Attorney-General for British Columbia v. Cowen

Attorney-General for British Columbia v. Cowen

The words 'holds himself out as being qualified or entitled' in s.63 must be read as holding oneself out within British Columbia as qualified to perform the enumerated dental acts in the province; advertising by a non-resident dentist who performs no work in the province did not constitute practising dentistry under ss.62-63 and the College could not obtain an injunction restraining a non-member for alleged unprofessional advertising. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1939] SCR 20
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Attorney-General for British Columbia; Defendant/respondent: David Cowen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 1938
Procedural Posture
Injunction (civil) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed; costs to respondent.
Legal Topics
Injunction, Practice of Dentistry, Advertising by Foreign Practitioner, Holding Out, Jurisdiction of Regulatory Body
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Professional Regulation Statutory Interpretation Administrative Law Injunction Practice of Dentistry Advertising by Foreign Practitioner Holding Out +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney-General for British Columbia

Plaintiff/appellant

David Cowen

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Injunction (civil) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether out-of-province dentist's newspaper advertisements constituted 'holding out' under s.63 of the Dentistry Act such that he was 'practising dentistry' in British Columbia under s.62
  2. 2 Whether the Dentistry Act extends to conduct undertaken outside the province (advertising directed to BC residents)
  3. 3 Whether the College of Dental Surgeons may obtain an injunction against a non-member for alleged unprofessional advertising

Ratio Decidendi

The words 'holds himself out as being qualified or entitled' in s.63 must be read as holding oneself out within British Columbia as qualified to perform the enumerated dental acts in the province; advertising by a non-resident dentist who performs no work in the province did not constitute practising dentistry under ss.62-63 and the College could not obtain an injunction restraining a non-member for alleged unprofessional advertising. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed; costs to respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed.