CITATION: Denturist Association of Ont. v. College of Denturists of Ont., 2010 ONSC 6962
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 591/10
DATE: 20101214
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FERRIER J.
BETWEEN:
DENTURIST ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
Applicant
– and –
THE COLLEGE OF DENTURISTS OF ONTARIO and LMS PROLINK LTD.
Respondents
Valerie D. Wise, for the Applicant
Pierre Champagne, for the Respondent, The College of Denturists of Ontario
Marg A. McKillop, for the Respondent,
LMS Prolink Ltd.
HEARD at Toronto: December 14, 2010
AMENDED ORAL REASONS
FERRIER J.
[1] In the judicial review application the Denturist Association of Ontario takes the position that a proposed compulsory Insurance Program covering members of the association, who are denturists practising in Ontario, is unlawful; other relief detailed in the Notice of Application is claimed.
[2] The appellant seeks interim declaratory and injunctive relief as set out in the draft order filed and attached to this endorsement.
[3] An issue of standing in the Denturist Association of Ontario is raised by the College but it is not necessary to decide the issue of standing.
[4] The proposed by-law has not been passed by the College and will not be considered by the Council of the College prior to February 11, 2011. Until then, members, and the Association, may have input and express their views to the College concerning the legality and otherwise of the proposed by-law.
[5] There has been a great deal of confusion in the way this matter has evolved; the situation that presently exists, especially in reference to the timing of any vote by Council on the proposed by-law, is not what the situation was in late November and early December 2010.
[6] Be that as it may, this motion is premature. Matters should be permitted to evolve in the College to the enactment of a by-law before any relief in a judicial review application should be granted. In this respect, I observe that the Divisional Court will not ordinarily accept jurisdiction by way of appeal or judicial review in respect of a preliminary or interlocutory decision of a tribunal. It is far better to let the proceeding run its full course and entertain one final appeal after it’s over. To do otherwise encourages endless interlocutory appeals, delays in the tribunal’s work and imposes great expense on the parties. In my view, the same concept applies to regulatory authorities.
[7] As Lane J. has said:
The Divisional Court has repeatedly taken the position that proceedings before administrative tribunals should not be fragmented. It is preferable to allow such matters to run their full course before the tribunal and then consider all legal issues arising from the proceedings at their conclusion against the backdrop of a full record. See Ontario College of Art v. OHRC (1993) 11 O.R. (3d) 788, 799-80; Latif v. OHRC (1992) 4 Admin. L.R. (3d) 227 at 229.
[8] Shortly put, there is ample authority for that proposition. I see no need to depart from that approach even where, as here, an interlocutory order and interim declaratory relief is sought, in the context of the issues in this matter.
[9] To avoid fragmented proceedings, matters should first run their course in the College.
[10] Accordingly, the motion for interim relief is dismissed.
COSTS
[11] On the question of costs, two observations, I think that one can fairly make. The College clearly bungled in its handling of the procedural aspects of the process of advancing the by-law for consideration by the Council and I include in that the notice to the members of the Association and the registrants of the College; the record clearly establishes that. Secondly, in the circumstances, I cannot fault the Association for launching the claims that it did for relief on an interim basis, up to at least December 7. Thereafter, the Denturist Association had a concern about the disclosure of information. Notwithstanding the College putting back the date to February 11, the Association had a remaining significant concern about the transmission of confidential information of the College.
[12] So, at least from that stand point I can’t fault the Association unduly for being here today. I appreciate that a great deal of work has been done on both sides and unfortunately there appears to be great animosity – at least on the part of some people involved – which is unfortunate. In my view, as a result of what has transpired in the past and the result today, there should be no order as to costs as between the Denturist Association and the College.
[13] As far as Prolink is concerned, Prolink did not file any material, although I appreciate that they would have to be here and be represented. But the work done was a matter of reviewing the material filed and being here today. In the circumstances, I am of the view that there should be no order as to costs regarding Prolink.
[14] Order accordingly.
FERRIER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 14, 2010
Date of Release (Oral Judgment): December 17, 2010
Date of Release (Amended Oral Judgment): January 6, 2011
CITATION: Denturist Association of Ont. v. College of Denturists of Ont., 2010 ONSC 6962
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 591/10
DATE: 20101214
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FERRIER J.
BETWEEN:
DENTURIST ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
Applicant
– and –
THE COLLEGE OF DENTURISTS OF ONTARIO and LMS PROLINK LTD.
Respondents
(AMENDED)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FERRIER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 14, 2010
Date of Release (Oral Judgment): December 17, 2010
Date of Release (Amended Oral Judgment): January 6, 2011