BC's New Apology Act: Saying "I'm Sorry" Has Never Been So Easy

By: George K. Bryce, BCACC legal counsel

Originally published in 18:3 Insights at pages 15, 16, 26 & 27 (Winter 2007)

Introduction:
BC's new Apology Act came into force in May 2006. This short, two-section long statute has the potential to change the way that professional regulatory bodies like the BCACC resolve public complaints against their members. The new Act should also release counsellors and other health professionals from the legal constraints which often prevented them from giving apologies to their wronged clients.

In this article, I will identify the two legal problems that counsellors faced and describe how the new Apology Act appears to remove those constraints. Later, I will look closer at the implications of this new legislation for both counsellors and the BCACC.

The Legal Problems:
From time to time the BCACC receives a bona fide complaint from the client of a clinical counsellor where the resolution of that complaint could be readily achieved if the counsellor in question had simply provided that client with a heartfelt apology at the time of the unfortunate event, or if the counsellor later gave a meaningful apology in response to the formal complaint.1 But legal impediments would prevent a counsellor giving such an apology. While a counsellor may also have had personal reasons for not apologizing, the legal ones were more significant. What problems have now been resolved?

First, if the counsellor hired a lawyer to help respond to the BCACC's investigation of the client's complaint, it is likely that legal counsel would have advised the clinical counsellor not to say anything to the complainant (directly or through the Inquiry Committee) that could be construed to be an admission of liability. Even if the evidence gathered by the Committee made it obvious that the counsellor committed some wrong, the lawyer was likely going to recommend against making a full apology, at least not until after the complaint has been settled. At a University of Victoria workshop in 2003, Catherine Morris summarized this problem in these terms:

[T]he popular wisdom is that persons who face the prospect of being blamed should avoid apologizing or making statements about the incident in question. This advice is aimed at preventing statements from being turned against you if you are sued. Apologies are seen as risky because the apology could be interpreted as an admission of liability.

The second problem counsellors faced was not as obvious, but was equally influential. Professionals face a dilemma created by the wording of their liability insurance policies. Some policies require that the insured professional cooperate with the insurance company in the defense of any claim that may have been filed against the professional (or even threatened). This would include responding to client complaints being investigated by the professional body. Some policies went further to expressly state that an insured professional is prohibited from voluntarily assuming or accepting liability or settling a claim. A policy might even state that, if the professional does something like give an apology to a client without the company's consent, such an act would void the insurance coverage.

There are examples of such limitations in the BCACC Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance Program provided by Lombard Canada. In this policy, clause I(2)(a) states in part (my emphasis): "The Insured [Counsellor] shall not admit or assume liability for or settle any claim or incur any costs, charge or expense without the written consent of the Insurer." A similar provision is found later in clause VI(2): "Except at his/her own cost, the Insured [Counsellor] shall not voluntarily make any payment, assume any liability or obligations or incur any expense, unless incurred with the written consent of the Insurer."

While there have been a few reported cases which have suggest that, in some circumstances, these sort of legal problems can be overcome, no clear decision has been given by Canadian courts that removes these legal impediments to a counsellor giving an apology to a wronged client when circumstances suggest that making such a statement would be ethically, morally or professionally appropriate.

The Legislative Solution:
In a January 2006 discussion paper,3 the BC Ministry of the Attorney General proposed that new legislation be developed in BC to encourage the giving of full apologies as a way to help resolve disputes, including the resolution of complaints against health professionals like clinical counsellors.

Apparently this proposal was warmly received, because a few months later, on March 28, 2006, the Hon. Wally Opal, Attorney General, introduced for first reading in the BC Legislature Bill #16 (2006) to enact the new Apology Act. It is noteworthy that the explanatory note in that Bill addressed the same two legal problems that faced counsellors who want to apologize to their clients. This Bill provides that an apology made by or on behalf of a person in relation to any civil matter does not constitute an admission of fault or liability by the person or a confirmation of a cause of action in relation to the matter, does not affect the insurance coverage available to the person making the apology, is not admissible in any judicial or quasi-judicial civil proceeding and must not be considered or referred to in relation to fault or liability in any such proceeding.

Bill #16 (2006) received Royal Assent on May 18, 2006 and, as a result, the new Apology Act came into force on that day. The full text of this short Act is set out in Appendix A.

The Implications Of The New Act:
As I noted above, before the new Apology Act came into force, counsellors faced two legal constraints that often limited their ability to give a wronged client a heartfelt apology. The first was that any apology a counsellor gave a client could later be used by that client as evidence in a civil law suit of that counsellor's liability. The second problem was that professional liability insurance contracts often made if difficult for a counsellor to give an apology to a wronged client without the Insurer's consent. Further, the lawyers who were hired by the insurance companies to defend counsellors were often reluctant to agree to such a step precisely because of the first problem; i.e. that an apology could be accepted by the court as an admission of the counsellor's liability.

Two sets of provisions of the new Apology Act should be of particular benefit in terms of resolving complaints that are filed against clinical counsellors, if not - and more importantly - reducing the number of such complaints in the first place.

