comprend, au minimum :
(a) le nombre et la nature des plaintes déposées;
(b) le nombre des réprimandes privées imposées, sans mentionner la nature
des réprimandes privées ni le nom des Membres réprimandés;
(c) le nombre et la nature des aveux de culpabilité et des acceptations de
recommandations d’une sanction;
(d) le nombre et la nature des décisions rendues par le Comité de discipline,
les Tribunaux de discipline et les Tribunaux d’appel; et
(e) dans la mesure où cette information est mise à la disposition du Comité
de discipline, le nombre et la nature des plaintes déposées à l’égard de
l’exercice de la profession par les membres de l’Ordre dans la juridiction
d’organismes bilatéraux ainsi que le nombre et la nature des décisions
rendues à l’égard des membres d’organismes bilatéraux.
Rapport périodique aux membres de l’Ordre
(8) Au moins deux (2) fois par année, le Directeur général présente à chaque
membre de l’Ordre un rapport portant sur les activités du Comité de discipline et
des Tribunaux de discipline. Ce rapport comprend, au minimum :
(a) le nombre et la nature des plaintes déposées, y compris les plaintes
déposées à l’égard de l’exercice de la profession par les membres de l’Ordre
dans la juridiction d’organismes bilatéraux;
(b) le nombre et la nature des accusations portées et référées à un Tribunal de
discipline ou à l’égard desquelles une recommandation d’une sanction est
présentée, sans mentionner le nom des membres de l’Ordre accusés;
(c) le nombre des réprimandes privées imposées, sans mentionner la nature
des réprimandes privées ni le nom des membres de l’Ordre réprimandés;
(d) tout avis d’aveu de culpabilité et d’acceptation de recommandation d’une
sanction ou de décision rendue depuis le dernier rapport; et
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
20
(e) une explication de la manière dont un Membre qui le désire peut obtenir
plus de renseignements sur les accusations qui ont été portées ou sur les
procédures judiciaires.
Ententes réciproques
Règlement 15
Ententes conclues avec des organismes bilatéraux
(1) L’Ordre peut conclure des ententes avec des organismes bilatéraux dans le but
de traiter des questions disciplinaires qui se présentent à l’égard des membres de
l’Ordre qui sont également des membres assujettis aux règlements et aux règles
d’un ou de plusieurs organismes bilatéraux.
(2) Dans les cas où l’Ordre et l’organisme bilatéral auraient juridiction d’enquête
sur un individu, le Président du Comité de discipline et son homologue de
l’organisme bilatéral s’entendent, en se fondant sur tous les faits entourant l’affaire,
sur l’organisme constituant le forum le plus approprié aux fins de l’enquête. Les
facteurs tels que le lieu physique où l’individu exerce sa profession et la nature du
travail effectué et de l’exercice de la profession par l’individu seront pris en
considération afin de déterminer le forum aux fins de l’enquête.
Décision de culpabilité rendue par l’Ordre
(3) Lorsque l’Ordre assume juridiction à l’égard d’un individu, une décision de
l’Ordre à l’effet qu’un Membre a enfreint le Code de déontologie ou les
Règlements ne peut être rendue que par l’Ordre.
Communication de la décision
(4) Le Directeur général communique à l’organisme bilatéral toute décision finale
selon laquelle un membre de cet organisme a enfreint le Code de déontologie ou les
Règlements. Le Directeur général remet également à l’organisme bilatéral pertinent
une copie du plaidoyer de culpabilité ou des décisions du Tribunal de discipline et
des Tribunaux d’appel, les notes sténographiques des auditions et, sur demande, les
documents déposés en preuve devant le Tribunal de discipline et les Tribunaux
d’appel, à moins que cette communication soit prohibée par la loi ou par
ordonnance du Tribunal de discipline.
Sanction publique
(5) Si le défendeur plaide coupable ou si un Tribunal de discipline rend une
décision selon laquelle un membre d’un ou de plusieurs barreaux provinciaux a
enfreint le Code de déontologie ou les Règlements, l’Ordre ne recommande aucune
pénalité particulière à être imposée par un organisme bilatéral à l’encontre de son
membre, mais recommande que l’organisme bilatéral envisage d’imposer des
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
21
sanctions publiques à l’encontre du membre de cet organisme.
Organisme bilatéral
(6) Les questions concernant l’exercice de la profession ou la conduite
professionnelle dans la juridiction d’un organisme bilatéral d’un Membre qui est
également membre de cet organisme bilatéral sont régies par l’organisme bilatéral
conformément à ses règles et procédures. L’organisme bilatéral rend un verdict de
non-culpabilité ou de culpabilité assorti d’une pénalité appropriée à l’encontre du
membre de cet organisme conformément à ses règles et procédures.
Décision de culpabilité rendue par un organisme bilatéral
(7) Une décision d’un organisme bilatéral selon laquelle un Membre a enfreint les
règles de déontologie, les normes de pratique ou les conditions d’adhésion de cet
organisme lorsqu’il a exercé sa profession dans cette juridiction, ne peut être
rendue que par cet organisme. La décision de cet organisme bilatéral est considérée
finale par l’Ordre une fois que le processus d’appel de cet organisme a été
complété.
Communication de la décision
(8) Le Directeur général reçoit d’un organisme bilatéral toute décision finale selon
laquelle un Membre a enfreint les règles de déontologie, les normes de pratique ou
les conditions d’adhésion de l’organisme bilatéral lorsqu’il a exercé sa profession
dans cette juridiction. Le Directeur général demande que l’organisme bilatéral lui
remette une copie des décisions de l’organe décisionnel, les notes sténographiques
de l’audition et les documents déposés en preuve ou étudiés par l’organe
décisionnel afin de rendre ses décisions, à moins que cette communication soit
prohibée par la loi ou par ordonnance de l’organe décisionnel.
Recommandation de sanction publique
(9) Si l’organisme bilatéral rend une décision selon laquelle le Membre a enfreint
les règles de déontologie, les normes de pratique ou les conditions d’adhésion de
l’organisme bilatéral lorsqu’il a exercé sa profession dans sa juridiction, l’Ordre ne
se conforme pas à une recommandation de l’organe décisionnel de cet organisme
suivant laquelle une pénalité spécifique devrait être imposée par l’Ordre au
Membre. L’Ordre reçoit une recommandation de cet organisme selon laquelle
l’Ordre devrait envisager d’imposer des sanctions publiques contre le Membre et
établit une sanction appropriée à être imposée par l’Ordre au Membre
conformément aux Règlements.
Processus
(10) Plus particulièrement, la décision de culpabilité rendue par un organisme
bilatéral à l’encontre d’un Membre exerçant sa profession dans cette juridiction est
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
22
reçue par le Directeur général et considérée comme une plainte qu’une infraction a
été commise, conformément au Règlement 4. Les Règlements 1 à 13 sont suivis
dans la mesure où ils sont applicables, sauf que :
(a) une équipe d’enquêteurs ne fait pas enquête sur la plainte et ne prépare
pas de rapport à l’intention du Comité de discipline;
(b) étant donné que l’organisme bilatéral a déjà reconnu la culpabilité, les
pouvoirs du Comité de discipline stipulés dans le Règlement 6 se limitent à
porter accusation et à imposer une réprimande privée, à porter accusation et
à présenter une recommandation d’une sanction au défendeur ou à porter
accusation et à la référer à un Tribunal de discipline qui ne décidera que de
la pénalité appropriée, et
(c) le Tribunal de discipline tient une audition quant à la pénalité dans les
trente (30) jours suivant la nomination du Tribunal de discipline et se fonde
sur les documents remis par l’organisme bilatéral.
Cette décision du Tribunal de discipline quant à la pénalité peut être portée en appel
conformément au Règlement 13 et elle est assujettie aux exigences de publication
stipulées au Règlement 14.
Texte adopté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’IPIC de 2003
Annex E
Right-touch Regulation
Right-touch regulation
Revised
October 2015
About the Professional Standards Authority
The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care promotes the health,
safety and wellbeing of patients, service users and the public by raising standards of
regulation and registration of people working in health and care. We are an independent
body, accountable to the UK Parliament.
We oversee the work of nine statutory bodies that regulate health professionals in the
UK and social workers in England. We review the regulators’ performance and audit and
scrutinise their decisions about whether people on their registers are fit to practise.
We also set standards for organisations holding voluntary registers for people in
unregulated health and care occupations and accredit those organisations that meet our
standards.
To encourage improvement we share good practice and knowledge, conduct research
and introduce new ideas including our concept of right-touch regulation. We monitor
policy developments in the UK and internationally and provide advice to governments and
others on matters relating to people working in health and care. We also undertake some
international commissions to extend our understanding of regulation and to promote safety
in the mobility of the health and care workforce.
We are committed to being independent, impartial, fair, accessible and consistent. More
information about our work and the approach we take is available at
www.professionalstandards.org.uk
Contents
Introduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������4
What is Right-touch regulation?�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������4
Right-touch regulation in practice�������������������������������������������������������������������������������5
Right-touch regulation and responsibility in health and social care������������������������7
Right-touch regulation and risk���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11
Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13
Appendix: Case studies�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14
References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������17
Right-touch regulation Revised
3
Introduction
This revised paper sets out the Professional
Standards Authority’s refreshed thinking as
we explore the role and value of regulation
in controlling the risk of harm to the public.
Common themes have emerged through our
oversight of the health and care professional
regulators, in our advice to Governments
on areas of regulatory policy and in our
development of accredited registers. Our
original paper was published in 2010. Since
then, we and others have applied it to a
variety of problems in regulation both in the
UK and internationally.
Right-touch regulation describes the
approach we adopt in the work we do.
It is the approach that we encourage
regulators to work towards, and it frames
the contributions we make to wider debates
about the quality and safety of health
and social care and the development of
regulation. It also provides a framework for
thinking about wholesale reform of existing
regulatory arrangements.a
This paper reaffirms that this approach
is the right one to take. It explains Righttouch regulation in practice and outlines the
benefits it offers for professional regulation
and to wider health and care delivery, as our
area of expertise and experience.
In 2010, we hoped that other areas of
regulation might find this approach useful
too; in 2015, we know that others have
tried it and found it so. We have drawn on
these collective experiences, clarified some
areas, expanded on the concept of risk,
discussed responsibility, and defined Righttouch regulation more clearly. We have
also provided some practical examples to
illustrate the approach. The core principles,
a
In our paper Rethinking regulation1 we argue that
the current regulatory arrangements are outdated,
inefficient and ineffective. We suggest that the principles
of Right-touch regulation should be used to help design
a better, more coherent regulatory system.
4
however, remain unchanged.
We continue to see this as a work in
progress, and an approach to be debated
and improved over time.
What is Right-touch regulation?
The concept of Right-touch regulation
emerges from the application of the
principles of good regulation identified by
the Better Regulation Executive in 20002, to
which the Professional Standards Authority
has added agility as a sixth principle.b
With this addition, the principles state that
regulation should aim to be:
• Proportionate: regulators should only
intervene when necessary. Remedies
should be appropriate to the risk posed,
and costs identified and minimised
• Consistent: rules and standards must be
joined up and implemented fairly
• Targeted: regulation should be focused
on the problem, and minimise side effects
• Transparent: regulators should be open,
and keep regulations simple and user
friendly
• Accountable: regulators must be able to
justify decisions, and be subject to public
scrutiny
• Agilec: regulation must look forward and
be able to adapt to anticipate change.
These principles provide the foundation
for thinking on regulatory policy in all sectors
In their 2009 report on Themes and Trends in
Regulatory Reform3, The House of Commons
Regulatory Reform Committee agreed with us that
‘agility’ is an important objective for the regulatory
agenda.
b
Agility in regulation means looking forward to anticipate
change rather than looking back to prevent the last
crisis from happening again. We consider that an agile
regulator would foresee changes that are going to occur
in its field, anticipate the risks that will arise as a result
of those changes, and take timely action to mitigate
those risks. At the same time, an agile regulator would
not react to everything as changes may occur which do
not need a regulatory response.
c
October 2015
of society.d We see the concept of Righttouch regulation emerging naturally from the
application of these six principles: bringing
together commonly agreed principles of
good regulation with understanding of
a sector, and a quantified and qualified
assessment of risk of harm. It is intended for
those making decisions about the design of
an assurance framework.
In practice this means we work to identify
the regulatory force needed to achieve a
desired effect. Our analogy is finding the
right balance on a set of scales (Figure 1).
When weighing something on balancing
scales, nothing happens until you reach the
desired weight, at which point the scales
tip over. Once they have tipped any further
weight added to the other side is ineffectual.
So the right amount of regulation is exactly
that which is needed for the desired effect.
Too little is ineffective; too much is a waste
of effort.
Our thinking is in line with what others
have called better regulation,5 or common
sense or rational approaches to regulation,
but it is categorically not ‘light-touch’. For
us, Right-touch neatly describes the role
that regulation should play. It builds on an
accurate and informed assessment and
analysis of the sector and the risks in it; it
is common sense in that it describes the
role regulation should play, building on its
strengths, staying true to its objectives, and
working with the tools it has at its disposal.
It recognises that there is no such thing as
‘zero risk’, and that all decisions about what
and how to regulate will involve a tradeoff between different risks and competing
benefits.
Right-touch regulation recognises
that there is usually more than one way
The idea that governments should have an over-arching policy for decisions about regulation was supported
by the OECD in their 2012 report Recommendation of
the Council on Regulatory Policy Governance.4
d
Right-touch regulation Revised
Figure 1. Regulatory force.
to solve a problem and regulation is not
always the best answer. It may be more
proportionate and effective, for instance,
to strengthen employment practices or to
foster professionalism. New regulations
should be introduced only as a last resort.
The regulator is usually furthest removed
from the harms it is trying to prevent and
as such regulation is a blunt instrument for
promoting behaviour change. Today, more
than ever given economic circumstances,
the challenge is to find the most efficient,
common sense solutions that are close to
the problem.
Right-touch regulation is the minimum
regulatory force required to achieve the
desired result.
Right-touch regulation in practice
Through our work we have identified eight
elements that sit at the heart of using the
concept of Right-touch regulation in practice.
Built into these elements are commitments
to use evidence to identify and understand
problems, and to draw on the roles and
responsibilities of different parts of the
system to deliver the best solution. The
consequences of adopting this approach
may be less regulation or more regulation,
but should certainly mean better regulation.
5
The appendix on page 14 contains a
number of case studies illustrating this
approach.
One: identify the problem before the
solution
We need to identify the problem before we
can determine whether any particular policy
is the right one. Often in policy development
the need for regulatory change, as a
solution, is identified before the problem is
properly described and understood. This can
lead to inefficiencies as resources are spent
developing a regulatory solution when the
problem may be better dealt with in other
ways. See case study 1 in the appendix for a
practical example.
Two: quantify and qualify the risks
Once the problem has been identified, we
need to understand it fully and quantify
and qualify the risks associated with it.
Quantifying risks means gauging the
likelihood of harm occurring and its severity.
Qualifying risks means looking closely at the
nature of the harm, and understanding how
and why it occurs.
Without this two-fold evaluation, which
must be based on evidence, it is impossible
to judge whether regulatory action is
necessary, what type of regulatory response
might be needed, or whether it would be
better to use other means of managing the
issues. Regulation should only be chosen
when it clearly provides the best solution.
Simply identifying a real or potential risk
is not sufficient. We have to understand
whether the risk is new or currently
unmanaged. We provide more detail about
the evaluation of risk on page 11. See
case study 1 in the appendix for a practical
example.
6
Three: get as close to the problem as
possible
Once we have identified the problem and
fully understood the risks, we must look for
a solution that is as close to the problem as
possible. Regulation is distant and removed
from the point of care and problems are
best solved near to where they occur.
Targeted regulation needs to understand,
both the range of hazards and the factors
that increase or decrease the risk of them
resulting in harm. In healthcare this means
understanding the context in which the
problem arises and the different tools that
may be available to tackle the issues. We
may need to work with organisations and
individuals that are closer to the problem to
bring about change. Some problems may
be best tackled by regulatory measures
applying to a whole profession, while others
may require more targeted regulation or a
non-regulatory approach. See case studies
2 and 3 in the appendix for a practical
example.
Four: focus on the outcome
Adopting a Right-touch approach means
staying focused on the outcome that we
are looking to achieve, rather than being
concerned about process, or prioritising
interests other than public safety.
The outcome should be both tangible
and measurable, and it must be directed
towards the reduction of harm. Staying
focused on the outcome helps identify the
most appropriate solution. Having a clearly
defined and measurable outcome also
makes it easier to measure effectiveness.
See case studies 1 and 3 in the appendix for
a practical example.
Five: use regulation only when necessary
Once the problem has been considered, we
may begin to examine whether a regulatory
change is the right proposal, evaluating this
October 2015
against the options of doing nothing and the
risks and benefits of intervening. Making
changes to regulation, especially statutory
regulation, can be a slow process, so
regulation should only be used as a solution
when other actions are unable to deliver
the desired results. A Right-touch regulatory
solution must keep to the six principles of
good regulation and should build on existing
approaches where possible. This will often
involve looking for solutions other than
regulation and may require regulators to
work with other organisations and people to
bring about change. See case studies 1 and
3 in the appendix for a practical example.
Six: keep it simple
For regulation to work, it must be clear
to those who are regulated, clear to the
public, clear to employers, and clear to the
regulator. If each cannot explain to the other
what the purpose of a regulation is and why
it will work, it is not simple. This is as true
in health and social care, with such a wide
variety of agencies and individuals involved,
as it is in other sectors. Avoiding complexity
will lead to a greater impact. A regulatory
response should be as simple as it can be
while achieving the desired outcome. See
case study 1 in the appendix for a practical
example.
Seven: check for unintended
consequences
Assessing the probable impact of a
particular solution is an essential step to
help us avoid unintended consequences.6
In a system as interconnected and complex
as health and social care, it is inevitable that
proposing a change in policy and practice
will have consequences for other parts of
the system. If regulations are not workable,
people will work around them and in doing
so create new risks. Regulating to remove
one risk without a proper analysis of the
consequences may create new risks or
Right-touch regulation Revised
merely move the risk to a different place.
See case studies 3 and 4 in the appendix for
a practical example.
Eight: review and respond to change
We should build flexibility into regulatory
strategy to enable regulation to respond
to change. All sectors evolve over time, as
a result of a range of different influences.
Regulators must not be left managing the
crises of the past, whilst ignoring or being
unable to react to new evidence that calls
for change. This is what we mean by agility.
A programme of regular reviews, postimplementation evaluation and sunset
clauses can all help here. See case study 1
in the appendix for a practical example.
The decision tree (Figure 2) shows how
these eight steps translate into a decisionmaking process.
Right-touch regulation and
responsibility in health and social
care
In our work with regulators, accredited
registers and others we formally define
Right-touch regulation as follows:
‘Right-touch regulation is based on a
proper evaluation of risk, is proportionate
and outcome focused; it creates a
framework in which professionalism can
flourish and organisations can be excellent’
The interests of patients and service
users are at the heart of all our work, and
this is clearly set out in our legislation.7 Many
health and care organisations share this aim,
either explicitly or implicitly. They have a role
to play to achieve this wider benefit.
7
Identify the
problem before
the solution
Quantify and
qualify the risks
1.
2.
What is the problem?
Is the problem about risk of harm?
Yes
No
Regulation
should NOT be
used if there is
no risk of harm
3.
4.
5.
How great are the risks?
What causes the risks?
Are the risks currently
managed?
No
Get as close to
the problem as
possible
Yes
Use regulation
only when
necessary
Regulation
should NOT be
used: targeted,
local resolution
is preferable
Keep it simple
Yes
Regulation
should NOT be
used: the risk is
already
managed
6. Where and why is the
problem occurring?
7. Can the problem be
resolved locally?
8.
Is there a regulatory
solution in line with the
principles of good
regulation?
Yes
Review and
respond to
change
Are there any new risks or
unintended consequences?
10. Do they outweigh the
benefits of regulating?
Yes
Consider other
options
(step 8)
on
No
the
No
9.
Check for
unintended
consequences
Focus
Consider
other options
outcome
No
Introduce new
regulatory measures
Figure 2. The Right-touch regulation decision tree.
8
October 2015
The quality of care received by individual
patients and service users is the end result
of a wide range of decisions made by a
number of different agents. For example:
• People: self-management decisions
taken or not taken by people
• Professionals: education, training and
continuing professional development
• Providers: their policies and guidance,
and local clinical governance
arrangements
• Commissioners: through contracting
arrangements
• Regulators: setting and maintaining
standards, controlling entry to the
profession, and taking action in response
to concerns
• Other bodies: any organisations who
have an impact on standards of practice,
such as accredited registers, professional
organisations, royal colleges, arm’slength bodies, and government
departments.
• Legislation: for example, human rights,
equality, data protection, consumer
protection, health and safety.
Regulation is part of a set of possible
solutions to risks in a sector. This is
recognised in our development of the
accredited registers programme under
the Health and Social Care Act 2012,
which offers a new model of assured
registration to manage risks associated with
unregulated occupations.8 All regulatory
policy development should be seen in this
context, and regulation will only be effective
if this wider perspective is taken. It may
be necessary for regulators to look for
ways in which they can influence registrant
behaviour through other organisations or
people.
Right-touch regulation is about sharing
the responsibility for mitigating the risk of
harm between the different organisations
and people involved in its management.We
Right-touch regulation Revised
believe that it is primarily the professionalism
of individuals that keeps the public safe, and
in the case of health and social care also
ensures the delivery of good care.
Professional regulation is working
in the public interest when it supports
professionalism and allows it to flourish. It
does this through promotion of standards of
competence and conduct, by taking action
where these standards are breached, and
through quality assuring education. It does
not seek to address all aspects of risk. It
cannot prevent every possible thing that
could go wrong. Indeed over-regulation can
give a false level of assurance and lead to
increased risk.
Right-touch regulation supports
professionalism by:
• Discouraging the use of regulation if the
risk can be addressed more effectively by
the professionals themselves; and
• Encouraging the use of regulatory
measures that support positive behaviour
change and the exercise of professional
judgement, rather than seeking to be
overly prescriptive.
Patients and the public also have
responsibility for managing risks, becoming
involved in discussions about their
treatment options, the different levels of risk
involved, and the possible consequences
for their health. For vulnerable people this
responsibility is shared and extended to
family, carers and advocates. People have
a fundamental and essential contribution
to make to high-quality healthcare. The
concept of Right-touch regulation recognises
the value and importance of the involvement
of patients and service users in assessing
risks for themselves and making appropriate
choices. Right-touch regulation requires the
active participation of patients and service
user.
There is an inherent risk in all
interventions in health and social care and
9
Employers
Practitioners
Paramedics
Commissioners
The Law
Regulators
People
Acupuncturists
Practitioners
Accredited
registers
The Law
Regulators
Paramedics practise in the
relatively controlled
environment of the NHS.
Practitioners still bear a large
share of the responsibility, but
employers, commissioners,
and regulators (both service
and professional) between
them play an important part in
preventing harm. As
paramedics work in
emergency care, people do
not have any significant
control over the care a
paramedic provides them.
The vast majority of
acupuncturists work in private
practices, and they are
usually self-employed. Both
practitioners and patients can
therefore be expected to bear
a larger share of the
responsibility for preventing
harm than in the previous
example. Their premises are
nevertheless inspected by
local authorities and the
products they use are subject
to controls. Some are on
registers accredited by the
Authority, which are also
responsible for preventing
harm.
Figure 3. Indicative illustration of how different agents might share the responsibility for mitigating
the risk of harm for two occupations in healthcare.
10
October 2015
nothing can be said to be completely safe.
For example, there is no such thing as an
absolutely safe medicine, since someone
will suffer an adverse reaction or side effect.
Given the wide range of influences on care
outcomes, it is neither proportionate nor
targeted to expect regulation to act on every
safety or quality concern (potential or actual)
that may arise. Ultimately, the responsibility
for managing risks in healthcare is shared
between all parties.
Figure 3 illustrates how the share of
responsibility for preventing harm might
vary depending on the occupation. Each
of these bears a greater or lesser share of
the responsibility for mitigating risks. These
examples indicate how the proportions
might vary according to the respective
contribution of each agent. In both
examples, practitioners hold a large share
of the responsibility. The share of people,
employers, and regulators varies greatly.
Commissioners also play a role.
Right-touch regulation and risk
When we talk about risk, we mean the risk of
harm to the public that the regulator is there
to reduce.
In the first version of Right-touch
regulation we said that risks must be
quantified. In reviewing how the approach
has worked we now suggest that to
understand a problem fully we must both
quantify and qualify risks to enable us to see
how frequently harm occurs, what impact
it has, and what causes it. We recognise
that risk quantification is complex and
challenging, but it is essential if we are to
make informed decisions about which harms
to address. Risk qualification is equally
important because it allows us to understand
what causes the harm and how it could
be prevented. Regulation should focus on
identifying and addressing the causes of a
risk of harm, rather than responding after the
