Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 7695/PCCA
CASE NAME: 7695 v. Registrar, Private Career Colleges Act, 2005
Appeal from a Proposal of the Registrar under the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 28, Sch. L to Refuse to Renew Registration
Toronto School of Technology Inc. Applicant
-and-
Registrar, Private Career Colleges Act, 2005 Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Terrance A. Sweeney, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Harris M. Rosen, Counsel Sara M. Hickey, Counsel
For the Respondent: L. Glenn Frelick, Counsel Melanie Herbin, Counsel
Heard in Toronto, Ontario: May 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 14, 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
This is a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) arising out of a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar, Private Career Colleges Act, 2005 (the “Registrar” and the “Act” respectively.) The Notice of Proposal dated October 4, 2012 proposed to refuse to renew the registration of Toronto School of Technology Inc. (the “Applicant” or the “School”) under the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence and the submissions of Counsel. The Respondent has proven his case on a balance of probabilities. The registration of the Applicant will not be renewed for the reasons which follow.
EVIDENCE
For the Respondent
Wade Crevier
Mr. Crevier is the Manager of the Compliance and Enforcement Unit in the Private Career Colleges branch. He only joined the branch on May 7, 2012.
He received a first draft of a memo on the Applicant from the lead investigator, Mr. Clifford McLeod, in June, 2012. The memo raised concerns about the Applicant under three headings:
- unexplained refunds to students;
- the delivery of vocational programs in an unapproved manner; and
- poor record-keeping by the Applicant.
Mr. Crevier was informed that there was evidence that some instructors at the School were running two classes at the same time and sometimes from two different locations. Some of the students were accessing the courses remotely, which was not an approved method of delivery.
The student files did not contain evaluations and transcripts of student marks were not being uploaded as required by the Regulations to the Act. Mr. Crevier was particularly concerned when he learned that the Applicant was providing unauthorized "refunds" to students.
Most of the students were funded by Second Career: a program administered by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (“MTCU”), which is jointly funded by the Federal and Ontario governments, and is designed to provide skills training to help laid-off workers find jobs.
In the two-year period January, 2010 to February, 2012, 92 of the 109 students at the School received refunds totalling $103,630.39.
The Applicant would issue a receipt to a student for fees required. The fee was broken down into four parts:
(i) tuition; (ii) books; (iii) materials; and (iv) examinations.
The student would obtain financing from Second Career and pay the School which, in most cases, would subsequently issue a refund. Second Career was not aware of the refunds and is currently attempting to recover them from the students.
Mr. Crevier joined Mr. McLeod in a site visit to the School in August, 2012 when they interviewed Mr. Pu, the owner of the School, and Mr. Vanderkuur, the Associate Director. Mr. McLeod then finalized his proposal. Mr. Crevier took it to the Superintendent who approved it and issued the Notice of Proposal which is 32 pages long and contains 92 paragraphs.
On cross-examination, Mr. Crevier said that he and the Superintendent decided on this course of action because of the "