|
Education - Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005. BizTech v. Accreditation Canada
In BizTech v. Accreditation Canada (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court considered what are essentially two JRs, these opposing decisions by Accreditation Canada and the Superintendent of Career Colleges [under the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005], these resulting in the revocation of a college's educational program which "triggered a statutory right by BizTech students in the DMS Program to a full refund of their fees."
Here the court considers the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005 (OCCA), and the superintendent thereunder:The Superintendent
[10] The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities is authorized under the OCCA to appoint a Superintendent. The Superintendent, appointed under s. 2 of the OCCA, registers and oversees the institutions falling within the OCCA. Under s. 23 of the OCCA, if a career college wishes to offer a vocational program, they must apply to the Superintendent for approval of the program. The Superintendent shall approve the provision of a specified vocational program, if the Superintendent is satisfied that: (a) the program will provide the skills and knowledge required to obtain employment in a prescribed vocation; and (b) the program is likely to meet the applicable standards and performance objectives set out in the Superintendent’s policy directives. The Superintendent may approve of a program subject to conditions and may revoke the approval of a vocational program where it fails to meet the conditions of program approval or the applicable standards or performance objectives set out in the Superintendent’s policy directives.
[11] By virtue of s. 53 of the OCCA, the Superintendent is authorized to issue legally binding directives setting out standards for vocational programs or classes of vocational programs. The Superintendent has recognized CMRITO as the regulator for sonography programs under its policy directive dated January 1, 2024, titled "Career college programs that require regulator approval or accreditation". The Superintendent has recognized Accreditation Canada as the sole accreditor for sonography programs under the directive. . Haulage Network Driving Academy Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Career Colleges)
In Haulage Network Driving Academy Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Career Colleges) (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court allowed a JR, here regarding the question of whether the "Superintendent [is] empowered to immediately forfeit a college’s security bond every time she issues a proposal to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew the college’s registration" (a LAT appeal was allowed).
Here the court considers the procedural fairness to be accorded when forfeiting an administrative security bond:Was the Superintendent’s forfeiture decision procedurally fair?
[13] Haulage submits the forfeiture decision was procedurally unfair because Haulage did not receive notice of the Superintendent’s intention to forfeit the funds. It had no ability to challenge the forfeiture before it occurred. When the Superintendent wrote to Haulage on May 25, 2023, advising that its registration was suspended effective immediately, it notified Haulage that it was entitled to a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal, but not that its security bond would be declared forfeit before that hearing. When the Superintendent wrote to the bank on June 1, 2023 advising it to make payment of Haulage’s letter of credit to the Minister of Finance within two days, it did not advise Haulage that it was doing so.
[14] I find the Superintendent’s actions to have been procedurally unfair. Applying the Baker factors, Haulage was entitled to some degree of procedural fairness as described below:
....
Conclusion on Baker Factors
[30] Haulage submits that where a college appeals to the Tribunal, the Superintendent should wait until the outcome of an appeal before forfeiting the funds. I do not agree that waiting until the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing is necessarily required in every case. The Superintendent may reasonably conclude that doing so would unfairly prejudice the affected students in the circumstances of the case. In considering whether to exercise her discretion to forfeit funds before a Tribunal hearing, the Superintendent may consider factors such as whether the affected college has commenced an appeal, the timing of the Tribunal hearing, the complexity and strength of the appeal to the Tribunal, the anticipated impact on students of delay, and the anticipated impact on the college in the circumstances of each case. Proceeding with the forfeiture before the outcome of the Tribunal hearing may outweigh waiting for the proceeding to be completed.
....
[34] Haulage was entitled to some level of procedural fairness before its security was forfeited. Applying the factors above, forfeiture was a discretionary and not mandatory decision that should have involved looking at the circumstances of the individual case including the severe impact on Haulage and the strength of Haulage’s appeal. Because of the nature of the decision, the impact to Haulage and its legitimate expectation that the Superintendent’s approach would consider its circumstances, Haulage was entitled to notice that the Superintendent intended to forfeit the funds and an opportunity to respond.
Was the Superintendent’s forfeiture decision reasonable?
[35] For similar reasons, the Superintendent’s forfeiture decision was unreasonable. To be reasonable, a decision must be transparent, intelligible and justified in respect of the facts and the law: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, at paras. 15, 85.