Right-touch regulation Revised
harm has occurred.9,10
This two-fold evaluation is essential if we
want to describe regulation as ‘risk-based’.
The term ‘risk-based regulation’ should only
be used when such an evaluation has taken
place. Describing regulation as risk-based in
the absence of a proper evaluation of risk is,
in our view, misleading and can undermine
wider confidence and trust in regulation.
Once a risk has been evaluated, a
decision needs to be made about its
tolerability. This is a difficult moral decision
that will require clear justification. If the risk
cannot be tolerated, action will need to be
taken – although a further decision will need
to be made about whether it can indeed be
effectively addressed through regulatory
means.
There is no justification for regulation
when a risk has merely been identified but
not quantified or qualified. In particular we
should be cautious of justifying regulation
on the basis of theoretical harm without
a proper assessment of risk. In this way,
Right-touch regulation runs counter to the
‘precautionary principle’, which is used as a
licence to intervene before a risk has been
evaluated and identified as meeting the
threshold for action. The only exception to
this is where the severity of the theoretical
harm is very high, and it is not possible to
quantify the risks robustly. The precautionary
principle is distinct from the exercise of
foresight, which we see as part of the agility
principle – the ability to anticipate risks is
essential to good regulation.
We find it helpful to separate hazards,
risks and harms (Figure 4).11 Hazards are
the conditions or events that can lead to or
contribute to harm. Risk is the likelihood of
a harm materialising. In health and social
care, harm is physical injury or psychological
distress experienced by people through
interaction with health or social care
practitioners and services. In other sectors
11
RISK
Likelihood of
the harm
materialising
HAZARD
health professional is
disengaged from
professional standards
HAZARD
lack of peer support and
supervision
HARMFUL EVENT
HARM
health professional
violates a sexual
boundary with a patient
the patient suffers
psychological and
physical trauma
HAZARD
the patient is vulnerable
Figure 4. How hazards create the risk of harm – an example from healthcare.
harm may be defined differently.
Any regulatory response should be
proportionate to the risks identified. We find
it helpful to think of the range of possible
responses on a risk-based continuum of
assurance, with those providing the greatest
regulatory force (e.g. for the highest-risk
professions) at one end of the continuum,
and decreasing amounts of regulatory
force as the risk decreases. Regulation
should only be used where the risk of harm
is sufficient to warrant it and it is the most
effective means of control.
Regulators need to understand the range
of possible physical and psychological
harms to patients and service users. In
our sector, this focus is on harms that are
caused by the actions of professionals.
They also need to understand the range
of possible hazards and what increases
and decreases risk. In health and care this
means understanding the range of hazards
created by problems with practitioners’
conduct and competence – as well as those
created by the working environment.10
12
Broadly speaking, these hazards can be
categorised as follows:
• Intervention: the complexity and inherent
dangers of the activity
• Context: the environment in which the
intervention takes place
• Agency: service user vulnerability or
autonomy.
In looking for categories of people who
are statistically more likely to cause harm,
caution must be exercised, particularly when
using data about diversity characteristics.e
Taking regulatory action based on an
apparent statistical correlation between
harmful behaviour and a group defined
by, say its age or ethnicity, is likely to be
discriminatory. It may also be ineffective
and wasteful, because a correlation does
not necessarily signify a causal link. Any
correlation should therefore be examined
Some regulators collect diversity data about their
registrants and may use this to look for links between
such characteristics and likelihood of harm.
e
October 2015
more closely to discard the spuriousf links
and identify the circumstantial hazards that
create an increased risk of harm.
One of the key strengths of risk-based
regulation is that when used well, it provides
a clear, transparent and rational basis for
determining what and how to regulate. It can
therefore be an effective means of pushing
back against other pressures and justifying
decisions about resource allocation. For riskbased regulation to be effective, regulators
must communicate their approach clearly
to the public, their registrants, and other
stakeholders.
Conclusion
Right-touch regulation is an approach
to regulatory decision-making. It means
always asking what risk we are trying to
address, being proportionate and targeted
in regulating that risk or finding ways other
than regulation to promote good practice
and manage risks of harm. It allows the
development of the appropriate contribution
of the regulatory regime to the delivery of
wider aims.
It promotes the creative use of existing
mechanisms for the reduction of harm
and supports professionalism and a
joined-up approach to regulation. It is
agile and responsive to the ever-changing
circumstances and risks in which it operates
In practical terms, the benefits of Righttouch are seen in a number of ways:
• Outcomes are described in terms of the
beneficiaries of regulation rather than
the needs of others involved in delivery
of health and social care, and policy
development is devoted to achieving this
aim
A spurious correlation is a false presumption that two
variables are causally connected or correlated. Often
the connection is the result of a third variable that has
yet to be identified.
f
Right-touch regulation Revised
• It builds in the need for regular reviews to
ensure that regulatory approaches and
frameworks remain up to date and fit for
purpose
• It provides a coherent framework for
tackling a range of regulatory issues,
such as managing new areas of practice
and extending regulation to new groups
• Policy making is well informed, reflecting
realities and the wider context, building
on evidence and risk assessment.
We believe that this approach also yields
broader benefits. The analogy (Figure 1) with
weighing scales demonstrates the impact
we want regulation to have. At the balancing
point, regulation is having its most efficient
impact on the problem being tackled. This
will continue to be of vital importance as the
costs of health and social care increase over
time. Right-touch regulation forces us to be
certain that the costs of regulation are worth
the benefits they also bring. While patients
and the public have the right to expect safe
care, the cost of regulation is ultimately
passed onto the public. Adopting the Righttouch approach will help regulation maximise
the benefits.
The Right-touch approach can enhance
trust and confidence. Recent, well-publicised
‘failures of regulation’ emphasise the value
of public confidence in regulation. We need
to make sure regulation remains relevant
to the needs of today’s society, and that it
reacts appropriately to issues as they arise.
We should also not exaggerate claims for
regulation, implying that everything can be
safe and nothing will go wrong. Adopting
Right-touch regulation will allow people to
feel confident that regulation is acting in the
best way it can.
The Professional Standards Authority will
continue to promote this approach, which
we believe has already led to improvements
in regulation in the UK and elsewhere. It
provides a valuable set of guiding principles
13
to help regulation work efficiently and to
enhance confidence in the contribution of
regulatory systems to society.
Appendix: Case studies
On page 6, we described eight elements that
were key to putting Right-touch regulation
into practice. The importance of each of
these steps will depend on the regulatory
question being asked. The following case
studies show how particular elements of
Right-touch regulation have been applied to
individual pieces of work.
Case study 1: Transition to independent
practice for dentists
The General Dental Council (GDC) had
been considering whether or not there
should be a period of provisional registration
for dentists between their initial qualification
and entry to the full dentists register.
However, it was important to identify the
problem before the solution first. So the
dental regulator changed the policy question
from ‘Should we have a period of provisional
registration?’ to ‘Is the problem about risk
to patients and the public?’ This meant the
GDC could focus on the outcome of patient
and public safety.
To inform the work, the regulator
committed to use evidence and data to
quantify and qualify the risks. This included
a call for information and workshops with
key stakeholders, a literature review and
an analysis of fitness to practise and
registration data. Although a substantial
amount of information was collected, it was
difficult to draw definite conclusions about
risks posed specifically by new entrants to
the dentists register. Since we should use
regulation only when necessary, the GDC
decided the evidence was simply not strong
enough to support major regulatory change
at that stage. Instead, its approach was
to build on structures already in place, as
outlined below.
14
Despite the inconclusive evidence, the
regulator could not rule out that some risks
might exist, since informed professional
stakeholders had raised anecdotal concerns.
In addition, a common theme across the
various information-gathering exercises
was that newly qualified healthcare
professionals needed additional support or
supervision in order to make the transition to
independent practice. So, the GDC fostered
a collaborative approach across the dental
sector to ensure that all those involved in
the early stages of a dentist’s career worked
together to deliver the common outcome of
protecting patients and the public.
In practice and to keep things simple, this
meant clearly setting out the roles of the
various bodies who support dental students
and new registrants and defining the
linkages between them. The postgraduate
dental deans developed their foundation
training programmes, which were available
to dentists after they qualify and join the
register, in order to promote consistency and
quality across training and assessment. The
two bodies that represented undergraduate
education and postgraduate training worked
together on a ‘clinical passport’ for new UK
graduates to take from their dental school
into foundation training.
The GDC also worked collaboratively to
facilitate information-gathering on any risks
to patient and public safety. This, together
with other initiatives to improve the quality
of data and evidence available, provided the
GDC with a robust mechanism to review the
policy and respond to change, if necessary.
Case study 2: Handling complaints
against doctors
In order to manage certain complaints, the
General Medical Council (GMC) decided to
get as close to the problem as possible.
The GMC has changed the way it deals
with certain complaints that do not meet
October 2015
the threshold for investigation.g Rather
than opening a new investigation to look at
each of the concerns and writing to all the
doctors’ employers, the GMC now shares
this information with the doctor and his or
her Responsible Officer (RO). The GMC
asks the doctor to make the local complaints
manager aware of the complaint and advises
him or her that they must reflect on the
complaint as part of their revalidation. If the
RO or complaints manager identifies further
issues, they can escalate the matter to the
GMC for further consideration. The GMC’s
Employer Liaison Advisors are also available
to follow up these letters and discuss them
with the RO as required. This approach
allows less serious matters to be dealt with
closer to the actual problem, and is also a
proportionate regulatory intervention.
Case study 3: The Cavendish Review12
The Francis Report and other reports
highlighted poor care in health and social
care. One possible response to these
reports would have been to regulate
healthcare assistants and support workers.
However, the outcome of a review led by
Camilla Cavendish showed how this vitally
important part of the healthcare workforce
could be developed though ways other than
professional regulation.
The quality of care for patients and
service users depends upon the skills,
knowledge, experience and compassion
of those on the front line. In the case of
healthcare assistants and support workers,
this can be achieved through effective
local management processes, such as
recruitment and training, delegation,
appraisal and supervision. Therefore, the
Review recommended that:
While we support this approach in principle, its
effectiveness has yet to be determined.
g
Right-touch regulation Revised
• Training and education be developed for
healthcare assistants and support
workers (for example, through a
Certificate of Fundamental Care)
• Employers be supported to test values,
attitudes and aptitude for caring at
recruitment stage
• Caring be made a career (for example,
through bridging programmes into preregistration nursing and other health
degrees)
• Healthcare assistants and support
workers be developed through
leadership, supervision and support in
the workplace
• Healthcare assistants and support
workers have the time to care (for
example, local authorities should
commission for outcomes and not by the
minute).
In this case study, the problem, risks and
context were considered and professional
regulation was not the answer. Other
solutions – closer to the point of care – were
proposed in order to help achieve patient
and service user safety (get as close to the
problem as possible, focus on the outcome,
use regulation only when necessary).
This approach may also have prevented
an unintended consequence: if professional
regulation had been adopted, the role of
healthcare assistants and support workers
may have become more tightly defined; the
scope of their roles might then have become
less flexible and less able to meet the needs
of local populations.
Case study 4: Continuing fitness to
practise of osteopathsh
On piloting its revalidation scheme, the
General Osteopathic Council (GOsC)
undertook to check for unintended
consequences.
While we support this approach in principle, its effectiveness has yet to be determined.
h
15
The initial scheme required a multilayered self-assessment followed by the
submission of a portfolio for review by GOsC
appointed assessors. Throughout the pilot
phase, nearly three quarters of participants
reported that the completion of revalidation
tools helped them to reflect on their current
clinical practice. However, if the scheme
were to be presented and administered in
the way initially proposed, osteopaths would
see it as a test that needed to be passed,
rather than an opportunity for reflecting
honestly on their practice. There was a risk
that osteopaths would be cautious about
admitting – especially to GOsC appointed
assessors – that there were areas of
practice in which they needed to improve.
Ironically, the unintended consequence of a
policy designed to support professionalism
and protect patients and the public could be
to discourage osteopaths from developing
professionally through self-reflective
learning.
The GOsC took on board this risk and
proposed a new scheme based on peer
review of CPD activity and sign-off by
another healthcare professional. The aim
was to support professionalism by enabling
honest self-reflection and feedback amongst
peers. In addition, it would reduce the
isolation of osteopaths working on their own
and so improve quality of practice in this way
too.
16
October 2015
References
1
Professional Standards Authority (2015)
Rethinking regulation [Online] Available at:
http://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/docs/
default-source/psa-library/rethinking-regulation.
pdf?sfvrsn=2 (Accessed: 10 September 2015)
2 Better Regulation Executive (2003) Five
principles of good regulation. [Online] Available
at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.
uk/20100407162704/http:/archive.cabinetoffice.
gov.uk/brc/upload/assets/www.brc.gov.uk/
principlesleaflet.pdf (Accessed: 20 August 2015)
3 House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee
(2009) Themes and Trends in Regulatory
Reform. [Online] Available at: http://www.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/
cmdereg/329/329i.pdf (Accessed 3 September
2015)
4 OECD (2012) Recommendation of the council
on regulatory policy and governance. [Online]
Available at: http://www.oecd.org/governance/
regulatory-policy/49990817.pdf (Accessed 3
September 2015) [See recommendation 1, page 6]
5 ‘Better Regulation’ (2015) European Commission
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/
index_en.htm (Accessed 3 September 2015)
6 National Audit Office (2010) Assessing the
impact of proposed new policies. [Online]
Available at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2010/07/1011185.pdf (Accessed 10
September 2015)
7 National Health Service Reform and Health Care
Professions Act 2002. [Online] Available at: http://
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/17/contents
(Accessed 3 September 2015) [Note that at
the time of publication, there were a number of
outstanding amendments still to be made to the
online version available at legislation.gov.uk.]
8 Secretary of State for Health (2011) Enabling
Excellence Autonomy and Accountability for
Healthcare Workers, Social Workers and Social
Care Workers. [Online] Available at: https://www.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/216580/dh_124374.pdf
(Accessed 4 September 2015)
9 Sparrow, M. (2008) The Character of Harms:
Operational Challenges in Control. United States
of America, Cambridge University Press.
10 Professional Standards Authority (2015) The
role of risk in regulatory policy: a review of the
literature. [Online] Available at: http://www.
professionalstandards.org.uk/policy-and-research/
right-touch-regulation (Accessed: 15 September
2015)
Right-touch regulation Revised
11 The Health Foundation (2015). Safer Clinical
Systems: evaluation findings [Online]. Available at:
http://www.health.org.uk/publication/safer-clinicalsystems-evaluation-findings (Accessed: 21 July
2015)
12 The Cavendish Review (2013) An Independent
Review into Healthcare Assistants and Support
Workers in the NHS and Social Care Settings.
[Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/236212/Cavendish_Review.pdf
17
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9SP
Telephone: 020 7389 8030
Fax: 020 7389 8040
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.professionalstandards.org.uk
© Professional Standards Authority
for Health and Social Care October 2015
Annex F
Evaluation of ICCRC
Evaluation of the
Immigration Consultants
of Canada Regulatory
Council
Evaluation Division
Re s e a r c h a n d E v a l u a t i o n
March 2014
Ci4-120/2014E-PDF
978-1-100-23191-4
Ref. No.: E9-2013
Table of contents
Executive summary .................................................................................... iv
Evaluation of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council Management Response Action Plan (MRAP) ..................................... ix
1.
Introduction .....................................................................................1
1.1. Purpose of evaluation ...................................................................................... 1
1.2. Background ................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1. Changes to regulations regarding the provision of immigration advice ................... 1
1.2.2. History / objectives of the ICCRC ................................................................ 2
1.2.3. Profile of the ICCRC ................................................................................. 3
2.
Methodology.....................................................................................5
2.1. Evaluation issues and questions ........................................................................... 5
2.2. Evaluation scope ............................................................................................. 6
2.3. Data
2.3.1.
2.3.2.
2.3.3.
2.3.4.
collection methods ................................................................................... 7
Document review .................................................................................... 7
Administrative data analysis ...................................................................... 7
Interviews ............................................................................................. 7
ICCRC member survey ............................................................................... 8
2.4. Limitations and considerations............................................................................ 9
3.
Evaluation findings ........................................................................... 10
3.1. Relevance .................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1. Need addressed by the regulation of immigration consultants ............................ 10
3.1.2. Federal role and alignment with federal and CIC priorities ................................ 12
3.2. Performance ................................................................................................. 13
3.2.1. CIC governance and management processes ................................................... 13
3.2.2. Capacity building ................................................................................... 16
3.2.3. Communications .................................................................................... 23
3.2.4. Competencies ........................................................................................ 26
3.2.5. Compliance........................................................................................... 33
3.2.6. Resource utilization ................................................................................ 38
4.
Conclusions and recommendations ....................................................... 42
Appendix A: ICCRC Evaluation Matrix............................................................ 45
Appendix B: ICCRC Logic Model ................................................................... 49
-i-
List of tables
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1.1:
1.2:
1.3:
2.1:
2.2:
2.3:
2.4:
3.1:
3.2:
3.3:
3.4:
3.5:
Number of ICCRC Members, as of December 2012 ............................................ 3
Employment types of ICCRC members, as of December 2012 .............................. 4
Years of experience of ICCRC members, as of December 2012 ............................ 4
Evaluation Questions: Regulation of Immigration Consultants ............................. 5
Summary of interviews completed .............................................................. 8
Interview data analysis scale ..................................................................... 8
ICCRC member survey response rate ............................................................ 9
Survey respondents’ perception on governance and management of the ICCRC....... 18
ICCRC repayment schedule ...................................................................... 20
Cash flow analysis ................................................................................. 21
Number of complaints received by the ICCRC, June 2011- December 2012 ............ 34
Budgeted and actual costs incurred by the ICCRC ........................................... 40
List of figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1.1:
3.1:
3.2:
3.3:
3.4:
3.5:
3.6:
3.7:
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
3.8:
3.9:
3.10:
3.11:
3.12:
Distribution of ICCRC members, June 2011 - December 2012 .............................. 3
Survey respondents’ views on the transparency and accountability of the ICCRC ..... 19
ICCRC debt, current, and profitability ratio trends (July 2011 - December 2013) ..... 21
Survey respondents’ views on ICCRC communication on certification process ......... 23
Survey respondents’ views on the effectiveness of ICCRC information products ...... 25
Survey respondents’ views on the ease of meeting membership requirements ........ 28
Survey respondents’ views on the appropriateness of membership requirements .... 28
Survey respondents’ views on the appropriateness of requirements to maintain
membership ........................................................................................ 30
Survey respondents’ views on continuing professional development .................... 31
Survey respondents’ perception of PME courses ............................................. 32
Allegations contained in the complaints received, June 2011-December 2012 ........ 35
Reason for closure of complaints received between June 2011- December 2012 ..... 36
Survey respondents’ perception of the complaints and discipline process ............. 37
- ii -
List of acronyms
AFP
AGM
CAPIC
CBSA
CBA
CEO
CIC
CPD
CPR
CSIC
ESDC
FSE
G&C
GCFM
GCMS
GoC
HR
ICCRC
IPMB
IPP
IRB
IRPA
IRPR
NGO
OGD
OMC
PME
PR
RCIC
RCMP
R&E
TBS
TR
Analysis of Financial Position
Annual General Meeting
Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants
Canada Border Services Agency
Canadian Bar Association
Chief Executive Officer
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Continuing Professional Development
Centralized Processing Region
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants
Employment and Social Development Canada
Full Skills Exam
Grant and Contribution
Grants and Contributions Financial Management Division
Global Case Management System
Government of Canada
Human Resources
Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council
Integration Program Management Branch
Immigration Practitioner Program
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
Non-Governmental Organization
Other Government Department
Operational Management and Coordination Branch
Practice Management Education
Permanent Resident
Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Research and Evaluation Branch
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Temporary Resident
- iii -
Executive summary
Purpose of the Evaluation
This report presents the results of the evaluation of the Immigration Consultants of Canada
Regulatory Council (ICCRC), the body designated under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
(IRPA) to govern the immigration consultant industry. The evaluation was conducted in
fulfillment of requirements under the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury Board of
Canada Secretariat (TBS) Policy on Evaluation (2009), as well as a commitment to report on the
activities of the organization by December 2013. As the ICCRC was recently established, this
evaluation will be useful in identifying areas where the organization needs to further increase its
capacity. The data collection for this evaluation was undertaken by the Research and Evaluation
Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), between January and April, 2013, with an
updated assessment on the financial data completed in February 2014.
Background on the ICCRC
Bill C-35, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (formerly called the Cracking
Down on Crooked Consultants Act) received Royal Assent on March 23, 2011 and came into force on
June 30, 2011. The Bill made the changes to Sections 13.1 and 13.2 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations (IRPR), as well as provided authorization under IRPA for the Minister to
designate a body to be responsible for governing immigration consultants. The Bill makes it an
offense for anyone other than an authorized representative to provide immigration advice
(including prior to the submission of an application) or represent clients on immigration matters
and receive direct or indirect compensation for it. The Bill also requires that body to provide
information sufficient to allow the Minister to evaluate whether the designated body governs its
members in a manner that is in the public interest, so that they provide professional and ethical
representation and advice.
Following the passage of Bill C-35, CIC requested submissions from candidates interested in
becoming the regulator of immigration consultants. The request called for candidate entries to
demonstrate that they would be able to effectively regulate immigration consulting activities in
the public interest, thereby enhancing public confidence in the immigration process and
preserving the integrity of the immigration system.
As a result of this competitive process, the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory
Council (ICCRC) was selected, replacing the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants
(CSIC) as the body responsible for the regulation of Canadian immigration consultants. To
support the creation of this arms-length governing body, CIC established a Contribution in Support
of the Regulation of Immigration Consultants. Under this program, CIC and the ICCRC signed a $1M
contribution agreement. The purpose of this Agreement was for CIC to provide funding, in the
form of a repayable contribution, for the start-up and operating costs of the governing body, and
through evaluation and monitoring, to ensure financial accountability and performance of the
organization as per its obligations of the Agreement. The full amount of the contribution will be
repaid by the ICCRC to the Government of Canada with its revenues.
- iv -
Methodology
The evaluation approach and methodology were set out in an evaluation plan developed prior to
the commencement of the evaluation. This planning phase was undertaken from October to
January, 2012-13, and was conducted in consultation with all CIC Branches involved in the
regulation of immigration consultants, as well with the ICCRC. The evaluation is aligned with the
risk-based Departmental Evaluation Plan, which was developed in part based on assurance
mapping that provides senior management with information on the ways in which the
department ensures appropriate oversight of programs, based on level of risk.
The primary purpose of the evaluation was to examine the extent to which the ICCRC had
implemented activities in the areas of capacity building, communications, competencies and
compliance, as outlined in the contribution agreement with CIC, as well as the achievement of
expected immediate outcomes. The expected immediate outcomes examined are as follows:

