|
Professionals - Costs
COMMENT
IMHO there is a clear tendency in administrative professional discipline cases to award costs at a much higher rate than other administrative cases, even compared to typical civil litigation costs. This to the extent that many professionals will be incentivized to accept the first ruling against them rather than contest it. I suspect this is an aspect of a provincial philosophy that the professions must not only regulate themselves, but fund that regulation too.
CASES
. Bacchus v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario
In Bacchus v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an RHPA appeal, this brought against "the decision of a Committee of the Discipline Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons" finding that the appellant "committed professional misconduct (the “Merits Decisions”), and the Committee decision ... revoking Dr Bacchus’ license and ordering him to pay costs of $451,461.61 (among other orders) (the “Penalty Decision”).".
Here the court considers the extreme College costs award against the losing appellant:(b) Costs
[37] With respect to costs, the Committee had no concerns as to the reasonableness of the costs incurred by the College to investigate and prosecute this matter. This is because the matter involved 5 separate Notices of Hearing, multiple allegations, and the hearing proceeded over 17 days and involved multiple witnesses and exhibits. The Committee noted that Dr. Bacchus did not make reasonable concessions that could have shortened the hearing, but rather, raised numerous objections that lengthened the hearing.
[38] We saw some of this pattern in this appeal in which Dr Bacchus raised numerous points that were obviously meritless (for example, that no deference is owed to credibility findings, and the entire argument respecting bias). The costs awarded were 2/3 of the College’s actual costs and expenses and this court has upheld awards calculated in this manner in other discipline cases: Walia v. College of Veterinarians, 2021 ONSC 4023, Bayfield v. College of Physiotherapists, 2014 ONSC 6570; Barrington v. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, 2011 ONCA 409. The award of costs in this case is very substantial indeed - $451,461.61 –and could be a barrier to access to justice. However, issues about Dr Bacchus’ ability to pay the award were not raised with the Committee and would have required evidence before the Committee could take an argument of relative impecuniosity into account to moderate an otherwise justified costs award. There was no such evidence before the Committee. I would not interfere with the Committee’s costs award. . Okafor v. Ontario College of Teachers
In Okafor v. Ontario College of Teachers (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a teacher's appeal [under s.35(1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act], here brought against "the decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers .... which found her guilty of professional misconduct ..." and from "the Discipline Committee’s penalty decision ... that ordered ... a five-month suspension, and costs in the amount of $60,000.00".
Here the court considered a high costs award in favour of the College:When assessing costs, the Discipline Committee failed to consider the College used an entire day of hearing time objecting to the admissibility of Dr. Carr’s evidence, and that the College was not successful in resisting the admission of all of his evidence?
[93] The Appellant submits that success at the hearing was divided given that: (a) the Appellant successfully challenged the expertise of a College witness; and (b) the College was not successful in resisting the admission of all of Dr. Carr’s evidence arising from a one day voir dire.
[94] Under the College’s Rules, the College’s costs are a flat rate of $10,000 per day. The College sought $80,000 in costs representing two-thirds of the tariff rate per hearing day and did not seek cost for the penalty phase of the hearing which were additional two days. The Discipline Committee was awarded $60,000 which is 50% of the tariff per day for the misconduct hearing, where typically two-thirds of the tariff rate are awarded. The Discipline Committee considered the relevant principles in awarding costs. Its award is less than what an entirely successful College would have likely been awarded. I find that the Discipline Committee made no reversible error in its award of costs.
|
