Nova Scotia court says health authority's respectful workplace policy failed 'to meet the higher duty of procedural fairness'
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has overturned harassment findings and related remedial orders against two senior nephrologists, ruling that the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA) failed to provide them with an adequate level of procedural fairness under its Respectful Workplace Policy.
In Finkle v. Nova Scotia Health Authority, 2025 NSSC 373, released Nov. 24, 2025, Justice Diane Rowe held that the NSHA’s process in responding to formal complaints against Dr. Simon Neil Finkle and Dr. Kenneth West did not meet the required standard of fairness, given the potential impact on their professional standing and hospital privileges.
Dr. West, an experienced nephrologist with more than 29 years’ practice, and Dr. Finkle, a nephrologist with over 20 years’ practice who had served as interim head of the Nephrology Division at the Queen Elizabeth II Hospital in Halifax, faced formal written complaints under NSHA’s Respectful Workplace Policy from two fellow physicians in 2022.
Complainant A filed a complaint dated March 21 against Dr. Finkle, and one against Dr. West dated Dec. 20. Complainant B filed a complaint dated March 26 against Dr. Finkle.
Investigation into Respectful Workplace Policy
The decision from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia did not detail the cause of these complaints. But a previous decision from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal noted that the NSHA appointed Poirier ADR Inc. to investigate the three complaints further to the process in the Respectful Workplace Policy.
The agreement between the NSHA and Certitude directed the investigator to “base the findings of the investigation on all of the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom” and provide the NSHA’s representative with “an investigation report that sets out the Investigator’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations”.
By letters dated May 9, 2022, the NSHA notified Drs. Finkle and West of the complaints and the investigator’s appointment. The letters also notified Drs. Finkle and West that, effective immediately, the NSHA was altering their shift rotations during the investigation.
On Dec. 8, 2022, investigator Andrea Lowes delivered to the NSHA three reports with findings on the complaints. The reports included assessments of credibility, findings of fact, analyses, conclusions and recommendations. The reports found most of the complaints were unfounded, but:
- three of Complainant A’s allegations against Dr. West “did amount to harassment, albeit on the lower end of the spectrum”
- two of Complainant A’s allegations, taken together, constituted harassment by Dr. Finkle
- Complainant B, Dr. Finkle’s “course of conduct” was “harassment under the Policy, albeit on the lower end of the spectrum” and, in two respects, Dr. Finkle’s conduct was “problematic”, “inappropriate, unfair and unnecessary”, constituting harassment under the Policy.
Following those reports, NSHA leadership issued identical decision letters on May 1, 2023, requiring each doctor to complete three measures:
- review the Respectful Workplace Policy and training module
- complete a Psychologically Safe Leadership certificate course
- attend an “Effective Team Interactions” workshop.
The letters warned that failure to complete these actions “may result in the consideration of a more comprehensive approach, which could include a medical bylaws process.”
Previously, an Ontario tribunal found Ford Motor Company of Canada liable for workplace reprisal after an employee relations manager conducted what vice-chair Derek Rogers called a "patently deficient investigation" into allegations against a 28-year employee who had complained about his supervisor.
Duty of procedural fairness
In the Finkle v. NSHA case, Justice Rowe found that, because the decisions created a formal record of harassment findings and were expressly linked to possible proceedings under the Medical Staff Discipline Bylaws, they engaged a “moderate to high” duty of procedural fairness.
“I find that Dr. Finkle and Dr. West were not afforded an appropriate level of procedural fairness by the NSHA in regard to the formal complaints made against them pursuant to the Policy,” Justice Rowe wrote in the decision.
“The process undertaken was insufficient to meet the higher duty of procedural fairness in the context of the NSHA addressing an allegation of breach of Policy, with disciplinary potential, involving a specialist physician with privileges.”
The court held that the Respectful Workplace Policy — which applies to all “staff” including physicians — overlaps in practice with the Medical Staff Bylaws and forms part of an interrelated disciplinary framework. Justice Rowe noted that a harassment finding recorded in a physician’s file could affect future reviews of their privileges and professional opportunities.
Among other issues, the court cited NSHA’s deviation from the policy’s “manager and People Services” model, the decision to have the Zone Medical Executive Director and a Medical Affairs Lead act as decision‑makers, the failure to provide the doctors with the original written complaints, and the absence of an opportunity to respond to the investigator’s final findings or to the proposed remedial measures before decisions were issued.
Justice Rowe set aside the decisions against both physicians. She noted that NSHA has since amended its Respectful Workplace Policy and directed the parties to confer on what process, if any, should follow, indicating she would receive further submissions on process and costs within 30 days if they cannot agree.
Recently, an arbitrator dismissed a grievance brought by Unifor against the Globe and Mail, ruling that the newspaper’s sales commission plan is not subject to arbitration under the current collective agreement.
