CITATION: Morgan v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 1466

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 436/16 DATE: 20170302

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

SACHS, NORDHEIMER and GILMORE JJ.

BETWEEN:

JOHN W. MORGAN Applicant

– and –

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO Respondent

John W. Morgan, in person Tamara B. Center and Melissa Gentili, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: March 2, 2017

NORDHEIMER J. (Orally)

[1] John Morgan brings this application for judicial review of a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (the “ICAO”) dated July 15, 2014. In my view, this application must fail for two principal reasons.

[2] First, is the issue of delay. This application was launched more than two years after the decision was made, and only after the respondent began enforcement proceedings. No explanation was offered in the material, by the applicant, for this delay and the delay is excessive. Before us, Mr. Morgan says that he did not do anything because he did not think that he needed to until the ICAO took some further action. Mr. Morgan was not aware that under s. 19 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, the ICAO can simply file the discipline committee’s decision and it becomes an order of the court.

[3] While Mr. Morgan has explained the delay, it does not, with respect, excuse it. Delay is a sufficient reason, on its own, to dismiss the application: Gigliotti v. Conseil d’Administration du College des Grands Lacs (2005), 2005 23326 (ON SCDC), 76 O.R. (3d) 561 (Div. Ct.). As a general principle, there is, as in most matters, a need for disciplinary actions to be dealt with quickly and to have finality: Lowe v. Diebolt, [2014] B.C.J. 1417 (B.C.C.A.).

[4] Second, and in any event, there is the fact that the applicant did not avail himself of other remedies to address his complaint. Not only did Mr. Morgan not appear before the Discipline Committee to raise the objections that he had, more significantly, he did not exercise the right that he has, under the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Schedule C, to appeal the decision of the Discipline Committee to the Appeal Committee. Where an applicant has an adequate alternative remedy to cure a defect in a decision, such as an internal appeal or review mechanism, the courts will generally refuse to hear an application for judicial review on the merits: Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario (2012), 2012 ONCA 541, 111 O.R. (3d) 561 (C.A.). This reluctance reflects the reality that there may be no need for judicial intervention if the decision maker can provide an adequate remedy.

[5] I understand Mr. Morgan’s view that the ICAO’s process was stacked against him, but his belief is not a reasonable explanation for not availing himself of the processes that are statutorily provided to him.

[6] The application for judicial review is dismissed.

costs – Sachs J.

[7] I have endorsed the Appellant Application Record as follows: “This application is dismissed for reasons given orally by Nordheimer J. The Respondent has requested partial indemnity costs fixed in the amount of $23,197.57 plus HST. In our view, this request is totally excessive. This was a very straightforward matter that took a half an hour to argue. We agree that as the successful party, the Respondent is entitled to costs, but in our view a reasonable amount for those costs is $2,500.00, all inclusive. Consequently, we order the Applicant to pay the Respondent its costs, fixed in the amount of $2,500.00.”

NORDHEIMER J.

I agree

SACHS J.

I agree

GILMORE J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 2, 2017 Date of Release: March 3, 2017

CITATION: Morgan v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 1466 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 436/16 DATE: 20170302

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

SACHS, NORDHEIMER and GILMORE JJ.

BETWEEN:

JOHN W. MORGAN Applicant

– and –

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO Respondent

ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NORDHEIMER J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 2, 2017 Date of Release: March 3, 2017