ICCRC is a viable, transparent, accountable, and well-managed organization;

Stakeholder groups have information on the immigration consulting sector, including
accreditation, potential of fraud, and recourse mechanisms;

Members receive accreditation and professional development opportunities to continually
develop their competencies and qualifications; and

Fair, transparent and accessible complaint and discipline mechanisms are established.
The evaluation examined activities of the ICCRC since it was established in June 2011 up to
December 2012. The activities of the past regulator, the Canadian Society of Immigration
Consultants (CSIC), were not included in the scope of this evaluation. In addition, as the
evaluation focused on the activities of the ICCRC, the evaluation did not explore the issue of
unauthorized representatives in depth.
This evaluation included four lines of evidence, including both qualitative and quantitative
methods, drawing upon both primary and secondary data sources:

A review of documents and secondary sources;

An analysis of administrative and financial data;

Interviews and site visits with key informants; and

A survey of ICCRC members.
Additional input was gathered from missions, through case studies conducted for other
evaluation projects.
Limitations
Although the evaluation contained a balance of qualitative and quantitative lines of evidence,
there were four limitations that should be considered when reading the report:

There was limited administrative data available to analyse and determine trends related to the
use of immigration consultants; only 2012 data on applications was available to inform the
evaluation on this aspect.

As the ICCRC was set up as an arms-length body, interviewees outside of the organization
were somewhat limited in their ability to comment in detail on how the ICCRC has operated;
-v-

The perspective of the missions, and those who process immigration applications, was not
built into the evaluation as a distinct line of evidence; and

Respondents to the ICCRC member survey differed somewhat from the full population of
ICCRC members – grandfathered members were under-represented, and members with less
experience in immigration consulting were over-represented among the respondents.
Recognizing that these limitations exist, it is equally important to note that they have not
significantly influenced the findings, conclusions, or recommendations put forward in this
evaluation.
Evaluation findings
Relevance

The industry was regulated to protect consumers; to reduce incidence of fraud, unethical
behaviour, and misrepresentation; and to establish standards for the profession. As such,
there was a need to put a body in place to regulate the industry.

The objectives of the regulation regarding representation or advice align with federal
obligations and Government of Canada and CIC priorities related to reducing fraud and
protecting the integrity of the immigration system and potential applicants.
Performance (effectiveness)

Appropriate governance and management structures were put in place within CIC and
between CIC and the ICCRC, and evolved as needed over time to become more arms-length
as the ICCRC matured. There are also processes in place within CIC, which are documented
in operational manuals, to validate the use of authorized representatives and for CIC to file
complaints. However, there is some indication that there is a lack of clarity on these
processes and that they are not being applied consistently by CIC staff.

The evaluation found that the ICCRC put in place most of the elements of the management
structure, as per its contribution agreement with CIC and that the ICCRC is a well-managed,
transparent and accountable organization. Financial viability had not been achieved as of
December 2013 and the financial situation of the organization remained unfavourable.1
However, ICCRC’s financial situation has steadily been improving and it has started repaying
the contribution to CIC.

The ICCRC has undertaken communications activities as planned, adequately informed
members about the organization’s processes, and members were satisfied with the
information provided. There are opportunities for the ICCRC to enhance external
communications by increasing outreach to the public and stakeholder groups as well as
improving its website.

Initially, CIC's communications activities focused more on ‘crooked’ consultants rather than
promoting the use of authorized representatives, which stakeholders feel had a negative
According to CIC’s assessment as per the Department’s Funding Risk Assessment Model (FRAM), which is the
tool used to assess the risk of Gs&Cs recipients.
1
- vi -
impact on how the industry is perceived. As a result, it was expressed by interviewees that
there is a need for CIC and the ICCRC to coordinate communication efforts.

The ICCRC implemented the competency activities related to granting certification and
offering professional development opportunities to members as planned and as a result, there
are processes in place for members to receive certification and to participate in professional
development opportunities. Stakeholders consider the certification process appropriate and
ICCRC members are positive about the professional development opportunities provided.

The ICCRC has put an appropriate complaints and discipline process in place, which is
viewed as fair, accessible, and independent by interviewees and ICCRC members. However,
the complaints and discipline process was slow to be established and the ICCRC has no
jurisdiction over complaints against unauthorized representatives that it refers to other
organizations (i.e., the CBSA and the RCMP), which has led to the perception that little is
being done as a result of the complaints. In addition, the implementation of the member
audit process was delayed but is now in process and the compensation fund to compensate
the public in cases of member malpractice will not be established due to the large cost
involved.
Performance (resource utilization)

Although the ICCRC spent more than originally budgeted, the evaluation found that the
ICCRC was able to mainly achieve what was planned as per the outputs identified in the
contribution agreement.
Conclusions and recommendations
Over the course of its first year and a half of operations, the ICCRC had successfully established
itself as an arms-length organization that regulates immigration consultants. Although spending
more than originally anticipated over this time period, the ICCRC was able to undertake the
majority of the activities outlined in the contribution agreement in the four areas of capacity
building, communications, competencies, and compliance and was able to operate without
requiring additional funding from CIC above what was agreed to at the outset. The assessment of
these four areas of activity showed no major issues and, overall, the evaluation found the
organization has established the foundations required to regulate immigration consultants. In
addition, the financial analysis conducted by CIC’s Financial Management Branch shows that
financial viability had not been achieved as of December 2013 and the financial situation of the
organization remained unfavourable according to the department’s standards. However, ICCRC’s
financial situation has steadily been improving and it has started repaying the contribution to
CIC, as per the negotiated schedule.
Recognizing that the ICCRC is a young organization that is still developing its capacity, there is
room for improvement on certain aspects.

While the foundations of ICCRC’s governance and management structure have been
established, the organization still needs to finalize its internal policies and procedures.

The organization also has to continue to monitor spending and maintain a strong
membership base to ensure ongoing financial viability.
- vii -

The ICCRC needs to improve its website and continue its work on external
communications to ensure that its mandate and activities are clearly communicated to
stakeholders (e.g., public, potential applicants, CIC).

Where possible, the ICCRC needs to provide more information to its various
stakeholders, including the public, on how it handles complaints and the disciplinary
actions taken.

The ICCRC should proactively engage in discussions with CIC regarding any originally
planned activities agreed upon in the Contribution Agreement that are still outstanding,
e.g., compensation fund.
CIC was involved with the organization by providing support during its establishment and
ongoing operation, both in the form of operational guidance and financial support. Overall, CIC
and the ICCRC were successful in establishing a good working relationship and CIC provided
adequate support during the creation of the organization. The relationship between the ICCRC
and CIC is now more arms-length with the CIC role limited to monitoring the repayments from
the ICCRC and liaising with the organization on an as needed basis on matters of mutual interest.
From an internal perspective, the evaluation identified a few issues that CIC should address to
ensure that the department is working only with authorized representatives (including members
of the ICCRC) and that stakeholders, both internal and external to CIC, are sufficiently informed
about the regulatory body and the use of authorized consultants.
Recommendation #1: CIC should ensure that staff processing immigration applications have a common
understanding of the regulations, the role of the regulatory body, and the processes for CIC to validate the use
of authorized representatives and to file complaints regarding authorized and unauthorized representatives.
This should be done by:
a) Clarifying the process for how CIC validates the use of authorized representatives
and for how complaints should be filed;
b) Updating the relevant manuals (e.g., IP9) in a timely manner to reflect any changes to
these processes;
c) Issuing operational bulletins in a timely manner to ensure processing centres and visa
offices are aware of any changes to the processes; and
d) Updating relevant training material and/or courses to ensure that they include
information on the regulations, the use of authorized representatives, the role of the
ICCRC as the regulatory body, and the process in place within CIC for validating
authorized representatives and for filing complaints.
Recommendation #2: CIC should establish a communication strategy to raise public awareness
regarding authorized representatives. This strategy should ensure that stakeholders (e.g., the public and
potential applicants) understand the role of immigration consultants and that an authorized representative
must be used if applicants choose to be represented.
- viii -
Evaluation of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council - Management
Response Action Plan (MRAP)
Recommendations
Response
CIC is committed to respecting the
provisions of Section 91 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and will
continue to apply the legislative changes
consistently to all persons subject to
Canadian laws.
CIC currently has centralized intake for all
applications for permanent residence in
Canada at various Centralized Processing
Centres (CPCs). CPCs include the following
offices:

CIO-Sydney

CPC-Mississauga

CPC-Vegreville
a. Clarifying the process for how

Query Response Centre
CIC validates the use of

CPC-PRC-Sydney
authorized representatives
Applications for Temporary residence are
and for how complaints should
submitted to a visa office overseas via ebe filed
applications, by mail/drop box, or to the
Visa Application Centre (VAC) that serve the
b. Updating the relevant
visa office territory.
manuals (e.g., IP9) in a timely Tools built within the Program Integrity
manner to reflect any changes framework in conjunction with validation of
to these processes
immigration representative procedures
outlined in Inland Processing (IP) manual 9
c. Issuing operational bulletins in are jointly used to identify fraud and ensure
a timely manner to ensure
transparency in reviewing applications for
processing centres and visa
compliance with S91 (1) of IRPA. CIC is
offices are aware of any
aiming to achieve consistency with regards
changes to the processes
to the procedures for the validation and
Action
Accountability
Completion date
Operational
Management and
Coordination Branch
(OMC)
Q2, 2014-2015
OMC and
Communications
Q2, 2014-2015
1. CIC should ensure that staff
processing immigration
applications have a common
understanding of the regulations,
the role of the regulatory body,
and the process for CIC to
validate the use of authorized
representatives and to file
complaints regarding authorized
and unauthorized
representatives. This should be
done by:
Operational instructions regarding validating or
checking the status of representatives listed on the
Use of Representatives Form (IMM 5476) will be
updated and distributed to all CIC employees.
As part of the modernization project, all CIC manuals
will be updated to include new web features making
it fast and easy to update. IP 9 will be updated in a
timely manner.
CIC is currently working on enhancing the tools we use
in accomplishing our day to day work (e.g., the
intranet/Connexion) which will reduce the need for
OMC
operational bulletins. Going forward IP 9 will be
updated regularly to reflect any changes in policy or
operational directives.
- ix -
Q1, 2014-2015
Recommendations
d. Updating relevant training
material and/or courses to
ensure that they include
information on the regulations,
the use of authorized
representatives, the role of the
ICCRC as the regulatory
body, and the process in
place within CIC for validating
authorized representatives
and for filing complaints.
2. CIC should establish a
communication strategy to raise
public awareness regarding
authorized representatives. This
strategy should ensure that
stakeholders (e.g., the public
and potential applicants)
understand the role of
immigration consultants and that
an authorized representative
must be used if applicants choose
to be represented.
Response
Action
Accountability
Completion date
reporting on authorized representatives. In
doing so, CIC must take into account the
challenges associated with its versatile
network.
CIC will review the training module currently
available for CPC staff for clarification and update as
needed.
OMC will partner with International Region (IR)
training, to develop a training module on immigration
representatives which will be included in the learning
agenda of all new hires. This will cover subjects such
as: who is an authorized immigration representative,
verifying the status of a representative listed on the
use of representative form, what is the role of ICCRC,
how to file a complaint against an authorized
representative and what to do if a representative is
not authorized.
OMC, Centralized
Processing Region
(CPR) and
International Region
(IR)
Q2, 2014-2015
Given the number of inquiries that the department
received related to the implementation of C-35, OMC
in collaboration with Communications have developed
additional communication products and made the
information on authorized immigration
representatives more prominent on the Website and
on each web page for every line of business. The
outreach materials on the CIC website are more
visible and can be accessed with fewer keystrokes
than before. The strategy developed includes key
messages for those working with stakeholders. This
project was undertaken after data collection for the
evaluation was completed and as such was not
considered as part of the evaluation.
CIC will also be launching an awareness campaign in
March 2014 to reinforce the use of authorized
immigration representatives, and how to avoid
becoming a victim of fraud.
-x-
Completed
OMC and
Communications
Q4, 2013-2014
1.
Introduction
1.1. Purpose of evaluation
This report presents the results of the evaluation of the Immigration Consultants of Canada
Regulatory Council (ICCRC), the body designated under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
(IRPA) to govern the immigration consultant industry. The evaluation was conducted in
fulfillment of the requirements under the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury Board of
Canada Secretariat (TBS) Policy on Evaluation (2009), as well as a commitment to report on the
activities of the organization by December 2013. The data collection for this evaluation was
undertaken by the Research and Evaluation Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC),
between January and April, 2013, with an updated assessment on the financial data completed in
February 2014.
This evaluation report is organized in four main sections:

Section 1 presents background information on how the provision of immigration advice
is regulated;

Section 2 presents the methodology for the evaluation, and discusses limitations;

Section 3 presents the findings, organized by evaluation issue; and

Section 4 presents the conclusions and recommendations.
1.2. Background
1.2.1. Changes to regulations regarding the provision of immigration advice
Applying for immigration can be a challenging experience. While many people applying to
immigrate to Canada choose to manage their applications themselves, some choose to solicit
support from third-party representatives to help them through the process. These third parties
from whom they seek advice can be compensated or uncompensated. However, both
compensated and uncompensated representatives are required to be declared by the applicant on
their application. Section 91 of IRPA states that only certain parties may be engaged to provide
advice for consideration in these matters:

Members of law societies, including paralegals;

