Toronto Divisional Court 359/04
DATE: 20040720
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
(Divisional Court)
RE: Steven Tonner (responding party)
and
Doug Cunningham, John Burnett et al. (moving parties)
HEARD: July 19, 2004
BEFORE: Epstein J.
COUNSEL: Christopher Bredt and Amy Westland for the respondents, moving parties,
Steven Tonner, in person, responding.
E N D O R S E M E N T
This is a motion brought by the respondents to this judicial review for an order striking out or staying the applicant’s application for judicial review.
The applicant is a real estate agent and member of RECO. As such he is subject to the RECO internal discipline process. In May of 2003, a complaint was made against the applicant about certain alleged statements and conduct of the applicant. The complaint was referred to a panel of the discipline committee provided for pursuant to By-Law No. 10 of RECO to hear disciplinary and compliance matters concerning RECO members.
The committee held a hearing on June 2, 2004. The applicant was given notice but failed to attend. The committee is entitled, under its rules, to proceed in the absence of the applicant, and did so. On June 10, 2004, the committee released its decision and found the applicant had violated certain provisions of RECO’s Code of Ethics. The committee ordered the applicant pay a penalty of $5,000 and that he be placed on probation for two years.
The applicant was given notice that he had 30 days from July 19, 2004 to appeal the decision. If he had chosen to appeal, he had to have perfected the appeal by that date. It, of course, remains open to the applicant to seek an order extending the time within which he can appeal.
On July 5, 2004 Tonner served RECO with a notice of application for judicial review.
RECO submits that this court should exercise its discretion to strike or stay the application until the applicant has exhausted his appeal right under RECO’s by-laws.
I agree.
It is a general principle of administrative law that, absent special circumstances, alternative remedies should be exhausted before resorting to judicial proceedings. See: Canadian Pacific Limited v. Matsqui Indian Band (1995), 122 D.L.R. (4th) 129 (S.C.C.).
It is clear from the provisions of RECO by-law No. 10 that an appeal to the Appeals Committee is an adequate remedy. Section 59 of by-law 10 gives the applicant extensive rights to appear and make submissions and the Appeals Committee broad powers to confirm, reverse or vary the disposition of the Discipline Committee.
There is nothing in the record before me that assists the applicant in his argument that by-law 10 is ultra vires. I reject this argument.
Accordingly, I exercise my discretion and the application for judicial review is hereby struck.
If the parties cannot agree upon costs, they may make submissions to me in writing within 20 days.
July 20, 2004