Removing An Admission Of Liability:
The first effect of the new Act can be found in clause 2(1)(a). Applying the definition of an apology found in section 1, this clause declares that, if a counsellor expresses to a client sympathy or regret, or makes a statement that the counsellor is sorry, whether or not the words or actions admit or imply an admission of fault in connection with the matter to which the words or actions relate (my emphasis), then such a statement does not constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability by the counsellor in relation to the subject of that apology. When this section is read in conjunction with subsection 2(2), the net legal effect should be that any statement given by a counsellor to a client that falls within the broad definition of an apology cannot be later used by that client in a civil proceeding to seek damages for alleged harm that resulted from the same events that led to that apology. Instead, if the client later sued the counsellor, the plaintiff client would have to provide other evidence of the counsellor's liability rather than introducing into court the counsellor's earlier apology. If the wronged client was to try to use the counsellor's apology as proof of or an admission of liability, the counsellor could use the new Act's provisions to block that use.

The new Act defines an apology as: "an expression of sympathy or regret, a statement that one is sorry or any other words or actions indicating contrition or commiseration, whether or not the words or actions admit or imply an admission of fault in connection with the matter to which the words or actions relate". While this statutory definition is necessary for the purposes of determining when someone has made an apology that should then be protected under section 2 of the Act, it does not go further a provide counsellors with much useful guidance concerning what in practice would be an effective or meaningful apology. In their 2004 article,4 John Gawthrop and Jocelyn Harris explained how a counsellor could best articulate an apology and offered suggestions as to its form, content and tenor. I will not repeat their useful observations here, but commend their earlier article for those details.

As of the date of writing, I can find no reported cases that have considered clause 2(1)(a) and subsection 2(2) of the new Act, let alone the definition of an apology. On the other hand, the plain language of these provisions should provide counsellors and their legal counsel with some comfort that providing a sincere, full and meaningful apology to a client will not come back later to haunt the counsellor in court. That said, I expect that, in order to avail him or herself of the benefit of these sections, the apology would have had to have been given by the counsellor after the new Act came into force; i.e. after May 2006.

Insurance Coverage Issues:
The new Apology Act also has implications for the companies that provide professional liability insurance. As I noted above, some insurance policies require that the insured professional co-operate with the insurance company in the defense of any claim. Some policies expressly state that an insured professional is prohibited from voluntarily assuming or accepting liability or in settling a claim. A policy could even go so far as to state that, if the professional does something like give an apology to a client without the company's consent, then such an act would void the insurance coverage. Clause 2(1)(c) of the Act appears to eliminate the above noted contractual limitations to a counsellor giving an apology. Specifically, this clause seems to remove the ability of an Insurer to later claim that an apology given by a counsellor to a wronged client, in particular one that was made without the Insurer's written consent, thus voids, impairs or otherwise affects the Insured Counsellor's coverage under that insurance contract. Coupled with the limitation on the use of an apology in a later civil proceeding, in my view there is probably no need for the limitations currently found in professional liability contracts that could be viewed as preventing counsellors from giving heartfelt and meaningful apologies when they have erred. However, these companies are not likely to remove these terms from their contracts, at least not in the near future.

Instead, in the face of BC's new Act, insurance companies are probably going to take the position that, because this new legislation removes the legal effect of an apology (i.e. that it is an admission of fault that could have otherwise be used in court as evidence of liability), any heartfelt and meaningful apology that is given by a counsellor to a wronged client would not now be viewed as a breach their contractual limitations. I anticipate that the insurance companies will take the position that, so long as the form and content of the counsellor's apology fits within the Act and cannot be used as an admission of liability in a civil action, counsellor would not have breached any condition or limit of the policy.

Because BC's Apology Act is still new, there are no reported cases at this writing which have considered this particular effect. I expect that, if an insurance company was to refuse to cover a counsellor under its plan because that counsellor had given an apology to a client (and had done so after the effective date of the new Act), a reviewing court of law would should find that clause 2(1)(c) has the effect of rendering such a contractual condition null and void. And therefore the Insurer must continue to protect the counsellor.

From a practical point of view and given the lack of judicial interpretations of this new legislation at this point in time, if a counsellor is considering giving an apology to a client, it would be prudent for that counsellor to talk to legal counsel prior to giving that apology to ensure that the counsellor would be protected by the new Apology Act.

Conclusion:
Giving a sincere apology to an aggrieved client can be a healing act for both the apologizing counsellor and the recipient and wronged client. With the new Apology Act in place, counsellors in BC are now freer to give apologies to their clients in appropriate circumstances, and to do so without fear that such statements could later be turned against them in a civil law suit or would breach their professional liability insurance policies, thus denying them coverage for their legal costs.

A counsellor's apology should be sincere, full and meaningful. The counsellor should take clear and direct responsibility for the wrong that was experienced by the client as a result of the counsellor's actions or omissions. This alone will go some distance to preventing if not later resolving complaints.

A final benefit of the new Act falls to the BCACC. With the removal of the legal impediments to giving apologies, the Inquiry Committee should also be able to achieve more timely and satisfying resolutions of complaints that are filed against counsellors. The Committee should no longer be faced by claims from the lawyers of respondent counsellors l that giving an apology to the client as a way to resolve a complaint could later be used against the apologizing counsellor.