Members of the Chambre des notaires du Québec; or

Members of a body designated eligible to provide advice through regulation.2
A member in good standing of any of these three regulatory bodies is considered to be an
authorized representative.
Sections 13.1 and 13.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) provide additional
authorities, delineating information to be provided by this regulatory body and authorizing the
disclosure of information in cases of suspected misconduct by its members.3
Bill C-35, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (formerly called the Cracking
Down on Crooked Consultants Act) received Royal Assent on March 23, 2011 and came into force on
2
3
See http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/FullText.html
See http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/FullText.html
1
June 30, 2011. The Bill made the changes to Sections 13.1 and 13.2 of the IRPR cited above, as
well as provided authorization under IRPA for the Minister to designate a body to be responsible
for governing immigration consultants. The Bill makes it an offense for anyone other than an
authorized representative to provide immigration advice (including prior to the submission of an
application) or represent clients on immigration matters and receive direct or indirect
compensation for it. The Bill also requires that body to provide sufficient information to allow
the Minister to evaluate whether the designated body governs its members in a manner that is in
the public interest, so that they provide professional and ethical representation and advice.4
1.2.2. History / objectives of the ICCRC
Following the passage of Bill C-35, CIC requested submissions from candidates interested in
becoming the regulator of immigration consultants. The request called for candidate entries to
demonstrate that they would be able to effectively regulate immigration consulting activities in
the public interest, thereby enhancing public confidence in the immigration process and
preserving the integrity of the immigration system.5
As a result of this competitive process, the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory
Council (ICCRC) was selected, replacing the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants
(CSIC) as the body responsible for the regulation of Canadian immigration consultants. To
support the creation of this arms-length governing body, CIC established a Contribution in Support
of the Regulation of Immigration Consultants. CIC and the ICCRC signed a $1M contribution
agreement. The purpose of this Agreement was for CIC to provide funding, in the form of a
repayable contribution, for the start-up and operating costs of the governing body, and through
evaluation and monitoring, to ensure financial accountability and performance of the
organization as per its obligations of the Agreement. The full amount of the contribution will be
repaid by the ICCRC to the Government of Canada with its revenues. Under the original terms
of the contribution agreement, the ICCRC was expected to enter into negotiations regarding the
repayment terms for the contribution when it reached 2,200 members, or three years after signing
of the contribution agreement, whichever came first. As the former occurred first (August 2012),
CIC successfully negotiated the repayment terms in December 2012. The ICCRC issued its first
repayment towards the contribution in August 2013 and is expected to repay the full contribution
amount to CIC by August 2017.
The contribution agreement committed the ICCRC to establishing a number of elements as part
of the creation of the organization. This included activities related to building the capacity of the
organization (capacity building), developing communication products for members and the public
(communications), putting in place processes to accredit members and ensure professional
development opportunities (competencies), and establishing a complaints and discipline process
(compliance).
At the outset, the Integration Program Management Branch (IPMB), CIC, was responsible for
managing the contribution agreement, including receiving progress reports, verifying
expenditures, and authorizing payments. Now that all payments have been dispersed, IPMB is
responsible for monitoring the repayment of the contribution to CIC. The Operational
Management and Coordination Branch (OMC), CIC, was responsible for providing support
4
5
2
See www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2011/2011-06-28a.asp
See http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2010/2010-08-28/html/notice-avis-eng.html#d111
during the establishment of the organization, including providing advice and input on the
activities, processes, and procedures being put in place.
The ICCRC’s objective, as outlined on the organization’s website, is to effectively and fairly
regulate immigration consultants with accountability and transparency.6
1.2.3. Profile of the ICCRC
The ICCRC began operations as of June 30, 2011. A transitional period of four months was
established (ending October 28, 2011) to enable former CSIC members to transfer their
membership to the new body if desired.7 As of December 31, 2012, the ICCRC had 2,450
members, the majority of whom (77%) transferred their membership from CSIC (Table 1.1). The
ICCRC added 552 new members in the first 18 months in existence.8
Table 1.1:
Number of ICCRC Members, as of December 2012
Mem bership type
Membership transferred from CSIC
New memberships
Total
Num ber of m em bers
1,898
552
2,450
Proportion
77.0%
23.0%
100.0%
Source: ICCRC Registrar’s Report, February 2013
While immigrations consultants are located across Canada, the highest numbers are concentrated
in Ontario (41.8%) and British Colombia (29.6%) (Figure 1.1). Few consultants are located in the
Atlantic Provinces, with only 1.1 % of ICCRC members being located in these provinces. A small
number of registered immigration consultants are located outside of Canada (5.2%).9
Figure 1.1: Distribution of ICCRC members, June 2011 - December 2012
Atlantic, 1.1%
Quebec, 11.7%
North, 0.0%
International,
5.2%
Ontario, 41.8%
British Columbia,
29.6%
Prairies,
10.7%
Survey: ICCRC Registrar’s Report, February 2013
See www.iccrc-crcic.ca/AboutUs.cfm
See www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2011/2011-06-28.asp
8 As of June 2013, the ICCRC reported its membership at 2,587.
9 As of June 2013, the distribution remained similar, with the highest concentrations of RCICs located in Ontario,
British Columbia and Quebec.
6
7
3
The majority of ICCRC members are owners or part operators of immigration consulting firms
(87.2%) or an employee of a consulting firm with no ownership stake (8.7%).10
Table 1.2:
Employment types of ICCRC members, as of December 2012
Em ploym ent type
Ow ner / part operator of an immigration consulting firm
Employee of consulting firm w ith no ow nership stake
Employee of a law firm or a Quebec notary firm
Employee of a for-profit firm w hose primary business is not
related to immigration consulting help
Employee of a non-profit firm or non-government
organization
Total
Num ber of m em bers
2,167
215
48
Proportion
87.2%
8.7%
1.9%
41
1.6%
14
2,485
0.6%
100.0%
Source: ICCRC Registrar’s Report, January 2013
The majority of ICCRC members are relatively new to the immigration consulting business, as
63.5% have been practicing immigration consultancy for less than five years (Table 1.3). Those
with five to fifteen years of experience represent a sizeable minority within the ICCRC (24.9%),
and a minority of ICCRC members have more than fifteen years experience (11.6%).
Table 1.3:
Years of experience of ICCRC members, as of December 2012
Years of experience
<5 years
5-15 years
>15 years
Total
Num ber of m em bers
1,578
619
288
2,485
Proportion
63.5%
24.9%
11.6%
100.0%
Source: ICCRC Registrar’s Report, February 2013
The information above was obtained from the ICCRC. Additional information about the
immigration consulting industry (e.g., types of clients served, locations of overseas offices) was
collected through a survey administered to ICCRC members. A summary of the information can
be found in the Technical Appendices.
The data for Tables 1.2 and 1.3 are from January 31, 2013, which explains the higher total number of ICCRC
members in these tables (2,485) compared to Table 1.1 (2,450).
10
4
2.
Methodology
2.1. Evaluation issues and questions
The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Directive of the
Evaluation Function (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2009) and examined relevance and
performance. The evaluation questions, organized by core issue, are presented in Table 2.1 (see
Appendix A for the full set of evaluation questions, indicators, and methodologies). The logic
model for the regulation of immigration consultants can be found in the Appendix B.
Table 2.1:
Evaluation Questions: Regulation of Immigration Consultants
Core issues
Relevance
Continued Need for the Program
(assessment of the extent to w hich the
program continues to address a
demonstrable need and is responsive to
the needs of Canadians)
Alignm ent w ith Governm ent
Priorities (assessment of the linkages
betw een program objectives and (i)
federal government priorities and (ii)
departmental strategic outcomes)
Evaluation questions
Section of
the report
1.1 What need is the regulation of immigration consultants aiming
to address?
3.1.1
1.2 Is the regulation of immigration consultants aligned w ith
federal roles and responsibilities and GoC and CIC priorities?
3.1.2
2.1 Are the appropriate governance and management
processes in place to achieve program outcomes?
3.2.1
2.2 Is ICCRC a viable, transparent, accountable, and w ellmanaged organization? (Capacity)
3.2.2
2.3 Has the ICCRC adequately informed stakeholder groups on
the immigration consulting sector? (Communication)
3.2.3
2.4 Are members receiving accreditation from the ICCRC? Are
they receiving professional development opportunities to develop
competencies and improve qualifications? (Competencies)
3.2.4
2.5 To w hat extent is there a fair, transparent and accessible
complaint and discipline mechanism in place to regulate member
conduct? (Compliance)
3.1 Have program resources been used appropriately to
achieve program outcomes?
3.2.5
Alignm ent w ith Federal Roles and
Responsibilities (assessment of the
role and responsibilities of the federal
government in delivering the program)
Perform ance
Achievem ent of Expected Outcom es
(assessment of progress tow ard
expected outcomes (including immediate,
intermediate and ultimate outcomes) w ith
reference to performance targets,
program reach, program design, including
the linkage and contribution of outputs to
outcomes)
Dem onstration of Efficiency and
Econom y (assessment of resource
utilization in relation to the production of
outputs and progress tow ard expected
outcomes)
3.2.6
5
2.2. Evaluation scope
The evaluation approach and methodology were set out in an evaluation plan developed prior to
the commencement of the evaluation. This planning phase was undertaken from October to
January, 2012-13, and was conducted in consultation with all CIC Branches involved in the
regulation of immigration consultants, as well with the ICCRC. The evaluation is aligned with the
risk-based Departmental Evaluation Plan, which was developed in part based on assurance
mapping that provides senior management with information on the ways in which the
department ensures appropriate oversight of programs, based on level of risk. The level of effort
associated with the evaluation was calibrated in order to ensure that the department meets its
coverage requirements.11
Recognizing that the ICCRC was recently established, the evaluation was designed as an
implementation evaluation and examined the extent to which the ICCRC was able to accomplish
what was outlined in the contribution agreement in the areas of capacity building,
communications, competencies, and compliance. Given the timing of the evaluation, only the
expected immediate outcomes were examined:

ICCRC is a viable, transparent, accountable, and well-managed organization;

Stakeholder groups have information on the immigration consulting sector, including
accreditation, potential of fraud, and recourse mechanisms;

Members receive accreditation and professional development opportunities to continually
develop their competencies and qualifications; and

Fair, transparent and accessible complaint and discipline mechanisms are established.
The evaluation examined activities of the ICCRC since it was established as the official regulatory
body for the immigration consultant industry in June 2011 up to December 2012. However, as
the contribution agreement was signed before the ICCRC became operational (in March 2011)
the evaluation also included activities that took place between when the Agreement was signed
and June 2011. The activities of the past regulator, CISC, were not included in the scope of this
evaluation. In addition, as the evaluation focused on the activities of the ICCRC, the evaluation
did not explore in depth the issues around unauthorized representatives.12
With regard to CIC strategic planning priorities, the regulation of immigration consultants is expected to
contribute to CIC’s Strategic Outcome 4: managed migration that promotes Canadian interests and protects the
health, safety, and security of Canadians. Indirectly, the program is expected to support all strategic outcomes of the
Department as they pertain to advice provided on temporary, permanent resident, and refugee processes.
12 Unauthorized representatives, commonly referred to as “ghost consultants,” consist of those who provide
immigration advice for remuneration, despite not being a member of an approved body (e.g., the ICCRC, a law
society, or the Chambre des notaires du Québec).
11
6
2.3. Data collection methods
The evaluation of the ICCRC included the use of multiple lines of evidence and complementary
research methods to help ensure the strength of information and data collected. Data collection
for this evaluation took place between January and April, 2013, with an updated assessment on
the financial data completed in February 2014. Each of the lines of evidence drawn upon is
described in greater detail below.
2.3.1. Document review
A review of relevant program documents was conducted to provide background and context,
informing the assessment of the relevance and performance of the ICCRC. Official government
documents, such as Speeches from the Throne, Budget Speeches, and policy and strategic
documents were reviewed for contextual background information and for information on CIC
and Government of Canada priorities. Previous government reports on immigration consulting
were reviewed to provide information on the industry and its need for regulation. Departmental
reference documents, including contribution agreement documents and processing manuals, were
used to address specific evaluation questions. See the Technical Appendices for a list of
documents reviewed.
2.3.2. Administrative data analysis
Administrative data from the ICCRC were used to develop a profile of ICCRC members and also
to assess the degree of progress made by the ICCRC towards the activities and outputs
established in the contribution agreement. The Grants and Contributions Financial Management
(GCFM) division of CIC’s Financial Management Branch also provided an analysis of the
financial position of the ICCRC, which was used to inform the assessment of the financial
viability of the organization, its resource utilization and the overall ability, based on the
information presented at the time, of the ICCRC to adhere to the negotiated repayment schedule.
CIC administrative data from the Global Case Management System (GCMS) were used to
determine the extent to which immigrants to Canada employed the services of immigration
consultants. Other CIC administrative data from OMC provided information on the number and
type of complaints regarding immigration consultants received by the Department. CBSA
administrative data were also analyzed to examine the volume of cases referred to it by the
ICCRC or CIC, as well as the outcomes of these referrals.
2.3.3. Interviews
A total of 38 interviews were completed for the evaluation (Table 2.2). Interviews were
undertaken with four key stakeholder groups (see the Technical Appendices for the interview
guides). This included CIC senior management and program officers involved with the ICCRC;
representatives of the ICCRC (including the past and present CEOs, ICCRC staff, and members
of the Board of Directors); representatives from other government departments (OGDs)
involved with the regulation of immigration consultants (i.e., the Canada Border Services Agency,
Employment and Social Development Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada); and other stakeholders in the immigration representation business (e.g., immigration
lobby groups).
7
Table 2.2:
Summary of interviews completed
Interview group
CIC representatives
ICCRC staff
Representatives from other government departments
Other stakeholders
Total
Num ber of Interview s
15
17
4
2
38
Interviews were conducted both in-person and by telephone. Where qualitative information is
presented in the report, the scale shown in Table 2.3 was used.13
Table 2.3:
Interview data analysis scale
Descriptor
All
Majority / most
Many
Some
A few
Meaning
Findings reflect the view s and opinions of 100% of the
interview ees
Findings reflect the view s and opinions of at least 75% but less
than 100% of interview ees
Findings reflect the view s and opinions of at least 50% but less
than 75% of interview ees
Findings reflect the view s and opinions of at least 25% but less
than 50% of interview ees
Findings reflect the view s and opinions of at least tw o
respondents but less than 25% of interview ees
A site visit was conducted in March 2013 to the ICCRC head office in Burlington, Ontario. The
site visit provided an opportunity for evaluation team members to interview ICCRC staff inperson, observe the facilities obtained by the ICCRC through the contribution agreement, and
better understand the ICCRC’s operating environment.
In addition to the 15 interviews that were conducted with CIC representatives, the evaluation
also asked questions regarding the validation of authorized representatives and mechanisms to
file complaints in five CIC offices abroad. These questions were asked of CIC officers in New
Delhi, Beijing, Hong Kong, London, and Paris during site visits conducted in support of other
evaluation studies. This information did not constitute a distinct line of evidence, but provided
further context for the evaluation findings.
2.3.4. ICCRC member survey
To obtain the views of the ICCRC members, an online survey was developed by CIC (in
consultation with the ICCRC). The survey included questions about members’ experiences
related to becoming ICCRC members, the quality of information received from the ICCRC, and
the ICCRC complaints and discipline process, as well as their views on the regulation of the
immigration consulting profession, and questions on demographic characteristics (see the
Technical Appendices for the survey instrument).
Invitations to complete this survey were distributed to members through the ICCRC’s
membership list and it was pretested before being administered to the full membership. A total of
Note that, in some cases (e.g., where the number of interviewees was too small or where the question yielded more
descriptive information), the responses were not coded and a summary approach was used to analyze the
information.
13
8
2,436 members14 were asked to respond to the survey, 1,263 of whom completed the survey
between March and April 2013 (Table 2.4).
Table 2.4:
ICCRC member survey response rate
Response type
Completed survey
Started survey but did not complete
Did not respond
Total
1,263
179
994
2,436
51.8%
7.3%
40.8%
100.0%
The survey achieved a margin of error of ±1.91% using a 95% confidence level.15
2.4. Limitations and considerations
The evaluation contained a balance of qualitative and quantitative lines of evidence, allowing for
the triangulation of research findings. While mitigated by the use of multiple lines of evidence,
some limitations to the evaluation’s methodologies should be noted:

There was limited administrative data available to analyse and determine trends related to the
use of immigration consultants. Prior to the introduction of GCMS, CIC systems did not
keep track of which regulatory body the representative was a member of. The first full year
for which this data was available is 2012.

As the ICCRC was set up as an arms-length body, interviewees outside of the organization
were limited in their knowledge of ICCRC operations. The lack of external perspectives from
interviews was augmented by the use of information from the administrative data review, as
well as the survey of ICCRC members.

Interviews with CIC staff in missions was not built into the evaluation as a distinct line of
evidence. However, it was later determined that there were opportunities to enhance
understanding of the processes in place to validate the use of representatives and to file
complaints by gathering information from certain missions as part of case studies being
conducted for other evaluations. To strengthen the findings with respect to these processes,
representatives from CIC’s Centralized Processing Region (CPR) were also interviewed.

