Lisa S. Braverman

Following dismissal of an application by a professional regulatory body seeking to restrain alleged unauthorized practice under the Professional Foresters Act, 2000, the respondents sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $127,000.

The regulator argued that no costs should be awarded because the proceeding raised novel public-interest issues concerning regulation of professional forestry and the enforcement of statutory duties.

The court held that while regulators acting in the public interest may sometimes avoid costs, they are not automatically exempt from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.

Given the vigorous litigation pursued against the respondent, partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

The court awarded $90,000 in partial indemnity costs to the respondents.

The Ontario Professional Foresters Association (OPFA) brought an application against the respondent for allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of professional forestry and using prohibited designations under the Professional Foresters Act, 2000.

The OPFA relied heavily on the expert opinion of a former OPFA president.

The court found the expert evidence inadmissible due to a lack of independence and objectivity.

The court also held that the respondent was entitled to the statutory exception for work performed under the supervision of a registered professional forester, and that the quality of that supervision was not a relevant factor for the exception.

The court concluded the respondent did not breach the Act and dismissed the application.