C. MacLeod

Following an earlier decision granting regulatory relief, the court addressed the appropriate costs award in a compliance application brought by a professional regulatory college against an individual practitioner.

The respondent argued for reduced costs based on partial success, the importance of legal issues under recently enacted legislation, and financial hardship.

The court held that the applicant had effectively obtained the relief sought and that the respondent’s circumstances did not justify reducing the presumptive costs award.

The court emphasized that inability to pay is rarely relevant absent clear evidence of permanent inability to satisfy costs.

Costs were fixed at $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis payable by the respondent.

The regulatory college applied for injunctive relief under the Health Professions Procedural Code alleging that the respondent unlawfully practised traditional Chinese medicine and held herself out as a practitioner after the profession became regulated.

Evidence showed that the respondent, who was not registered with the college, examined an individual, communicated a traditional Chinese medicine diagnosis, used restricted titles, and represented herself through business materials as qualified to practise acupuncture.

The court found that the respondent communicated a diagnosis and held herself out as a practitioner contrary to the Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, 2006 and the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

The court concluded that providing health advice in these circumstances created a foreseeable risk of serious bodily harm and also breached statutory restrictions on the use of the title “Doctor.” The requested injunction was granted.

A residential home builder commenced an action to recover unpaid amounts under a construction contract and enforce a construction lien.

The homeowners argued that the governing contract price was an earlier quotation and that omitted items generated credits reducing the contract value, and they counterclaimed for deficiencies.

The court found that the binding agreement was the written contract executed by the homeowners after construction commenced, setting the contract price at $725,000 inclusive of GST.

The court rejected the homeowners’ interpretation that “omit” items created credits and held there was no documentary evidence supporting such a claim.

The construction lien was also found to have been registered within the statutory 45‑day period under the Construction Lien Act.

Judgment was granted to the builder subject to a modest deduction for proven deficiencies.