There were some differences between survey respondents and the full population of ICCRC
members, including a slight under-representation of ICCRC members who were previous
CSIC members and a slight over-representation of members with less experience in
immigration consulting. The differences in survey results between the two groups were found
to be minor, therefore, there is a high degree of confidence in the results obtained.
The ICCRC used its active members list to contact members about the upcoming survey and to provide them with
the option of not receiving the survey. Forty-five members requested that they not be sent the survey.
15 Given that some ICRCC members partially completed the survey, the margin of error for the different questions
of the survey varies between ±1.91% (for a sample size of 1,263), and ±1.65% (for a sample size of 1,442).
14
9
3.
Evaluation findings
This section presents the findings of the evaluation, organized by the two evaluation issues of
relevance and performance.
3.1. Relevance
3.1.1. Need addressed by the regulation of immigration consultants
Finding: The industry was regulated to protect consumers; to reduce incidence of fraud, unethical
behaviour, and misrepresentation; and to establish standards for the profession. As such, there was
a need to put a body in place to regulate the industry.
The issue of regulating immigration consultants has been considered many times by Parliament.
This began in 1995 when the first Standing Committee report on the issue was published.16 This
report identified a number of issues related to the use of immigration consultants that left
members of the public, including potential applicants, unprotected and vulnerable to fraud,
abuse, and misrepresentation by immigration consultants. Issues can be summarized into three
main areas of concern:
1. Lack of standards for the profession: Prior to the government regulating the industry,
any individual was able to establish themselves as an immigration consultant, regardless of
education, competencies, or experience, which resulted in varying quality of advice
provided by consultants.
2. Lack of a structure in place to protect consumers: Prior to the industry being
regulated, there was no structure in place (e.g., formal complaint mechanism, disciplinary
procedures, compensation funds) to protect consumers against abuse.
3. Vulnerability factors associated with use of immigration consultants: Recognizing
that some potential immigrants may be more vulnerable than others (e.g., lack of language
proficiency, cultural barriers) and that these same factors may push those applicants to
seek services of immigration consultants, having an unregulated industry opened the door
to exploitation of potential immigrants.
This Standing Committee report also pointed to the consequences of not regulating the industry,
some of which are borne by the potential immigrant (e.g., rejection of applications, imposition of
a fee, client exploitation, and receipt of misleading advice). Other consequences relate to how
Canada is perceived internationally and the impact on the integrity of the immigration system as
well as the public confidence. As such, the conclusion was that there is a need for regulating the
immigration consulting industry in order to protect the public and more specifically, potential
immigrants, while protecting the integrity of the immigration system and Canada's reputation.
Subsequently, in 2002, the government established an advisory committee to identify concerns
and provide recommendations regarding the regulation of immigration consultants. The Advisory
House of Commons, Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Immigration Consultants: It’s Time to
Act, Ninth Report, 1st Session, 35th Parliament, November 1995.
16
10
Committee issued its report in 2003,17 which re-iterated the issues of a lack of standards to
operate as an immigration consultant and the consequences of not having the industry regulated.
In addition, it discussed the difficulty for the profession to regulate itself, without intervention of
the Government. Prior to the introduction of regulations, professional organizations for
immigration consultants operated solely on a voluntary basis, and the extent of their power was
to revoke memberships of individuals who did not comply with their code of conduct. As such,
these organizations did not have the ability to compel compliance. The report recommended that
the government create an independent body for the regulation of immigration consultants and
that the regulations define who is allowed to practice as an immigration consultant.
As a result, CSIC was established as the regulator in 2003 and IRPA was amended in 2004 to
identify who could provide immigration advice for a fee. Despite those measures, problems
persisted and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration18 released a report in 2008
which identified concerns regarding the governance of CSIC, ghost consultants, enforcing
standards, and unauthorized representatives practicing from abroad. These issues were later
addressed through Bill C-3519 which touched on the matter of ghost consultants, the definition of
authorized representatives, enforcement and penalties for those who contravene, as well as
designated a regulator for immigration consultants.
In line with findings from the document review, survey respondents and interviewees were very
supportive of the industry being regulated. Nearly all (96%) survey respondents agreed that the
industry should be regulated and most interviewees agreed that there was a need to regulate the
industry, primarily to protect consumers and vulnerable people. Although some interviewees
noted that the regulation had no authority abroad, limiting what could be done regarding issues
of ghost consultants and misrepresentation. Other issues that were raised by a few interviewees
related to questioning the need to regulate certain categories of people who provide limited
immigration advice,20 and for the double regulation of immigration consultants under both
federal and provincial laws.
Protecting potential immigrants is of particular importance given the share of applicants who
report the use of an immigration consultant. An analysis of CIC administrative data showed that
over half (57%) of permanent resident (PR) applicants who submitted their application in 2012
and declared the use of a compensated representative used an ICCRC member. This represents
14,683 of the 139,130 PR applications submitted in 2012 for which information on the regulatory
body was available21 (or 10.6% of the applications received in 2012). Similar findings were found
for Temporary Resident (TR) applicants who submitted an application over the same time
period. About half (53%) of those that declared the use of a compensated representative had
Advisory Committee on Regulating Immigration Consultants, Report of the Advisory Committee on Regulating
Immigration Consultants presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Minister of Public Works and
Government Services Canada, May 2003.
18 House of Commons, Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Regulating Immigration Consultants,
Tenth Report, 2nd Session, 39th Parliament, June 2008.
19 Bill C-35: An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 19 January 2011.
20 For example for HR firms who are only marginally involved in the immigration business, specific organizations
who recruit temporary foreign workers such as FARM/FERME, universities and NGOs.
21 Information on the regulatory body of the representative was not captured in CIC systems prior to the
introduction of GCMS. As such, only applications entered in GCMS were considered for the purpose of the
analysis. While the majority of 2012 applications were entered in GCMS, some applications were still captured in the
Field Operations Support System (FOSS).
17
11
designated an ICCRC member according to CIC records. This represents 18,659 of the 1,629,871
TR applications that were received in 2012 (or 1.1% of all TR applicants).22
3.1.2. Federal role and alignment with federal and CIC priorities
Finding: The objectives of the regulation regarding representation or advice align with federal
obligations and Government of Canada and CIC priorities related to reducing fraud and protecting
the integrity of the immigration system and potential applicants.
Parameters for representation or advice are described in Section 91 of IRPA, and are further
defined in section 13.1 and 13.2 of the IRPR. These sections contain precise regulations
regarding the provision of information about potential breaches in conduct by immigration
advisors to the appropriate enforcement body, as well as containing reporting requirements for
the ICCRC.
Bill C-35, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act received Royal Assent on
March 23, 2011 and came into force on June 30, 2011. The amendments introduced a number of
changes, which tightened the regulations with respect to the intervention of third parties in the
immigration processes. The amendments make it an offence for anyone other than an authorized
immigration representative to conduct business for a fee or other consideration at any stage of an
application or proceeding and increases penalties for those who contravene. They also gave the
Minister the authority to designate (and revoke) a body to govern immigration consultants.23 The
designated body has the responsibility of providing information to help the Minister determine
whether the organization is regulating its members in a manner that is in the public interest so
that they provide professional and ethical representation and advice.
The objectives of the regulation are consistent with Government of Canada (GoC) and CIC
priorities. Speeches from the Throne, CIC annual reports, Departmental Performance Reports
and Reports on Plans and Priorities all recognize the priority of the federal government and CIC
towards reducing fraud as well as protecting the integrity of the immigration system and potential
immigrants through commitments related to strengthening the rules governing immigration
consultants and enhancing the government's oversight of immigration consultants.
The regulation of immigration consultants is aligned with CIC’s Strategic Outcome 4 aimed at a
"Managed migration that promotes Canadian interests and protects the health, safety and security
of Canadians". In particular, the regulations are expected to contribute to CIC’s ability to achieve
outcomes related to program activity 4.2 (Migration Control and Security Management) and subactivity 4.2.4 (Fraud Prevention and Program Integrity Protection).
Note that this represents the minimum number of TRs that are represented by an ICCRC member. Given the
volume of TRs to process, and low priority given to entering all the information relative to a file in the system, it is
likely that the number of TRs represented by an ICCRC member is under-reported in GCMS.
23 The ICCRC was designated as the new regulatory body to oversee immigration consultants by the Minister on
June 30 2011, after having been successful in a Request for Proposals process.
22
12
3.2. Performance
3.2.1. CIC governance and management processes
Finding: Appropriate governance and management structures were put in place within CIC and
between CIC and the ICCRC, and evolved as needed over time to become more arms-length as the
ICCRC matured. There are also processes in place within CIC, which are documented in operational
manuals, to validate the use of authorized representatives and for CIC to file complaints. However,
there is some indication that there is a lack of clarity on these processes and that they are not
being applied consistently by CIC staff.
CIC governance processes for overseeing activities of the ICCRC
Two branches within CIC were jointly responsible for overseeing the activities of the ICCRC.
OMC was responsible for providing support during the establishment of the organization,
including providing advice and input on the activities, processes, and procedures being put in
place. At the outset, IPMB was responsible for managing the contribution agreement, including
receiving progress reports, reviewing expenditures, and authorizing payments. Now that all
payments have been dispersed, IPMB is responsible for monitoring the repayment of the
contribution to CIC. CIC’s Financial Management Branch provided support to IPMB and the
ICCRC for the financial aspect of the Agreement.
Information from the interviews indicated that all CIC Branches worked well together and met
on as needed basis. At the outset, the Branches met more regularly; however, there was less of a
need to meet as the ICCRC became established and CIC moved to a more arms-length
relationship with the organization. Similarly, OMC and IPMB met with the ICCRC as needed, via
one point of contact (i.e., ICCRC’s President and CEO). Regular weekly meetings were held at
the outset, during establishment of the ICCRC, through the frequency of meetings declined as
the organization became more mature and there was less need for support. Interviewees from
both CIC and the ICCRC indicated that their working relationships were effective and no
improvements were necessary.
The ICCRC was responsible for reporting to CIC on the status of its activities and on its financial
expenditures on a monthly basis for the first year of operations and on a quarterly basis for the
following years. A review of ICCRC reporting showed that although progress reports were
provided to CIC on a monthly basis between March 2011 and November 2011, CIC only
received one report for the period of December 2011 to February 2012 and no reports between
March and June 2012. Quarterly reports have since been received from the ICCRC, for the
period beginning July 2012 until March 2013.
Validation of authorized representatives
When submitting an application, applicants using a third-party representative are required to
complete a form declaring the use of such a representative (the IMM5476 form). CIC has formal
directives on the use of representatives in its IP9 manual. As per instructions in the IP9, CIC
officers processing a file that contains an IMM 5476 form are required to perform verification to
ensure that the declared representative is a member in good standing of a Canadian law society,
the Chambre des notaires du Québec or the ICCRC. When an ICCRC member is being used, the
validation process consists of verifying the information provided on the application (i.e., name of
13
the consultant and ICCRC identification number) against the active members lists (and the
revoked/suspended list) that are posted on the ICCRC website.24
The evaluation found that there are some inconsistencies in how validation is being conducted.
Information from interviews with missions and CPR indicated that the validation is performed
based on instructions in IP9 and that it is generally undertaken after file creation, often by one of
CIC’s processing centres of the CPR.25 However, interviews showed that the different centralized
processing offices have developed their own processes. For example, some offices handling PR
application intake have developed scenario notes with instructions to those involved in
processing the applications. Although most interviewees stated that information on
representatives was verified against the ICCRC website, it remains unclear if this is done in all
instances, or if officers use already existing entries in GCMS, or their own internal lists that have
been developed.
In addition, while verification happens at file creation, there is no standard practice for validation
during processing (i.e., in visa offices overseas). In discussions with visa office representatives
and some interviewees in CPR and International Region (IR), it was found that some visa offices
validate that the representative is in good standing before undertaking further processing of the
file; others do so for a sample of cases, while others do not perform any further verification. This
is an issue because a members’ status could change over the course of the application process and
therefore, it is unclear whether CIC is always dealing with authorized representatives.26
The evaluation also found that practices differ with respect to how applications are handled when
it is not possible to determine that the representative is a member in good standing of the
ICCRC. For example, some offices communicate with the individual and provide them the
option of continuing the application process without being represented or submitting another
IMM5476 form that identifies a representative that is authorized. Other offices inform the
applicant that their application will not be processed and that they can submit a new application,
either without being represented or with an authorized representative.
These various ways of handling applications may be related to differing interpretations of the
directives in the IP9. Different template letters are suggested, depending on the situation and
stage of processing,27 and the different practices may relate to interpretation on when to use one
template over the other.
Interviewees identified a need to clarify the process for validation and ensure that it is understood
and applied consistently. Some also suggested that the CPRs could benefit from sharing
information between offices. Interviewees also felt that creating a CIC-only secure website with
information not publically available (such as the address of the representative) would provide
As per the IP9 manual, it is not necessary to verify each application from a given representative, especially when
the local office is familiar with the representative as an authorized member of one of the regulatory bodies.
25 CPR includes the Case Processing Centres in Vegreville, Mississauga, Sydney and Ottawa.
26 In cases where a representative’s status is revoked or when the representative is suspended during the processing
of an application, OMC has started to contact GCMS so that all applications associated with that representative are
flagged and all communication with the representative ceases until the status is normalized again. This process is not
yet outlined in the operational manual, but will be included when the manual will next be updated.
27 Different template letters refer to situations when the authorized representative cannot be verified, when the
IMM5476 form is incomplete and when it is not possible to confirm that the individual identified on the file is an
authorized representative during case file processing. The different practices identified in CPR (ask applicant to
resubmit an application vs. continue with the application process either self-represented or with a new
representative) may, for example, be related to differing interpretations of what is considered to be ‘during case file
processing’, as the manual does not offer clear guidelines on the subject.
24
14
additional information to assist with validation (e.g., address, office locations, additional details
on suspensions and revocations). Note that a CIC portal for authorized compensated
representatives was created in April 2013 that allows representatives to electronically conduct
business with CIC on behalf of clients28 and that automatically links information associated with
the third-party to applications. However, this new portal does not address the issue related to the
potentially changing status of a representative over time.
Finally, interviewees noted that the validation process is reliant on applicants truthfully declaring
the use of a representative, as well as on the accuracy of the information provided by the
respective Canadian law society, the Chambre des notaires du Québec or the ICCRC and the
timely update of their website. To that effect, interviewees noted that the information on
ICCRC’s website regarding its membership has improved over time, with more timely updates to
the member’s list, and with the addition of a list of suspended and revoked members.
Complaints process
In addition to the validation process, IP9 outlines the process for filing complaints about
authorized or unauthorized representatives.29 According to the directives, officers should
encourage clients who want to lodge complaints against an authorized representative to visit
CIC’s webpage on this topic and to contact the respective regulatory body (the ICCRC, law
societies, or Chambre des Notaires du Québec). However, if a CIC officer receives information
about the professional or ethical conduct of a representative, for which they determined that the
conduct of the person is likely to constitute a breach of their professional or ethical obligations,
they should forward the information to the Immigration Representatives mailbox that is managed
by OMC, who will transmit the information by means of encryption to the appropriate governing
body.
Complaints made by clients to CIC officers on a regulatory body should also be forwarded to the
Immigration Representatives mailbox. In addition to forwarding complaints on non-ICCRC
immigration consultants (including unauthorized representatives) and complaints on immigration
consulting firms (when the consultant’s name is unknown)30 to the Immigration Representatives
mailbox, the officer should direct the client to inform the ICCRC (for future reference in case the
individual eventually applies for membership), file a complaint with the Canadian Council of
Better Business Bureaus and to contact local law enforcement, if necessary.
As per existing procedures, officers may also perform local investigations and engage local
enforcement agencies. Investigations could originate from a complaint raised by a client (even
though the client has been referred to the appropriate regulatory body) or an officer’s concerns
about maintaining program integrity standards. The officer should raise this issue with their direct
supervisor, who then would consult their director, if they decide that the concern is justified, to
determine whether the issue warrants a local investigation. If the director, in consultation with
the supervisor, confirms that the concern affects the integrity of the Regulations concerning
immigration representatives, they may authorize a local investigation that involves allocating staff
and resources to monitor, research and gather information about an individual or issue to prove
While this portal only applies to permanent residency applications, temporary residency and citizenship
applications should be integrated to the portal in 2014.
29 Section 9 discusses the complaints procedure and section 10 describes the investigation procedure.
30 Clients wanting to lodge complaints against non-ICCRC members or complaints against consulting firms should
also be directed to inform the ICCRC of the matter (for future reference), to file a complaint with the Canadian
Council of Better Business Bureaus and to contact a local law enforcement (if necessary).
28
15
that unscrupulous activity (whether criminal or involving professional misconduct) has occurred.
Directives state that OMC should be kept informed of all major developments regarding
investigations to report on the effectiveness of the regulations on authorized representatives. In
the case that the issue raised by the officer is determined to be of limited concern by the director
and supervisor, and that it does not affect the integrity of the Regulations, the information should
be sent to OMC for tracking purposes to the Program-Integrity mailbox.
Although documented and available to all within the department, information from interviews
suggested that the complaints and investigation processes do not appear to be well known by
those responsible for processing applications and that the formal process is not always used. For
example, while OMC has a generic mailbox to receive complaints, some do not use this formal
mechanism and rather use the operational contacts they have to report issues (e.g., contacts in
OMC, at the CBSA). Interviewees felt that the process for filing complaints needs to be clearer
both within CIC and between CIC and OGDs (i.e., the CBSA). More specifically, interviewees
indicated that more guidance on the process was necessary (e.g., how to file a complaint, to
whom CIC should refer the complaint, relationship between OGDs in the process) and that CIC
needs to increase awareness of this process and of ICCRC's role as a regulator internally within
CIC.
Interviewees also expressed dissatisfaction with respect to the information on the outcomes of
investigations, suggesting that the feedback loop on complaints could be improved to the benefit
of all parties involved on the file (CIC, ICCRC) as well as the public.
As a result of the lack of awareness of the process and of the inconsistent use of the formal
process, the exact number of complaints regarding the conduct of representatives originating
from within CIC is not known. The complaints received in the OMC immigration
representative’s box are vetted to make sure that the named representative is a member of a
recognized organization for immigration representatives, a breach of professional or ethical
obligation exist and that sufficient information exists to proceed with a referral for investigation
prior to submitting it to the respective regulatory body. As a result of this process, twelve
complaints were transmitted by CIC to the ICCRC. Other complaints regarding unauthorized
representatives are forwarded to the Program Integrity division in OMC, who is responsible for
transmitting complaints to OGDs for investigation (CBSA, RCMP) if necessary. Since the
implementation of information sharing regulations in April 10, 2012, the total number of
complaints originating from within CIC and transmitted to OGDs is not accurately tracked. CIC
may appear as the originator of some complaints; however, some complaints may have been
forwarded informally to an OGD and not be recorded as a CIC complaint in their system. Most
importantly, the lack of awareness of the process may also have led to fewer issues being
reported.
3.2.2. Capacity building
Under the theme of “capacity building”, the ICCRC was expected to undertake activities that
would help establish the organization so that it was a well-managed, transparent, accountable, and viable
organization (see Technical Appendices for a description of the planned activities and outputs
under capacity building).
16
Finding: The evaluation found that the ICCRC put in place most of the elements of the management
structure, as per its contribution agreement with CIC and that the ICCRC is a well-managed,
transparent and accountable organization. Financial viability had not been achieved as of December
2013 and the financial situation of the organization remained unfavourable. 31 However, ICCRC’s
financial situation has steadily been improving and it has started repaying the contribution to CIC.
Governance and management structures in place
A review of administrative information from the ICCRC found that it has put in place most of
the necessary governance and management structures, as per the contribution agreement. This
includes the Board of Directors, with supporting committees,32 and key policies and procedures,
such as bylaws and a code of conduct. The majority of interviewees validated this finding,
agreeing that the ICCRC has put in place the appropriate governance and management
structures, with the remaining few suggesting it was in the process of doing so. Note that these
interviewees were mainly ICCRC representatives, as most interviewees from the CIC were not
able to comment on the management and governance structure of the ICCRC, primarily because
the ICCRC is an arms-length body. Interviewees noted that the ICCRC sought advice on setting
up the governance structure, hired people with the right skills and expertise to contribute to
developing the structure, and provided governance training to the Board of Directors. They also
indicated that the governance and management structures of the organization have matured over
time, as the Board played a more operational role at first; however, it has gradually transitioned to
an oversight role.
Interviewees did not believe that there were any major gaps in ICCRC’s governance and the
management processes, although some ICCRC interviewees suggested that some work was still
needed to finalize the internal structure of the organization, mainly by completing work around
policies and procedures, either to refine existing ones or developing ones that were not yet in
place. The administrative data review confirmed that the ICCRC has indeed lagged somewhat in
its development of internal policies and procedures (e.g., human resources (HR), privacy, travel,
bilingualism) and plans (e.g., HR strategy, strategic planning), although most of these are now
under development. Interviewees at the ICCRC attributed this lag to the fact that, at the outset,
most of the organization’s efforts were focused on establishing services for members (e.g.,
