Law360 Canada ( May 7, 2026, 9:34 AM EDT) -- Appeal by College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (College) and the Attorney General of British Columbia (AGBC) from a chambers judge’s declaration that ss. 26.2 and 53 (provisions) of the Health Professions Act (HPA) were unconstitutional for violating s. 96 of the Constitution Act. The declaration arose in Madryga’s civil action alleging the College, through its Prescription Review Program (PRP), improperly interfered with his pain treatment by pressuring his physicians to reduce high-dose opiate medications. During discovery, the College listed documents as privileged. Madryga applied for production, alternatively seeking judicial inspection, and further alternatively sought a declaration that the HPA provisions were invalid because they barred court review and prevented him from establishing his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) claim. The judge held the provisions imposed a complete prohibition on production and left no avenue for judicial review, thereby impinging the court’s core jurisdiction. On appeal, the College and AGBC argued the judge erred in reading the HPA as barring all court review, misapplied the s. 96 core jurisdiction doctrine, and failed to consider available procedural remedies, including ordering a better description of documents or reviewing the records. They submitted that nothing in the provisions ousted the court’s ability to assess privilege claims and that restricting admissibility did not equate to barring access to the courts. Madryga argued that the provisions created an absolute statutory bar, that the College previously resisted judicial review of the documents, and that the judge correctly found an unconstitutional infringement. The issues were whether the College had changed its position on appeal, whether the judge erred in interpreting the sections as barring review, whether she misapplied the core jurisdiction test, and whether she erred in failing to consider alternative procedural mechanisms....