Of course, what matters here is the meaning of the phrase “person aggrieved” in the Dentists Act and not its meaning in some other legislation. As Drost J. held in Findlay v. College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia,  B.C.J. No. 1785, 2000 BCSC 1311 at para. 25: Therefore, in order to arrive at the correct interpretation of the phrase "a person aggrieved" as it appears in the context of s. 55 of the Act, it is necessary to consider the objects and purposes of the Act and rules as a whole. The interpretation given to those words, or words of like intent, in other statutes, while of assistance, will not be determinative.
Drost J. referred to the passage quoted above from Attorney General of the Gambia v. N’Jie and concluded that the College may be a person aggrieved. However, he did not deal with the issue before me, namely, whether a member of the public who initiates a complaint may be a person aggrieved within the meaning of s. 55(1) of the Dentists Act.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.