[36] Here, the only justification found in the Superintendent’s internal memo recommending forfeiture and in its letter to RBC is that Haulage had ceased its operation and discontinued its programs before all students had completed their training. The Superintendent invoked s. 34(1) of the Regulation but did not attempt to justify the immediate forfeiture of the security in the circumstances of the case. Similarly, in this court, counsel did not suggest the court should find justification for the Superintendent’s decision in the record. The Superintendent’s position instead is that she is entitled to forfeit immediately in every case where notices like the ones in the current case are issued.
[37] The Superintendent’s decision regarding whether to forfeit funds is the type of discretionary decision that would attract significant deference from the court. However, as I have set out above, the Superintendent was required to consider the circumstances of the case to determine whether immediate forfeiture was appropriate. Having failed to do so, her decision was unreasonable. . Haulage Network Driving Academy Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Career Colleges)
In Haulage Network Driving Academy Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Career Colleges) (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court allowed a JR, here regarding the question of whether the "Superintendent [is] empowered to immediately forfeit a college’s security bond every time she issues a proposal to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew the college’s registration" (a LAT appeal was allowed).
Here the court illustrates some aspects of the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005 (OCCA) college registration regime, including a LAT appeal:[2] The applicant, Haulage Network Driving Academy Inc., is a family-owned trucking school that, until it stopped operating because of the circumstances giving rise to this matter, had three campuses across Ontario. To operate as a career college in Ontario, Haulage was required by statute to post a security bond. The security bond provides funds to ensure students who are enrolled in the college will be able to complete their training or receive a refund if the college’s operations are suspended or the college is closed down. Haulage’s total security bond was $97,000.
[3] The Superintendent exercises powers under the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 28, Sched. L (the Act) and its regulations. On May 25, 2023, following an investigation, the Superintendent issued notices of contravention, suspension and refusal to renew Haulage’s registration to operate (the notices). Approximately a week later, on June 1, 2023, the Superintendent deemed Haulage’s security bond forfeit.
[4] However, the Superintendent did not give Haulage notice of the decision to forfeit. On June 9, 2023, Haulage initiated an appeal of the Superintendent’s decisions to the Licence Appeal Tribunal. Haulage found out about the forfeiture from the Royal Bank of Canada, where its letters of credit had been held, some two weeks later, on June 23, 2023.
[5] The Tribunal heard the appeal over seven days in October 2023. It directed the Superintendent to lift the suspension and not to carry out the notice of proposal to refuse registration. It also directed the Superintendent to register Haulage effective immediately with several conditions in place. After receiving the Tribunal decision, Haulage requested the return of its $97,000 in security. The Superintendent denied this request and asked Haulage to provide a further $10,000 bond. . DGN Truck & Forklift Driving School v. Ontario Superintendent of Care
In DGN Truck & Forklift Driving School v. Ontario Superintendent of Care (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court allowed a JR from the issuance of 'Revocations of Program Approval' (presumably under the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005).
These quotes illustrate this rarely-litigated statutory regime:[1] The Applicants are career colleges. They each offer a program that is meant to satisfy the minimum education requirements for graduates to qualify for the Class A commercial driver licence examinations.
[2] On September 27, 2023, the Respondent, the Superintendent of Career Colleges (the “Superintendent”) issued a Revocation of Program Approval to the Applicant, DGN Truck & Forklift Driving School Ltd. (“DGN”) and on October 11, 2023, the Superintendent issued a Revocation of Program Approval to London Truck and Forklift Driving School (“London Truck”). ...
[3] On June 14, 2021, and March 17, 2022, the Superintendent sent letters addressed to registered career colleges at large that were offering programs to prepare graduates for Class A driver’s licensing examinations reminding them of their obligation to ensure that their programs were compliant with the Ministry of Transportation’s Standards (the “General Notices”). These letters were not specific to the Applicants or their programs.
[4] In June of 2023, investigators on behalf of the Superintendent conducted investigations of both Applicants’ programs. Reports were prepared of these investigations and forwarded to the Superintendent. As a result of these reports the Superintendent issued the Revocations of Program Approval that are the subject of this proceeding. No notice was sent to the Applicants that the Superintendent was considering revoking their program approvals, the Applicants were not provided with a copy of the reports that formed the basis for the revocations (or a summary of same) and they were not given an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by the investigators.
|