process for transferring membership, accreditation process, training and development) and not
on internal organizational processes.
One area in which the ICCRC did not complete activities as planned was with respect to
developing an action plan on ghost consultants. The ICCRC noted the challenges of dealing with
ghost consultants as it does not have any jurisdiction outside of its membership and thus
developing such an action plan was outside the mandate of the organization. The ICCRC has,
however, undertaken a number of activities to raise the awareness of using authorized
According to CIC’s assessment as per the Department’s Funding Risk Assessment Model (FRAM), which is the
tool used to assess the risk of Gs&Cs recipients.
32 ICCRC’s Board of Directors comprises 15 directors, which includes 12 elected ICCRC members, and 3 public
interest directors who are non-members. The ICCRC also has 6 standing operational committees and 4 committees
related to complaints and discipline.
31
17
representatives and has been proactive in identifying potential unauthorized consultants where
possible, for example, through its “Alert” tool available on its website.33
ICCRC survey results were also very positive with respect to the management of the ICCRC,
with 94% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that it was a well-run organization (Table
3.1).34 The majority of respondents (84%) also felt that the ICCRC was fulfilling its regulatory
obligation well (rating the organization with either a 4 or a 5, on a 5 point scale ranging from 1not very well to 5-very well).35
Table 3.1:
Survey respondents’ perception on governance and management of
the ICCRC
All survey
respondents
Previous CSIC
m em bers
Never a CSIC
m em ber
Agree/strongly agree that the ICCRC is a w ell-run
organization (n=1,200)
94%
95%
91%
The ICCRC is fulfilling its regulatory obligations
w ell – 4 and 5 ratings (n=1,224)
84%
87%
77%
Source: ICCRC member survey
Transparency and accountability
One of the outcomes of the ICCRC was to establish itself as a transparent and accountable
organization, meaning that it takes responsibility for its actions and communicates with members
in an open and timely way.
The ICCRC has been successful in making information about the organization’s process available
to the public and members. Information on the ICCRC’s organizational structure, activities, and
processes is publically available on its website.36 This includes information on the process for
becoming an ICCRC member; the membership of the Board of Directors and its committees;
immigration advisories for various industries; information on the complaints and discipline
process, including how to file a complaint; and a list of active and suspended members.
The majority of interviewees felt the ICCRC has put practices in place to ensure that it is
accountable for the operations of the organization and has been transparent with members and
the public. As such, interviewees thought that the ICCRC had communicated information related
to decisions, policies and practices in an open and timely manner. Interviewees suggested that the
essential structural elements were in place, including by-laws, code of conduct, and the Board of
Directors and its committees. Interviewees also noted that reporting structures were in place (e.g.,
annual reporting, website updates), so that members were aware of the activities of the ICCRC
and that members had opportunities to ask questions and express themselves (e.g., via the
Alert is a confidential whistle blowing initiative to report suspected unregulated immigration consultants. In
addition to asking people to submit information about the suspected individual, the ICCRC asks for any website
links, photographs, emails, advertisements and any other documentation that would support the claim.
34 A statistically significant difference was observed between former CSIC members and those who were not
previously members of CSIC with the former responding more positively that the ICCRC is a well-run organization
(95% agreeing it is well-run) than those who were never members of CSIC (91% agreeing).
35 A statistically significant difference was also observed between former CSIC members and those who were not
previously members of CSIC. Former CSIC members were more positive (87% rated the ICCRC as 4 or 5) than
ICCRC members that were never a member of CSIC (77% rated the ICCRC as 4 or 5).
36 ICCRC’s website is discussed in greater detail within Section 3.2.3 – Communications.
33
18
ICCRC annual general meeting for members, and through a whistle-blower mechanism to allow
for anonymous reporting of issues to the Board).
One area of criticism from interviewees was with respect to the amount of information made
available to the public on the status of complaints. Although the website provides information on
the process itself, there has been limited reporting on the results of the process to date.
Survey respondents were very positive with respect to the transparency and accountability of the
ICCRC. As shown in Figure 3.1, almost all felt the ICCRC is an accountable organization that
takes responsibility for its actions (95%), that it communicates information about its decisions,
policies and practices in a timely manner (92%), and communicates openly about its decisions,
policies and practices (94%).
Figure 3.1: Survey respondents’ views on the transparency and accountability
of the ICCRC
The ICCRC is accountable (i.e., takes
responsibility for its actions) (n=1,111)
95%
The ICCRC communicates information about
its decisions, policies, and practices in a timely
manner (n=1,176)
5%
92%
The ICCRC communicates openly about its
decisions, policies, and practices (n=1,195)
0%
8%
94%
20%
40%
Strongly agree/agree
6%
60%
80%
100%
Strongly disagree/disagree
Source: ICCRC member survey
Financial viability
As part of the assessment of the ICCRC’s capacity, the evaluation sought to determine whether
the organization is financially viable.37 The ICCRC was created to operate indefinitely using its
revenue. The ICCRC was expected to enter into negotiations regarding the repayment terms for
the contribution when it reached 2,200 members, or three years after signing of the contribution
agreement, whichever came first. As the former occurred first (August 2012), CIC successfully
negotiated the repayment terms in December 2012, as shown in Table 3.2. As per the schedule
below, the ICCRC made its first payment in August 2013 and the next payment is due in August
2014.
Financial viability refers to whether the organization is generating enough revenue to be able to continue operating
in the future and pay back the repayable contribution to CIC.
37
19
Table 3.2:
Fiscal Year
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
Total
ICCRC repayment schedule
Due on
August 29, 2013
August 29, 2014
August 29, 2015
August 29, 2016
August 29, 2017
% Contribution
15%
20%
20%
20%
25%
100.0%
Repayable Am ount
$150,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$250,000
$1,000,000
To assess the financial viability of the ICCRC, the evaluation made use of a 2013 Analysis of
Financial Position (AFP) of the ICCRC report38 as well as an additional analysis to this report based
on financial figures as at December 31, 2013, both performed by the CIC Financial Management
Branch. The analyses examined the following three key financial ratios, current, debt and
profitability39 over the 30 month period from July 2011 to December 2013, ICCRC’s short-term
forecasts, the receivables management practices, and revenue collection of the organization.
As shown in Figure 3.2, between July 2011 and December 2013, the debt ratio increased by 56%
and was at 0.53 in December 2013. Over the same period, the current ratio increased by 105%
and was at 0.45 in December 2013. As such, the ICCRC only has enough assets to cover 53
percent of its liabilities and enough liquid assets to cover 45 percent of the liabilities coming due
within a year. Although these two ratios show a positive upwards trend, both still remain
unfavourable when comparing to CIC’s standards.40
Despite the high risks it still carries in terms of the amount of its liabilities, overall, it appears that
the profitability ratio is increasing and the ICCRC has been profitable since Q1 of 2012. The
ICCRC had excess revenues of eleven percent over their expenses by December 2013, which is a
significant increase from -50% in its first year (July 2011 to June 2012), when the ICCRC was
spending two times the revenues collected.
A report entitled “Analysis of the Financial Position of the ICCRC” was produced by the Grants and Contribution
Financial Management Directorate of CIC’s Financial Management Branch. It covers the period from July 2011 to
March 2013 and, as part of the assessment, utilized CIC’s Funding Risk Assessment Model (FRAM), which is the
tool used to assess the risk of Gs&Cs recipients. For the Analysis of the Financial Position, draft financial statements
as at March 31, 2013 provided by the ICCRC were used.
39 The current ratio is a measure of liquidity and illustrates the ability of an organization to meet its current liabilities
out of its current assets. The debt ratio demonstrates the ability of an entity to cover its debts by its assets. The
profitability ratio demonstrates the extent of the surplus or deficit the organization has declared and their trends.
40 According to CIC standards in the FRAM the current ratio is favourable when greater than 1.0, acceptable when
between 0.9 and 1.0, or equal to 1.0 and unfavourable when less than 0.9. The debt ratio is favourable when greater
than 1.0 (the organization has sufficient resources to settle its debts), acceptable when between 0.9 and 1.0, or equal
to 1.0 and unfavourable when less than 0.9.
38
20
Figure 3.2: ICCRC debt, current, and profitability ratio trends (July 2011 December 2013)
0.6
0.53
0.46
0.39
0.41
0.4
0.34
0.29
0.46
0.45
0.34
0.23
0.27
0.22
0.2
0.01
0.12
3%
2%
11%
8%
15%
11%
0
-0.2
-0.4
-50%
Current Ratio
Debt Ratio
Profitability Ratio
Linear (Current Ratio)
Linear (Debt Ratio)
Linear (Profitability Ratio)
-0.6
July 2011 June 2012
July September
2012 (Q1)
October
- December
2012 (Q2)
January - March April - June
2013 (Q3)
2013 (Q4)
July September
2013 (Q1)
October December
2013 (Q2)
Source: CIC Report on the Analysis of the Financial Position of the ICCRC and the additional analysis performed in
February 2014
As a result of the unfavourable current and debt ratio, the AFP report, as well as the additional
analysis performed in February 2014, also examined the short-term operating cash flow41 as
another financial indicator to assess ICCRC’s ability to adhere to the repayment schedule. The
report noted that the revenues collected by the ICCRC have been relatively stable. It also noted
that since mid 2012, spending on non-essential items was halted until the ICCRC was able to
improve their cash position. Since the end of the first quarter of its third fiscal year (September
2013), the ICCRC has been presenting a favourable operating cash position within the shortterm. Furthermore, the ICCRC has begun to demonstrate an improvement of their financial
position and health in terms of revenues in excess of expenditures. The short-term operating cash
flow analysis for FY3 to FY4 is presented in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3:
Short-term Operating Cash flow Analysis
FY3
Q1
Q2
Q3
(Actual)
(Actual)
(Actual)
Revenue
1,445,941
1,551,171
1,621,328
Expenses
1,235,418
1,532,181
1,477,509
CIC Repayment
150,000
Net Cash Position
60,523
18,990
143,819
Cumulative Net Cash Position
60,523
79,513
223,332
Source: Post Report on the Analysis of the Financial Position of the ICCRC
FY4
Q4
(Forecast)
1,675,172
1,670,632
4,540
227,872
Q1-Q4
(Forecast)
5,980,446
5,357,655
200,000
422,791
650,663
FY3 – FY4
Total
Forecast
+ Actual
12,274,058
11,273,395
350,000
650,663
650,663
The short-term operating cash flow analysis does not take into account the accumulated deficit, non-cash items
(amortization) or capital prior to the years examined.
41
21
As it plays a critical role in the ICCRC’s ability to remain financially viable, membership fee
collection was also examined. As at December 31, 2013, membership dues represent 97% of the
ICCRC’s receivables while other receivables (e.g., credit card administration fees, CRA tax input
credits, examination revenue) represent 3%.42 The AFP report found that while there is no formal
accounts receivable policy, the method used to collect on receivables appears sound.
Despite this, as of December 31, 2013, 66% of membership receivables were more than 60 days
overdue, which represents a change of ten percent from Q1 to Q2. It does not appear that the
ICCRC is expecting to collect this revenue as they have allotted this amount for their allowance
for doubtful accounts. Membership revenues more than 60 days old represents 8.4 percent
($221.4K) of revenues collected year-to-date43, which is seven percent higher than the allowance
for doubtful accounts forecasted by the ICCRC.44 Since membership revenues account for the
majority of the revenues collected by the ICCRC, the increasing trend in the amount of
uncollected revenue is unfavourable (i.e., the total outstanding receivables represents
approximately 13% of revenue earned, an increase of seven percent since March 31, 2013).
Of the few interviewees who could comment on ICCRC’s finances, most noted that the fee
holiday given to past CSIC members had a significant effect on the ICCRC’s revenue stream and
cash flow in its first year, which ultimately caused financial hardship for the ICCRC.45 As a result,
the ICCRC secured additional funding to finance its operations.46 Others noted that the
organization initially lacked financial management capacity during its first year and had to build
internal capacity from scratch with no support from the previous regulator. The lack of financial
capacity early on was also mentioned by interviewees as a factor in ICCRC’s spending more than
originally budgeted in its contribution agreement (which is discussed later in Section 3.2.6 on
resource utilization). Despite these initial financial setbacks and challenges, the ICCRC has begun
repaying the contribution to CIC and when comparing the ratios over the periods examined, as
well as the forecasts submitted by the ICCRC, it appears that their financial situation is
improving. Moreover, as per the long-term budget submitted by the ICCRC in February 2014,
the ICCRC has confirmed its adherence to the established repayment schedule. CIC continues to
monitor the ICCRC’s financial viability on a quarterly basis.47
Figures based on the draft financial statements as at December 31, 2013.
Figures based on the draft financial statements as at December 31, 2013; 7.4 percent based on the cash-basis cash
flow.
44 The ICCRC forecasted the allowance for bad debt to be one percent of the total revenues collected (before
interest) in their Five Year Plan.
45 The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration granted members a ‘fee holiday’ when the ICCRC was created and
members were not required to pay fees in the first three months of the operation of the organization. This loss in
revenue was unplanned for the ICCRC.
46 The additional financing was in the form of a $150,000 line of credit and a $200,000 restricted bridging loan for
the build-out costs of the Burlington office.
47 As part of a report prepared by GCFM in October 2012, it was recommended that the ICCRC submit draft
quarterly financial statements until such time that the amount contributed by CIC is repaid in full. In addition, the
report also recommended that the ICCRC submit their annual audited financial statements to CIC no later than three
months following ICCRC’s fiscal year-end.
42
43
22
3.2.3. Communications
Under the theme of “communications,” the ICCRC was expected to undertake communications
activities to ensure that stakeholders are adequately informed on the immigration consulting sector (see
Technical Appendices for a description of the planned communications activities and outputs).
Finding: The ICCRC has undertaken communications activities as planned, adequately informed
members about the organization’s processes, and members were satisfied with the information
provided. There are opportunities for the ICCRC to enhance external communications by increasing
outreach to the public and stakeholder groups as well as improving its website.
Appropriateness and effectiveness of communication activities
The communications activities of the ICCRC have been primarily internal with a specific focus
on providing information to members (e.g., how to transfer a membership from CSIC and how
to become a new member of the ICCRC). Additional communication activities undertaken by the
ICCRC in its first 18 months of operation included developing a communications strategy,
establishing a Communications and Outreach Committee, and developing a variety of
information materials for consultants, students, and the general public (e.g., frequently asked
questions, advisories on the use of consultants, the complaints and discipline process,
information on the Canadian immigration system). The ICCRC has also conducted some
outreach to the public through the use of display of booths at community events and media
interviews.
The main ways in which the ICCRC has engaged with its membership is via its website or
through email ‘blasts’. Overall, survey respondents were very satisfied with information provided
on the certification processes and indicated that ICCRC information products are appropriate
and effective. When asked about the processes for becoming an ICCRC member, former CSIC
members who transferred their membership to the ICCRC were very positive regarding the ease
of doing so, with the majority (97%) saying it was either very easy or easy to transfer their
membership to the ICCRC and only 3% disagreeing. New members who had to apply to become
ICCRC members were also very positive about the certification process, with 92% reporting it
was easy or very easy to understand the information that explained how to become a member of
the ICCRC (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3: Survey respondents’ views on ICCRC communication on
certification process
Ease/difficulty of transferring membership
from CSIC (n=831)
97%
Understanding information to become a
new member (n=503)
0%
Source: ICCRC member survey
3%
92%
20%
40%
Strongly agree/agree
8%
60%
80%
100%
Strongly disagree/disagree
23
Survey participants were also asked their opinions on the usefulness and clarity of the
information provided by the ICCRC via the website and email ‘blasts’. The majority of survey
respondents said that the ICCRC website and email communication were excellent or good,
although they were slightly more favourable regarding email communication than the website
(Figure 3.4). More specifically, 84% of respondents rated email communication as either excellent
or good in terms of the usefulness of information it provided, with 16% stating that it needed
improvement. They also felt that the frequency of email communication was good (83% rated it
excellent or good) and the information provided was clear (88% of respondents rated this
excellent or good).
Respondents were somewhat less positive about the website. While 76% of respondents rated the
usefulness of the website as either excellent or good, almost one quarter of respondents (24%)
stated that it needs improvement. Similarly, 23% stated that the information on the website needs
to be more clear and one third (33%) said the website needed to be improved with respect to
finding the information that they needed.48
For all questions regarding the website and email, statistically significant differences were observed between
former CSIC members and those members who were never members of CSIC. In all cases, a greater proportion of
former CSIC members rated either mechanism as excellent or good, as compared to those who were never members
of CSIC. The difference in excellent/good ratings ranged from 4 to 9 percentage points depending on the specific
question. These differences are perhaps not surprising given that newer RCICs may have a greater need for
information than those that had been working in the industry longer.
48
24
Usefulness of
information
Figure 3.4: Survey respondents’ views on the effectiveness of ICCRC
information products
ICCRC email communication
(n=1,264)
ICCRC website
(n=1,278)
33.5%
50.6%
26.9%
49.4%
35.0%
23.7%
53.0%
12.1%
Clarity of
information
ICCRC email communication
(n=1,278)
16.0%
ICCRC website
(n=1,287)
Frequency
of
communication
ICCRC email communication
(n=1,275)
Finding
everything
I need
26.9%
ICCRC website
(n=1,284)
31.1%
23.3%
51.5%
23.1%
0%
Source: ICCRC member survey
49.8%
43.9%
20%
40%
Excellent
32.9%
60%
Good
17.3%
80%
100%
Needs Improvement
The opinions of interviewees with respect to ICCRC communications were mixed, with most
saying the ICCRC communications products were somewhat effective, but could be improved, or
they were not effective. Only a few interviewees felt that the ICCRC communications products
were effective. Some interviewees contextualized their response by noting the fee holiday given
to members limited what the ICCRC was able to achieve in terms of communications, which
resulted in the ICCRC having to prioritize what it wanted to achieve in this area. As a result,
ICCRC’s communication efforts were more focused on internal communications and much less
on external communications. Interviewees indicated that more outreach was needed to promote
the ICCRC and the use of immigration consultants, including better promotion abroad and better
provision of information to prospective immigrants on the regulation of immigration consultants.
A few interviewees also suggested that specific efforts should be made to improve the image of
the industry and more work was needed to better inform key stakeholders (e.g., educational
institutions, other governments, employers) on the limits of the advice they could provide on
immigration matters.
25
Similar to the survey results, some interviewees also suggested that improvements were needed to
the ICCRC’s website. The ICCRC is well aware of the current limitation of its website and does
have a plan in place for a major upgrade, which will be done in the longer-term. In the meantime,
it was observed during the evaluation that the ICCRC has made revisions to its website with
additional content added for both the public and ICCRC members.
Finding: Initially, CIC's communications activities focused more on ‘crooked’ consultants rather than
promoting the use of authorized representatives, which stakeholders feel had a negative impact on
how the industry is perceived. As a result, it was expressed by interviewees that there is a need for
CIC and the ICCRC to coordinate communication efforts.
A review of documents and communication materials showed that in 2011 and 2012, CIC
undertook a multilingual ad campaign warning prospective immigrants, permanent residents and
Canadian citizens of fraud by ‘crooked’ immigration consultants. This campaign, reflecting the
spirit of Bill C-35 (initially called Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act), appeared on television,
in the mainstream and ethnic print, in Canadian airports, and over the internet. This campaign
ran for about one month each year, between February 21 and March 20, 2011 and between
March 5 and March 31, 2012.
Some ICCRC interviewees felt that the campaign had a negative impact on the perception of the
industry as a whole. The central critique raised was that the campaign focused on the risks posed
by ‘crooked’ consultants, rather than promoting the use of authorized representatives, such as
members of the newly designated regulatory body. When the ICCRC contacted CIC to express
concerns about the detrimental impact the message had on public perception of the industry,
CIC worked collaboratively with the ICCRC and withdrew its ad campaign.49
Interviewees saw a role for CIC, along with communication efforts of the ICCRC, in the
provision of information to prospective immigrants on the ICCRC and the use of authorized
representatives. Numerous interviewees also feel there is a need for a joint effort between CIC
and the ICCRC to coordinate communication efforts of both organizations to avoid sending
inconsistent messages to the public, in the view of maintaining the ICCRC’s reputation.
3.2.4. Competencies
Under the theme of “competencies,” the ICCRC was to put in place processes for individuals to
receive certification and ensure that members had professional development opportunities to develop their
competencies and qualifications (see Technical Appendices for a description of the planned
competency activities and outputs).
Finding: The ICCRC implemented the competency activities related to granting certification and
offering professional development opportunities to members as planned and as a result, there are
processes in place for members to receive certification and to participate in professional
development opportunities. Stakeholders consider the certification process appropriate and ICCRC
members are positive about the professional development opportunities provided.
Since the end of data collection in the spring 2013, CIC has updated the information on authorized representative
on its website, which includes increased number of links on authorized representatives, and making the information
more prominent for the benefit of the public and potential applicants.
49
26
Certification process for members
To become certified as an RCIC, the ICCRC requires prospective members to meet the following
five conditions:
1. Successful completion of an immigration practitioners program – a course on Canadian
immigration and refugee law, taken through an accredited post-secondary institution;
2. Successful completion of the Full Skills Exam – an examination on immigration law and
practice management;
3. Demonstrated good character through satisfactory background check;
4. Demonstrated language proficiency in English or French through the submission of
results of an accredited language test; and
5. Status in Canada as a citizen, permanent resident, or Status Indian.50
When asked about the timeliness of the certification process, half (50%) of all survey respondents
reported that it took one month or less from the time they submitted their completed application
to the time they received their ICCRC certification. One-quarter (25%) of respondents reported
that it took two months, 15% reported that it took three months, and 10% reported that it took
longer than three months. The majority (91%) of respondents were very satisfied or satisfied with
the time it took to receive certification.
Respondents who had to apply to become ICCRC members were asked a series of questions
regarding the ease or difficulty of meeting the five membership requirements (Figure 3.5). The
two requirements that were deemed the most difficult to meet were completing an approved
immigration practitioners program (46% stated it was very difficult or difficult) and passing the
Full Skills Exam (60% stated it was very difficult or difficult).51 The three other membership
requirements were found to be easy to meet by the majority of respondents.
See www.iccrc-crcic.ca/students/becomingConsultant.cfm
Successfully completing the Full Skills Exam is one of the requirements to become a registered immigration
consultant. Between October 2011 and December 2012, a total of eight Full Skills Exams were offered; 736 students
wrote the exam and 640 passed, for a pass rate of 84.2%.
50
51
27
Figure 3.5: Survey respondents’ views on the ease of meeting membership
requirements
Completing an approved immigration
practitioners program (n=463)
Passing the Full Skills Examination
(n=463)
54%
46%
40%
60%
Demonstrating good character (n=490)
85%
Demonstrating language proficiency in
English or French (n=482)
15%
70%
30%
1%
Demonstrating proof of Canadian
citizenship, permanent residence, or
Indian Status (n=490)
0%
99%
20%
40%
60%
Very easy/easy
Source: ICCRC member survey
80%
100%
Very difficult/difficult
Although some requirements were deemed harder to meet than others, all survey respondents
agreed that the ICCRC has established the right criteria to become a member of the ICCRC. As
shown in Figure 3.6 nearly all respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that these five criteria
are appropriate (ranging from 96% to 99%).
Figure 3.6: Survey respondents’ views on the appropriateness of membership
requirements
3%
Completing an approved immigration
practitioners program (n=1,302)
97%
Passing the Full Skills Examination
(n=1,311)
99%
Demonstrating good character
(n=1,319)
98%
1%
2%
4%
Demonstrating language proficiency in
English or French (n=1,319)
96%
2%
Demonstrating proof of Canadian
citizenship, permanent residence, or
Indian Status (n=1,317)
0%
Source: ICCRC member survey
98%
20%
40%
Strongly agree/agree
60%
80%
100%
Strongly disagree/disagree
Interviewees also expressed positive views about the current member certification process, with
