Robert H. Ratcliffe

The appellant, Pro-Demnity Insurance Company, brought an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) seeking a determination that s. 2(5) of the Architects Act does not prevent it from expanding its insurance business.

The application judge held he had jurisdiction but declined to exercise it, finding it more appropriate for the Superintendent of Financial Services to determine the question in the context of the appellant's pending licence amendment application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's discretionary decision was reasonable.

The appellants, the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, appealed a decision regarding the enforcement of sponsorship debts against eight sponsors whose relatives received social assistance.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the government has a duty to collect the full sponsorship debt, it retains a limited discretion to defer enforcement based on a sponsor's circumstances.

In exercising this discretion, the government owes a minimal duty of procedural fairness to notify the sponsor, allow them to explain their circumstances, consider those circumstances, and notify them of the decision.

The Court found that Ontario's debt collection policy did not improperly fetter its discretion and met the requirements of procedural fairness.