the majority agreeing that it was adequate. The process was seen as rigorous, with appropriate
criteria that resulted in the certification of qualified individuals. A few interviewees suggested that
there was a need to examine the current language benchmarks, which the ICCRC is planning on
doing.
28
One theme that emerged from the interviews and the ICCRC member survey with respect to the
membership requirements relates to the Immigration Practitioner Program (IPP). The ICCRC
has put in place a system to recognize institutions eligible to deliver the IPP. At the time of data
collection for the evaluation, nine institutions had been accredited by the ICCRC. While
interviewees generally felt that the process for the accreditation of educational institution was
appropriate, it was noted that there were no standards in place to ensure consistency of the IPP
in terms of length and curriculum. The ICCRC had already identified a gap in this area and its
Board recently approved National Educational Standards, which will standardize the curriculum
of the different accredited programs (e.g., in terms of number of hours for the program, core
courses and competencies around which to articulate the curricula), with the view of setting a
single, robust standard for the IPP.
It was also suggested by interviewees and survey respondents that the IPP could be improved by
adding a practical component to the certification process (e.g., mentoring, practicum, articling,
and internship) and by requiring a university degree, diploma or certificate as a prerequisite to the
IPP.
Once becoming an RCIC, members must abide by the ICCRC’s Code of Professional Ethics and
meet four requirements to maintain membership, including:
1. Complete 16 hours of annual continuing professional development (CPD);
2. Complete mandatory Practice Management Education (PME) courses;
3. Pay the $1782.50 annual membership fee (July 2012 rate); and
4. Pay the $150.00 annual professional errors and omissions insurance premium.
When asked whether these requirements are set at the right level, the majority of members who
responded to the survey stated that three of the four criteria are set at the right level: CPD hours
(62% of respondents); PME courses (81% of respondents); and insurance premium (83% of
respondents). For the fourth criteria (i.e., the membership fees), the majority of respondents
(63%) felt it was too high (Figure 3.7).52
Statistically significant differences were observed between former CSIC members and those members who were
never members of CSIC. For each requirement, a greater proportion of former CSIC respondents agreed that they
are set at the right level. The differences between these two groups were most notable for the membership fees,
where a 25 percentage points difference was observed between the two groups (57% for previous CSIC members
thought fees were too high, compared to 82% of non-former CSIC members). Similarly, statistically significant
differences were observed between years of experience and the extent to which respondents agree that these
requirements are set at the right level (with the exception of completing mandatory PME courses). In all cases,
groups with more experience were more likely to agree that these requirements were set at the right level. Note that
there is a high correlation between previous CSIC membership and years of experience.
52
29
$1782.50
$150.00
annual
annual
16 hours Completing
of
mandatory membership insurance
fee
premium
annual CPD
PME
Figure 3.7: Survey respondents’ views on the appropriateness of requirements
to maintain membership
0%
All respondents
(n=1,307)
16%
83%
1%
All respondents
(n=1,300)
63%
36%
2%
All respondents
(n=1,308)
18%
81%
3%
All respondents
(n=1,304)
0%
Source: ICCRC member survey
34%
20%
62%
40%
Too much
60%
The right level
80%
100%
Too little
Continuing professional development offerings
After members are certified, they are required to complete 16 hours of CPD each year. This
requirement is outlined in the ICCRC’s Continuing Professional Development Regulation,53
which also outlines eligible CPD activities, subject matter requirements, and how CPD hours are
to be calculated and approved. To count towards CPD, courses must focus on issues related to
Canadian immigration and be delivered by ICCRC-approved organizations.54 All information
related to CPD is available on the ICCRC website and the member section of the website allows
members to enter and track their CPD hours. With respect to the competency activities, the
ICCRC did not undertake one planned activity, which was to develop a best practices manual to
be shared with members. Information from the ICCRC indicated that the manual will not be
developed, as members have opportunities to gain and share knowledge through CPD and the
mandatory Practice Management Education (PME) courses.
Between June 2011 and December 2012 the ICCRC approved 168 CPD offerings, delivered by
40 different organizations. Most members were able to meet the CPD requirements, with 92% of
members (983 of 1,066) meeting the first transitional deadline of obtaining 5 hours of CPD by
April 30, 2012 and 84% of members (1,164 of 1,378) meeting the second transitional deadline of
obtaining 10 hours of CPD by October 21, 2012.
When asked about CPD offerings, most interviewees were not in a position to comment, which
is not surprising, given that many interviewees would not have participated in CPD and within
the ICCRC, CPD is the responsibility of a small group of staff. Therefore, an examination of the
sufficiency of CPD was assessed primarily through the ICCRC member survey. Note that of the
ICCRC interviewees that did comment on CPD, most said that the opportunities available to
members were sufficient.
53
54
The regulation was developed in February 2012 and updated in August 2013.
See www.iccrc-crcic.ca//CPDsection.cfm
30
Survey respondents were very positive about the CPD that was being offered and agreed or
strongly agreed that it was helpful and relevant to their work (91%), offered frequently enough
(90%), that there was a good variety of offerings (90%), that instructors were of high quality
(89%), that they were the right length (87%), and that the material was of high quality (83%). As
shown in Figure 3.8, respondents were slightly less positive about the location of the CPD
offerings (25% disagreed or strongly disagreed), as well as the cost (36% disagreed or strongly
disagreed). These issues were also reflected in the open-ended comments for this survey question,
with respondents noting that CPD was too expensive and that it needed to be made more
accessible in terms of timing, locations, and having more on-line options.55
Figure 3.8: Survey respondents’ views on continuing professional development
CPD are priced reasonably (n=1,261)
64%
36%
CPD are helpful and relevant to my
work (n=1,263)
91%
CPD instructors are high quality
(n=1,232)
9%
89%
CPD material is high quality (n=1,242)
11%
83%
CPD offerings are well located
(n=1,259)
17%
75%
CPD offerings are the right length
(n=1,263)
25%
87%
13%
CPD offerings are offered frequently
enough (n=1,281)
90%
10%
There is a good variety of CPD
offerings (n=1,275)
90%
10%
0%
Source: ICCRC member survey
20%
40%
Strongly agree/agree
60%
80%
100%
Strongly disagree/disagree
Statistically significant differences were observed between former CSIC members and ICCRC members who were
never part of CSIC. In all cases, former CSIC members were more positive about CPD compared to those who were
never members of CSIC. The differences between these two groups varied considerably depending on the statement,
ranging from a low of 4 percentage points difference to a high of 24 percentage points difference. Highest
discrepancies were noted on the price of CPD offerings and perceptions on the frequency of offerings. Statistically
significant differences were also observed between years of experience and the extent to which respondents
agreed/disagreed with the statements. In most cases, groups with more experience were more positive. As noted
earlier, years of experience and past CSIC membership are highly correlated. Finally, statistically significant
differences were found between respondents from different provinces regarding their level of agreement that CPD
offerings are well located. Those with an office in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta were more in agreement that PD
offerings are well located.
55
31
Practice Management Education
In addition to CPD, the ICCRC requires members to take mandatory PME courses in order to
maintain their membership. The purpose of the PME courses is to provide members with the
education, tools, and resources that are required to establish and maintain an immigration
consulting practice.56 The PME courses are developed and delivered by the ICCRC and are free
to members. The ICCRC implemented its first two PME courses starting January 2012 on the
topics of client accounts (delivered 152 times) and retainer agreements (delivered 196 times).57
Members can participate in classroom or via real-time remote training. The ICCRC tracks
adherence to these requirements and has suspended members for not completing the courses.
The ICCRC administers feedback surveys to PME course participants to ask about the clarity,
quality, and usefulness of the courses. Over 1,800 surveys were submitted by participants that
took the courses between January and June 2012. Feedback from these forms was very positive
with the majority of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing on all of the rated elements.58
These results are similar to those gathered from the evaluation, as interviewees who provided
comments on the PME courses thought the training was of good quality and did not have any
suggestions for improvement. Results from the member survey were also very positive. As shown
in Figure 3.9, respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the PME courses were relevant to their
work (94%), delivered by high quality instructors (94%), and contained high quality material
(92%). They also agreed that the training was of the right length (87%), that classes were offered
frequently enough (93%), and were well located (83%).59
Figure 3.9: Survey respondents’ perception of PME courses
Courses are relevant to my work
(n=1,257)
94%
6%
Course instructors are high quality
(n=1,247)
94%
6%
Course material is high quality
(n=1,247)
92%
Are well located (n=1,240)
83%
Are the right length (n=1,254)
Source: ICCRC member survey
17%
87%
Are offered frequently enough
(n=1,255)
0%
8%
13%
93%
20%
40%
Strongly agree/agree
7%
60%
80%
100%
Strongly disagree/disagree
See http://iccrc-crcic.ca/PME1.cfm
Since December 2012, the ICCRC has developed and delivered additional PME courses related to client file
management, ethical practice, and the use of agents. The ICCRC will continue to develop PME courses as it
identifies gaps in member knowledge related to the management of an immigration consulting practice.
58 The feedback forms asked participants to rate 14 different elements related to clarity of course objectives,
usefulness of the material, quality of the training and instructors, and the training facilities. The results from the
feedback forms were published in the June 2012 ICCRC Annual Report.
59 Survey respondents had taken on average 3.5 courses and 2% of respondents had not taken any courses.
56
57
32
3.2.5. Compliance
Under the theme of “compliance”, the ICCRC was to put in place processes to ensure that fair,
transparent, and accessible complaints and discipline mechanisms were established (see Technical Appendices
for a description of the planned compliance activities and outputs).
Finding: The ICCRC has put an appropriate complaints and discipline process in place, which is
viewed as fair, accessible, and independent by interviewees and ICCRC members. However, the
complaints and discipline process was slow to be established and the ICCRC has no jurisdiction over
complaints against unauthorized representatives that it refers to other organizations (i.e., the CBSA
and the RCMP), which has led to the perception that little is being done as a result of the
complaints. In addition, the implementation of the member audit process was delayed but is now in
process and the compensation fund to compensate the public in cases of member malpractice will
not be established due to the large cost involved.
Complaints and discipline processes
As part of the compliance activities, the ICCRC developed codes of conduct and organizational
bylaws and put in place a complaints and discipline process to respond to complaints against
members and to forward complaints against non-members to the appropriate authorities.
Detailed information on the complaints and discipline process and how to file a complaint is
available to the public via the ICCRC website. A simplified description of the complaints and
discipline process is as follows:60
1. When a complaint is received, an intake officer determines the subject of the complaint.
If the subject is an authorized consultant, it is forwarded to the Director of Complaints
and Discipline, ICCRC. If the subject is a lawyer or a member of the Chambres de
Notaires du Quebec, the complaint is referred to the applicable body. If the subject is
neither, the complaint is referred to the RCMP or the Canada Border Services Agency
(CBSA).61
2. The Director of Complaints and Discipline reviews complaints against ICCRC members,
advises them in writing of the complaint, and provides them the opportunity to respond.
The Director may attempt to negotiate a resolution to the complaint, but can also refer it
to the Complaints Committee.
3. The Complaints Committee reviews the complaint and the member’s response and may
order an investigation. The Complaints Committee renders a decision on the complaint
and may refer the case to the Discipline Committee.
4. If applicable, the Discipline Committee reviews the complaint and may schedule a
hearing with witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence. As a result of the
hearing, the Discipline Committee will decide on the matter and render a verdict.
5. Appeals processes exist to challenge the decisions of the Complaints Committee not to
refer cases to the Discipline Committee and, the decisions of the Discipline Committee.
See www.iccrccrcic.ca/admin/contentEngine/contentImages/file/ICCRCComplaints_and_Discipline_Outline_Apr2011.pdf
61 The ICCRC does not have any jurisdiction over complaints against non-members after the complaint has been
referred to the appropriate body.
60
33
The ICCRC keeps detailed statistics on the complaints received and how complaints are handled.
Between June 2011 and December 2012 a total of 887 complaints were received by the ICCRC.
As shown in Table 3.4, just over half of those complaints (446) were received in the first year of
operation, while the remainder (441) were received during the first six months of the second year
of operation―already almost as many as received in the first year.62 ICCRC interviewees indicated
that it was not surprising to see the number of complaints increasing and attributed this to more
awareness of the existence of the complaints process. The ICCRC expects the number of
complaints to increase for a few years before decreasing.
Overall, the number of complaints against members versus non-members during this time period
was equally distributed (50.5% and 49.5%, respectively). Although in the first year of operation,
the ICCRC received a much higher number of complaints against members (63.5%). This
number has declined in the first six months of the second year of operations, with 37.4% of
complaints being against members.
Table 3.4:
Number of complaints received by the ICCRC, June 2011December 2012
Complaints about members
Complaints about non-members
Total
# of Com plaints
# of Com plaints
Received
Received
(June 2011-June 2012) (July 1, 2012 -Dec 31, 2012)
283
63.5%
165
37.4%
163
36.5%
276
62.6%
446
100.0%
441
100.0%
Total
448
439
887
50.5%
49.5%
100.0%
Source: ICCRC Registrar's report, February 2013
The ICCRC tracks the nature of the complaints according to the articles in ICCRC’s Code of
Professional Ethics. In the first 18 months of operation, the ICCRC received the most
complaints related to the quality of service (399), professionalism (171), competence (138),
retainer and fees (137), advising clients (120), and withdrawal from representation (116). In
comparing the two reporting periods, there are some noteworthy decreases in the number of
complaints in certain areas. For example, as shown in Figure 3.10, while there were 305
complaints from June 2011 to June 2012 related to quality of service, there were only 94 from
July 2012 to December 2012. Similarly, there were 111 complaints in the first year of operation
related to retainer and fees, but only 26 in the first 6 months of year 2. These decreases are
potentially attributable to the mandatory PME courses that were delivered to members starting in
January 2012. These courses were designed specifically to address problem areas identified by the
ICCRC, two of which focussed on client retainer agreements and client accounts.
Over half of the complaints (56.7%) originated from within Canada, while 32.7% originated from outside of
Canada (10.5% of complaints originate from an unknown location).
62
34
Figure 3.10: Allegations contained in the complaints received, June 2011December 2012
Quality of Service
Professionalism
Competence
Retainer and Fees
July 2012 December 2012
Advising Clients
Withdrawal from Representation
Ethical Practice
June 2011June 2012
Intention of Code
Advertising, Soliciting
Other
0
50
100
Note: One complaint could involve multiple sections of the code
Source: ICCRC Registrar's report, February 2013
150
200
250
Number of complaints
300
350
Of the 887 complaints received by the ICCRC between June 2011 and December 2012, 76.8%
(681) were officially closed by the ICCRC. There are many reasons why the ICCRC closes a
complaint, one being when it is referred to the CBSA or RCMP. Between June 2011 and
December 2012, 299 complaints were referred to the CBSA or the RCMP, which accounts for
43.9% of all of the closed complaints (or 33.7% of all complaints received) (Figure 3.11). All of
these referrals were related to complaints about non-members. Comparatively, a very small
number of complaints (all against non-members) were referred to the Law Societies (9
complaints or 1% of the total number of complaints received). The ICCRC also closed
complaints because it found the complaint was unfounded (in 19.4% of the close cases) or was
able to resolve the issue through mediation (in 14.4% of the cases).
If a case is referred to the complaints committee, it is not included in the closed complaints.
Between June 2011 and December 2012, 67 (7.6%) of the complaints received were referred to
the complaints committee, 46 of which were referred to the committee in ICCRC's first fiscal
year.63 In the first fiscal year, only 2 of the 46 complaints were closed with no further action,
while the rest were still pending. In the first 7 months of ICCRC's second year, an additional 15
cases were closed with no further action, for a total of 17 cases (or 25% of all cases referred to
the committee). Of the remaining cases, 10.4% (7) resulted in remedial education, 13.4% (9) were
referred to the discipline committee, and the remaining 49% (34) were still pending. Of the 9 files
that were referred to the discipline committee, 2 are currently under investigation. The others (7)
were still pending as of August 2013.
63
The remaining 139 complaints (15.7%) were in-process at the time of data collection for the evaluation.
35
Figure 3.11: Reason for closure of complaints received between June 2011December 2012
Complaint was
unfounded or could not
be proved, 19.4%
Situation resolved
and/or mediated,
14.4%
Complaint form not
returned, 7.8%
Duplicate information,
3.1%
Unable to make
contact with
complainant, 2.6%
Sent to CBSA, RCMP,
43.9%
Sent to Law Society,
1.3%
Other, 7.5%
Source: ICCRC Registrar's report, February 2013
Awareness and perception of the complaints and discipline processes
While interviewees and survey respondents had varying degrees of knowledge about the
complaints and discipline process, overall, these processes were viewed very positively.
Interviewees noted that the processes were appropriate, as they were established as independent
of the ICCRC (e.g., complaints are handled by independent investigators, files related to
complaints are kept secure with restricted access).
Survey respondents who were very or somewhat familiar with the complaints and/or discipline
processes were asked their opinions on the processes.64 As shown in Figure 3.12, respondents
were very positive about the complaints process and agreed or strongly agreed that it was
accessible (98%), fair (95%), transparent (95%), and handled within a reasonable amount of time
(93%). Similarly, for the discipline process, most agreed or strongly agreed that it was fair (96%),
transparent (96%), and handled within a reasonable amount of time (95%).
Complaints process: 31% of respondents stated that they were very familiar with it, 55% were somewhat familiar
and 14% not familiar. Discipline process: 27% of respondents stated that they were very familiar with the discipline
process, 53% were somewhat familiar with it, and 20% were not familiar with it at all. There was a high incidence of
“don’t know” for these questions, varying between a low of 7% of survey respondents who could not express an
opinion on the accessibility of the complaints process, to a high of 33% of survey respondents who could not
express an opinion on the timeliness of the complaints process.
64
36
Complaints process (n=1,029)
98%
Discipline process (n=711)
2%
95%
Complaints process (n=744)
5%
93%
Discipline process (n=826)
96%
Complaints process (n=858)
95%
Discipline process (n=849)
96%
Complaints process (n=885)
95%
7%
4%
5%
4%
Fair
Transparent
Handled in a
reasonable
amount of time
Accessible
Figure 3.12: Survey respondents’ perception of the complaints and discipline
process
0%
Source: ICCRC member survey
10%
20%
30%
40%
Strongly agree/agree
50%
5%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Strongly disagree/disagree
While interviewees and survey respondents were positive about the complaints and discipline
processes, some interviewees noted that the process had not yet gone through a complete cycle
so it would likely take a bit more time to see whether it would be effective. Interviewees were also
critical of the outstanding number of cases that were still with the complaints committee. As
noted above, 67 complaints received by the ICCRC between June 2011 and December 2012 were
referred to the complaints committee. Of those 67, 34 were still pending as of December 2012,
with only 2 of 46 complaints addressed in the first year of operation. Information from the
evaluation showed that this inventory was related to the fact that the complaints committee was
slow to be established and build capacity. As a result, nine cases have been referred to the
discipline committee, two of which are being addressed.
Interviewees were also critical of the fact that not enough information was available on the
outcomes of complaints. This is due in part to the fact that the complaints committee was slow
to be established, but mostly due to the fact that the ICCRC is reliant on partners for
investigation and enforcement, and thus has no control over the outcomes of those referrals. In
an attempt to understand the status of complaints that are outside of the ICCRC’s evaluation, the
evaluation examined information from the CBSA on the complaints it has received. Out of the
275 referrals identified in CBSA systems (originating from various sources, ICCRC included) for
the fiscal years 2011/12 and 2012/13, 40 have been turned into active cases for investigation.
37
In addition to a desire for increased information on the results of complaints, interviewees and
survey respondents also suggested that there was a need to increase awareness of the process
among both the public and ICCRC members. Survey respondents also suggested that the ICCRC
needs to strengthen its provisions and investigations for complaints against ghost consultants and
illegal recruiters. Although the ICCRC would have limited ability to do this, as it does not have
any jurisdiction over individuals that are not members of the ICCRC.
Other compliance activities
Other compliance activities that the ICCRC had planned to undertake included establishing an
audit mechanism for members, putting in place errors and omissions insurance, and establishing
a criminal compensation fund. Information from the evaluation showed that the implementation
of compliance audits for members had not yet been completed at the time of data collection for
the evaluation, although since then the ICCRC has made progress on putting this process in place
and has begun auditing members.
In addition, although the ICCRC has been successful in requiring all members to obtain errors
and omissions insurance, it has not yet established a compensation fund. Information from the
ICCRC indicated it has been unsuccessful in its attempts to transfer the compensation fund that
was established by the previous regulatory body to the ICCRC and due to the large cost involved,
it was not feasible for the ICCRC to establish its own fund at this time.
3.2.6. Resource utilization
The evaluation used an operational efficiency approach to assess how well the ICCRC used its
resources to produce its outputs.65 In particular, the evaluation compared ICCRC planned versus
actual costs and examined interviewee perceptions on whether program resources were allocated
appropriately to achieve program outputs and outcomes. In addition, certain projected financial
savings for switching to a new regulator outlined in the June 28, 2011 Regulatory Impact Analysis
Statement (RIAS)66 were compared with actual financial data.
Finding: Although the ICCRC spent more than originally budgeted, the evaluation found that the
ICCRC was able to mainly achieve what was planned as per the outputs identified in the
contribution agreement.
In 2011, financial indicators were developed as part of the RIAS and Cost-Benefit Analysis to
demonstrate savings to Canada as a result of establishing a new regulator. Data were available to
support an assessment for three of the indicators from the 2011 RIAS: directors’ fees, number of
staff and the ICCRC membership fee.
Directors’ fees: The RIAS projected that the ICCRC would incur incremental savings in
directors’ fees (from the previous regulator) because it had proposed to reduce such fees
from a reported $55,000 per year to $12,000 per year, per Director, even though the ICCRC
suggested hiring an additional six directors (for a total of 15). As per the ICCRC’s 2012
Annual Report, directors' fees totalled $273,500 or $18,233.33 per director, which is
$6,233.33 higher than the RIAS projections.
Per Treasury Board guidelines, operational efficiency is concerned with how inputs are being used and converted
into outputs that support the achievement of expected outcomes.
66 For the Regulations Designating a Body for the Purposes of Paragraph 91(2)(c) of IRPA.
65
38
Number of staff: The RIAS projected that the ICCRC would hire 18 staff in the first two
years and reach a complement of 24 staff by year three, which would result in a net salary
savings to the ICCRC. As of March 2013, ICCRC had 25 positions on its organizational
chart, which exceeds the RIAS projection by one staff member.
Membership fee: The RIAS projected that the average fee (which does not include errors
and omissions insurance) of the previous regulator of $2,095 would be reduced to $1,550,
which was more in line with comparable legal associations. Lower fees would also address
concerns expressed in the 2008 Standing Committee Report about CSIC membership fees
being too high. While the ICCRC membership fee was originally set at $1,550, as of July 2012
the fee was $1,782.50, which is $232.50 more than the RIAS projection.
To explain the differences in RIAS projects and present a complete picture of the ICCRC’s
spending, the evaluation reviewed the financial information for the organization between
October 2011 and March 2012. This review found that the ICCRC had an original budget of
$1.6M and spent $3.6M, which represents 2.31 times its total budget outlined in the contribution
agreement. As illustrated in Table 3.5, the ICCRC exceeded this budget in nearly all cost
categories for both start-up and operating costs, with 1.88 times its start-up budget ($1.6M actual
vs. 900K budgeted) and 2.73 times its operating budget ($1.9M actual vs. $700K budgeted).
Overall, the largest discrepancies (in terms of dollars) were in rent and occupancy ($381K or
701% over budget)67, salaries and benefits ($292K or 91% over budget), and marketing and
promotion ($267K or 314% over budget).
In terms of the composition of expenditures, the five largest start-up cost categories were:

marketing and promotion (22%);

management transition team (17%);

incorporation/bylaws (13%);

membership administration (13%); and

practice management development (11%).
The five other specific start-up cost categories accounted for 24% of all start-up costs. The five
largest operating cost categories were:

salaries and benefits (32%);

rent and occupancy costs (14%);

membership administration (11%);

director fees (9%); and

general office supplies, recruitment and meetings (8%).
The finding that the ICCRC did not meet its RIAS projection is consistent with the general
finding that the establishment and operation of the ICCRC has cost more than initially projected.
67
These numbers include both start-up and operating rent, and occupancy expenditures.
39
Table 3.5:
Budgeted and actual costs incurred by the ICCRC
Budget from CA
Start-up Costs
Computer purchase
$54,000
Office furniture purchase
$87,400
Incorporation, By-Law s
$100,000
Practice Management Development
$75,000
Marketing and Promotion
$85,000
Membership Administration-upfront
$126,000
Recruitment Costs
$100,000
Rent, first & last
$28,500
Project Management Transition Team
$180,000
Travel & Accommodations
$30,000
Start-up costs Total
$865,900
Operating Costs
Bank Service Charges
$6,500
Miscellaneous Consulting Fees
$2,500
Director's Fees
$45,000
General Office Supplies, Recruitment & Meetings
$68,000
Practice Management Development
--Membership Administration
$46,800
Professional Fees - Legal
$75,000
Professional Fees - Accounting
--Rent & Occupancy costs
$25,800
Salaries & Benefits
$320,448
Telephone & Communications
$5,100
Travel & Accommodations
--Insurance*
$98,760
Operating costs Total
$693,908
Other
Decrease in Member fees
--Non Eligible amounts
--Other Total
--Grand Total
$1,559,808
Cost category description
Actual until
March 2012
Variance
$79,654
$35,657
$218,186
$178,046
$352,078
$216,866
$85,204
$166,605
$274,106
$19,823
$1,626,224
-$25,654
$51,743
-$118,186
-$103,046
-$267,078
-$90,866
$14,796
-$138,105
-$94,106
$10,177
-$760,324
$71,820
$16,560
$176,535
$145,523
$2,300
$207,471
$131,442
$47,849
$268,600
$612,522
$74,013
$95,410
$42,048
$1,892,093
-$65,320
-$14,060
-$131,535
-$77,523
-$2,300
-$160,671
-$56,442
-$47,849
-$242,800
-$292,074
-$68,913
-$95,410
$56,712
-$1,198,185
$10,856
$71,623
$82,479
$3,600,796
-$10,856
-$71,623
-$82,479
-$2,040,988
* For Directors and officers, Business (assets/liabilities), and Errors and Omissions for members.
Source: Grants and Contributions Funding Management Division, CIC.
Of the few interviewees from CIC and the ICCRC who could comment on ICCRC’s
expenditures, most noted that the organization faced challenges during its first year related to
getting operations running smoothly and building internal capacity. According to those few
interviewees, this, coupled with inexperience regarding sound financial management practices and
a potentially unrealistic forecast for several key expenditures areas such as marketing and
promotion, rent, and salaries/benefits, provide some explanation as to why the ICCRC
experienced cost-overruns in most cost categories. A few interviewees also noted that the
primary reason the membership fees was increased was due to financial pressure arising from the
unanticipated fee holiday given to past CSIC members who were grand-fathered into the ICCRC
which adversely affected the organization’s revenue and cash flow.
A few interviewees noted that in recognition of its financial management challenges, the ICCRC
created a position of Finance Director in March 2012 (prior to this it had only employed a
bookkeeper and the CEO to manage finances). Of the few interviewees within the ICCRC and
CIC who could comment on the finances of the ICCRC, most noted that sound financial
40
practices and controls are now in place and the ICCRC has started to overcome the financial
management challenges it experienced in its first year.68
Despite the fact that there remain gaps and needed improvements in certain areas within the
ICCRC (e.g., website, internal policies), there is no evidence from the evaluation that indicates
that resources were allocated inappropriately or that there were viable alternatives (in terms of
key areas to fund) which should have been given more prominence in terms of funding.
Moreover, as discussed in previous sections, the ICCRC has generally achieved the outputs it set
out in the CA, albeit with some delays in hiring staff and an initial shortage of funds for taking on
communication activities.
68
Audited financial statements are included in the ICCRC annual reports.
41
4.
Conclusions and recommendations
Over the course of its first year and a half of operations, the ICCRC had successfully established
itself as an arms-length organization that regulates immigration consultants. Although spending
more than originally anticipated over this time period, the ICCRC was able to undertake the
majority of the activities outlined in the contribution agreement in the four areas of capacity
building, communications, competencies, and compliance and was able to operate without
requiring additional funding from CIC above what agreed to at the outset. The assessment of
these four areas of activity showed no major issues and, overall, the evaluation found the
organization has established the foundations required to fairly regulate immigration consultants.
In addition, the financial analysis conducted by CIC’s Financial Management Branch shows that
financial viability had not been achieved as of December 2013 and the financial situation of the
organization was unfavourable according to the department’s standards. However, ICCRC’s
financial situation has steadily been improving and it has started repaying the contribution to
CIC, as per the negotiated schedule.
Recognizing that the ICCRC is a young organization that is still developing its capacity, there is
room for improvement on certain aspects.

While the foundations of ICCRC’s governance and management structure have been
established, the organization still needs to finalize its internal policies and procedures.

The organization also must continue to monitor spending and maintain a strong membership
base to ensure ongoing financial viability.

The ICCRC needs to improve its website and continue its work on external communications
to ensure that its mandate and key activities are clearly communicated to stakeholders (e.g.,
public, potential applicants, CIC).

Where possible, the ICCRC needs to provide more information to its various stakeholders,
including the public, on how it handles complaints and the disciplinary actions taken.

The ICCRC should proactively engage in discussions with CIC regarding any originally
planned activities agreed upon in the Contribution Agreement that are still outstanding, e.g.,
compensation fund.
CIC was involved with the organization by providing support during its establishment and
ongoing operation, both in the form of operational guidance and financial support. Overall, CIC
and the ICCRC were successful in establishing a good working relationship and CIC provided
adequate support during the creation of the organization. The relationship between the ICCRC
and CIC is now more arms-length, with the CIC role limited to monitoring the repayments from
the ICCRC and liaising with the organization on an as-needed basis on matters of mutual interest.
From an internal perspective, the evaluation identified a few issues that CIC should address to
ensure that the department is working only with authorized representatives (including members
of the ICCRC) and that stakeholders, both internal and external to CIC, are sufficiently informed
about the regulatory body and the use of authorized consultants.
Recommendation #1: CIC should ensure that staff processing immigration applications have a common
understanding of the regulations, the role of the regulatory body, and the processes for CIC to validate the use
of authorized representatives and to file complaints regarding authorized and unauthorised representatives.
This should be done by:
42
a) Clarifying the process for how CIC validates the use of authorized representatives and
for how complaints should be filed;
b) Updating the relevant manuals (e.g., IP9) in a timely manner to reflect any changes to
these processes;
c) Issuing operational bulletins in a timely manner to ensure processing centres and visa
offices are aware of any changes to the processes; and
d) Updating relevant training material and/or courses to ensure that they include
information on the regulations, the use of authorized representatives, the role of the
ICCRC as the regulatory body, and the process in place within CIC for validating
authorized representatives and for filing complaints.
Recommendation #2: CIC should establish a communication strategy to raise public awareness
regarding authorized representatives. This strategy should ensure that stakeholders (e.g., the public and
potential applicants) understand the role of immigration consultants and that an authorized representative
must be used if applicants choose to be represented.
43
Appendix A:
ICCRC Evaluation Matrix
Question
Indicators
Methods/Data sources
Reasons why the industry is being regulated (e.g., level of
fraud, immigration practitioner issues, use of 'ghost
consultants')
Document review
(Relevant industry reports, Standing committee reports, POR)
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC, CAPIC, CBA)
ICCRC member survey
# and % of immigration applicants who use the support of
immigration consultants (by mission, immigration category)
Review of program data
(CAIPS, FOSS, GCMS)
Relevance
What need is the regulation of
immigration consultants aiming to
address?
Is the regulation of immigration
consultants aligned with federal
roles and responsibilities and GoC
and CIC priorities?
Document review
Existence of federal legislation and obligations related to the (Federal legislation and regulations (E.g., IRPA))
regulation of immigration consultants
Alignment of the objectives of the regulations with GoC and
CIC priorities
Document review
(Speeches From the Throne / Budgets, CIC reports on Plans and
Priorities, CIC Annual Reports)
Mechanisms are in place for coordination, communication
and decision-making within CIC, between CIC and other
government departments, and between CIC and ICCRC
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC)
Review of program data
(Committee terms of reference, Meeting records)
Stakeholder perceptions on the effectiveness of mechanisms
for coordination, communication, and decision-making
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC)
Processes and tools are in place for CIC and other
government departments to validate bona fide
representatives
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC)
Review of program data
(CIC processing manuals)
Processes and tools are in place for CIC and other
government departments to report misrepresentation
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA IRB, ESDC)
Review of program data (GCMS)
# of complaints received through the complaints mailbox
([email protected]) on authorized and/or
unauthorized consultants
Review of program data
(OMC data)
Capacity building activities and outputs are delivered as
Key informant interviews
Performance
Are the appropriate governance
and management processes in
place to achieve program
outcomes?
Is ICCRC a viable, transparent,
45
Question
Indicators
Methods/Data sources
accountable, and well-managed
organization? (Capacity)
planned, with explanation of variances
(CIC, ICCRC)
Review of program data
(ICCRC output and outcome reports, Annual reports, Committee
terms of reference and records of decision, Financial reports,
Meetings minutes, Organizational charts, By-laws, Code of ethics,
Membership)
Evidence of public reporting on organizational structure and
activities, processes, and investigations
Review of program data
(ICCRC annual reports, Web publications, Communication products)
ICCRC balance of revenues against expenditures, by fiscal
year
Review of program data
(ICCRC financial reports)
Stakeholder perceptions on the appropriateness of
governance and management structures that have been put
in place
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC, CAPIC, CBA)
ICCRC member survey
Stakeholder views on the transparency and accountability of
ICCRC
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC, CAPIC, CBA)
ICCRC member survey
Has the ICCRC adequately informed Communication activities and outputs are delivered as
stakeholder groups on the
planned, with explanation of variances
immigration consulting sector?
(Communication)
46
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC)
Review of program data
(ICCRC administrative files, Output and outcome reports,
Communication plan, Communication products, Web material)
% of information products made available in both official
languages and in target applicant languages
Review of program data
(ICCRC administrative files, Output and outcome reports,
Communication plan, Communication products, Web material)
Stakeholders are aware of, and have access to, ICCRC
information products
Key informant interviews
(CIC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC, CAPIC, CBA)
ICCRC member survey
Stakeholders believe that ICCRC information products are
appropriate and effective
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC, CAPIC, CBA)
ICCRC member survey
Question
Indicators
Are members receiving
Competency activities and outputs are delivered as planned,
accreditation from the ICCRC? Are with explanation of variances
they receiving professional
development opportunities to
develop competencies and improve
qualifications? (Competencies)
# of new ICCRC members, by month
To what extent is there a fair,
transparent, and accessible
complaint and discipline
mechanism in place to regulate
member conduct? (Compliance)
Methods/Data sources
Key informant interviews (CIC, ICCRC)
Review of Program Data
(ICCRC administrative files, Output and outcome reports,
Documentation on accreditation process / certification procedures,
Training tools and activities, Professional development tools)
Review of Program Data
(ICCRC annual reports, Membership records)
# and % of members certified
Review of Program Data
(ICCRC membership records, training records)
# and % of members meeting continuing education
requirements
Review of Program Data
(ICCRC annual reports, Training records)
Stakeholder perceptions on the accreditation process
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC, CAPIC, CBA)
ICCRC member survey
Stakeholder perceptions on the sufficiency of professional
development opportunities
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC, CAPIC, CBA)
ICCRC member survey
Stakeholder perceptions on the quality of training provided
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC, CAPIC, CBA)
ICCRC member survey
Review of program data
(Training feedback forms)
Compliance activities and outputs are delivered as planned,
with explanation of variances
# of complaints filed with the ICCRC, by type of complaint
Key informant interviews (CIC, ICCRC)
Review of program data
(ICCRC administrative files, Output and outcome reports, Code of
ethics, Complaints procedures, Investigations procedures,
Enforcement mechanisms, Liability insurance plan)
Review of program data
(ICCRC annual reports, Complaints reporting)
# and % of complaints referred to other stakeholders, by type Review of program data
of complaint
(ICCRC annual reports, Complaints reporting)
# and % of investigations conducted by the ICCRC, by type of
complaint
Review of program data
(ICCRC annual reports, Complaints reporting)
47
Question
Indicators
Methods/Data sources
# and % of complaints that are heard by the complaints
committee; and discipline committee, by type of complaint
Review of program data
(ICCRC annual reports, Complaints reporting)
# and % of infractions issued by the ICCRC, by type of
complaint
Review of program data
(ICCRC annual reports, Complaints reporting)
% of complaints launched and finalized within 3 months
Review of program data
(ICCRC annual reports, Complaints reporting)
# and % of complaints or disciplinary decisions appealed by
either party
Review of program data
(ICCRC annual reports, Complaints reporting)
Stakeholder awareness and understanding of compliance and
discipline mechanisms
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC, CAPIC, CBA)
ICCRC member survey
Stakeholder views on adequacy of compliance and discipline
mechanisms
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC, CBSA, IRB, ESDC, CAPIC, CBA)
ICCRC member survey
ICCRC planned versus actual costs, and reasons for variations
Key informant interviews (CIC, ICCRC)
Review of program data
(ICCRC financial reports)
Stakeholder perceptions on whether program resources have
been allocated appropriately to achieve program outcomes
Key informant interviews
(CIC, ICCRC)
Resource utilization
Have program resources been used
appropriately to achieve program
outcomes?
48
Appendix B:

Activities



Intermediate
Outcomes
Immediate
Outcomes
Outputs





ICCRC Logic Model
CIC
Policy and Operations
Establish Regulatory
Framework
Conduct selection
process
Conduct communication
activities
Monitoring and
evaluation
Revised immigration
regulation
Contribution
Agreement
Communication plan
Monitoring reports
Evaluation report
CRCIC
Communication
 Establish and deliver outreach strategy
to the immigration consulting sector
 Develop and deliver public awareness
campaigns
Capacity
 Develop and maintain management
capacities in the areas of:
 Strategic management
 Governance
 Structure
 Financial management
 Partnerships








Governance structure
By-Laws, Articles, Code of conduct
Financial reporting system
Board of Directors/AGM minutes
Annual Reports
Internal controls






Awareness materials
Publications
Website materials
Other communication tools and
products
Competencies
 Establish and maintain standards of
competence, practice and ethical
conduct
 Establish and deliver accreditation
process
 Establish and deliver certification
procedures
 Develop and deliver professional
development curricula and training
activities







Standards of competence, practice
and ethical conduct
Certifications
PD curriculum
PD courses
Qualifications of trainers
Compliance
 Establish and operate
complaints process
 Develop and deliver
disciplinary mechanisms
 Establish and implement
compensation fund






Complaints system & process
(bilingual)
Complaints received and
decisions made
Compensation fund payment
Liability insurance


A viable, transparent, accountable, and
well-managed organization.


Stakeholder groups have information
on immigration consulting sector,
including accreditation, potential of
fraud, and recourse mechanisms.


Members receive accreditation and
professional development
opportunities to continually develop
their competencies and
qualifications.


Fair, transparent and accessible
complaint and discipline
mechanisms are established.








Applicants receive advice, consultation and representation from qualified immigration consultants in all matters related to the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Applicants are protected against unethical and unprofessional conduct
Enhanced public confidence in the immigration consultant industry.
Strategic
Outcome
Final
Outcome


Enhanced public confidence in the integrity of the Canadian immigration system.
SO4: Managed migration that promotes Canadian interests and protects the health, safety and security of Canadians
49
Annex G Manitoba Fair Registration Practices
FAIR REGISTRATION PRACTICES CODE
(Part 2 of The Fair Registration Practices in
Regulated Professions Act)
The Fair Registration Practices Code sets out a general duty
and a list of specific duties that self-regulatory bodies must
abide in order to meet compliance.
NOTE: This is not an official version of the
The Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Act.
The official version is available from Statutory Publications,
Government of Manitoba.
FAIR REGISTRATION PRACTICES CODE
(Part 2 of The Fair Registration Practices in
Regulated Professions Act)
The Fair Registration Practices Code sets out a general duty
and a list of specific duties that self-regulatory bodies must
abide in order to meet compliance.
PART 2
FAIR REGISTRATION PRACTICES CODE
GENERAL DUTY
General duty
4
A regulated profession has a duty to provide registration
practices that are transparent, objective, impartial and fair.
SPECIFIC DUTIES
Duty to provide information
5
A regulated profession must provide the following information, in a
clear and understandable form, to individuals applying or intending to
apply for registration by the regulated profession:
(a) information about its registration practices and internal review or
appeal processes;
(b) information about the amount of time that the registration process
usually takes;
(c) objective requirements for registration by the regulated
profession, including a description of the criteria used to assess
whether the requirements have been met, together with a statement
of which requirements can be satisfied through alternatives that are
acceptable to the regulated profession;
(d) information about any support the regulated profession provides
to applicants during the registration process, or other available
supports of which the regulated profession is aware;
(e) a fee scale related to registrations.
Timely decisions, responses and reasons
De
6
7 (5
A regulated profession must
(a) make registration decisions within a reasonable time;
dec
res
(b) provide written responses to applicants within a reasonable time;
and
Do
(c) provide written reasons to applicants within a reasonable time in
respect of all
(i) registration decisions refusing to grant registration, or
granting registration subject to conditions, and
8 (1
as
app
acc
req
(ii) internal review or appeal decisions,
including, where practical, information respecting measures or
programs that may be available to assist unsuccessful applicants in
obtaining registration at a later date.
Internal review or appeal
As
8 (2
qua
imp
7 (1) A regulated profession must provide an internal review of, or
Rel
appeal from, its registration decisions within a reasonable time.
8 (3
Submissions by applicant
qua
par
imp
7 (2)
A regulated profession must provide an applicant for registration
with an opportunity to make submissions respecting any internal review
or appeal.
How to make submissions
7 (3) A regulated profession may specify whether submissions
Tra
9
qua
app
respecting an internal review or appeal are to be submitted orally, in
writing or by electronic means.
Information on appeal rights
7 (4) A regulated profession must inform an applicant of any rights that
he or she may have to request a review of, or appeal from, the decision,
and provide information about the procedures and time frames of a
review or appeal.
Acc
10
reg
Decision-maker
7 (5) No one who acted as a decision-maker in respect of a registration
decision may act as a decision-maker in an internal review or appeal in
respect of that registration decision.
me;
Documentation of qualifications
e in
8 (1) A regulated profession must make information publicly available
or
as to what documentation of qualifications must accompany an
application and what alternatives to the documentation may be
acceptable to the regulated profession if an applicant cannot obtain the
required documentation for reasons beyond his or her control.
or
s in
or
tion
iew
ons
, in
hat
on,
f a
Assessing qualifications
8 (2)
If a regulated profession makes its own assessment of
qualifications, it must do so in a way that is transparent, objective,
impartial and fair.
Reliance on third party to assess
8 (3) If a regulated profession relies on a third party to assess
qualifications, it must take reasonable measures to ensure that the third
party makes the assessment in a way that is transparent, objective,
impartial and fair.
Training
9
A regulated profession must ensure that individuals assessing
qualifications and making registration decisions or internal review or
appeal decisions have received training that includes, where appropriate,
(a) training in how to hold hearings; and
(b) training in any special considerations that may apply in the
assessment of applications and the process for applying those
considerations.
Access to records
10 (1) Upon the written request of an applicant for registration by a
regulated profession, the regulated profession must provide the applicant
with access to any record relating to the application that is in its custody
or under its control.
Am
Exceptions
10
the
cos
10 (2) Despite subsection (1), a regulated profession may refuse access
to information in a record in any of the following circumstances:
Wa
(a) information in the record is subject to a legal privilege that
restricts disclosure;
(b) another Act or regulation, an Act or regulation of Canada or an
order of a court or quasi-judicial tribunal prohibits disclosure of the
information in the record in the circumstances;
(c) granting the access could reasonably be expected to lead to the
identification of a person who provided information in the record to
the regulated profession explicitly or implicitly in confidence, and the
regulated profession considers it appropriate in the circumstances
that the identity of the person be kept confidential;
(d) granting the access could reasonably be expected to threaten or
harm the mental or physical health or the safety of another person;
(e) granting the access could negatively affect public safety or could
undermine the integrity of the registration process.
Severability
10 (3) Despite subsection (2), an applicant has a right of access to
information in a record if it can reasonably be severed from information to
which the applicant does not have a right of access by reason of that
subsection.
Process to be established
10 (4) A regulated profession must establish a process under which
requests for access to records will be considered.
Fee for access
10 (5) A regulated profession may charge the applicant a fee for making
records available if it first gives the applicant an estimate of the fee.
10(
of t
opi
Amount of fee
10 (6) The amount of the fee must not exceed the amount prescribed by
the regulations or, if no amount is prescribed, the amount of reasonable
cost recovery.
Waiver of fee
10(7) A regulated profession may waive the payment of all or any part
of the fee that an applicant is required to pay under subsection (5) if, in its
opinion, it is fair and equitable to do so.