Licence Appeal Tribunal, File Number: 16326/OCCA
An appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration under s. 18(1) of the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 28, Sched. L (the "Act").
Between:
Toronto Centre of Excellence Inc.
Appellant
-and-
Superintendent under the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Robert Maich, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Arif Mahood Toor, Director
For the Respondent:
Teresa-Anne Martin, Counsel
David Westcott, Counsel
Heard by videoconference:
March 12 and 13, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Toronto Centre of Excellence Inc. (the "appellant") applied to be registered under the Ontario Career Colleges, 2005 S.O. 2005, c. 28 Sched. L (the "Act") as a career college. On September 24, 2024, following a background check of the application, the Superintendent under the Act (the "respondent") served the appellant with a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Register ("NOP") dated September 21, 2024 pursuant to subsection 18(1) of the Act.
2The respondent proposes to refuse the appellant's registration on the basis that the respondent is not satisfied the appellant meets all of the requirements set out in subsection 14(1) of the Act.
3The appellant filed an appeal with the Licence Appeal Tribunal ("Tribunal") on October 2, 2024, pursuant to section 19(3) of the Act.
ISSUES
4The issues to be determined are:
- Whether the appellant meets the requirements for registration pursuant to subsection 14(1) of the Act, specifically:
(a) Whether it is in the public interest to grant the appellant's registration pursuant to subsection 14(1)(a)of the Act;
(b) Whether the appellant will operate the career college in compliance with the Act and its regulations, pursuant to subsection 14(1)(b); and
(c) Whether the past conduct of the officers and directors of the appellant provides grounds for the belief that the career college will be operated in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, pursuant to subsection 14(1)(e) of the Act.
- Whether the Tribunal should, pursuant to subsection 19(6) of the Act, by order direct the Superintendent to: carry out the NOP, refrain from carrying out the NOP, attach conditions to the career college's registration or take any other actions it considers appropriate.
RESULTS
5The appellant does not meet the requirements for registration pursuant to subsection 14(1) of the Act, specifically:
(a) The Tribunal is not satisfied that it is in the public interest to grant the appellant's registration pursuant to subsection 14(1)(a);
(b) The Tribunal is not satisfied that the appellant will operate the career college in compliance with the Act and its regulations, pursuant to subsection 14(1)(b); and
(c) The Tribunal is not satisfied that the past conduct of the officers and directors of the appellant provides grounds for the belief that the career college will be operated in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, pursuant to subsection 14(1)(e).
6The Tribunal directs the Superintendent to carry out the NOP.
LAW
7Pursuant to s. 14(1) of the Act, the Superintendent under the Act, must register a proposed applicant to operate a career college if the Superintendent is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements set out in s.14(1) of the Act.
8Section 18(1) of the Act allows the Superintendent to refuse to register an applicant if the Superintendent is not satisfied that all of the requirements described in section 14(1) are met.
9The respondent accepted that it bore the onus to demonstrate the grounds for the NOP on a balance of probabilities.
10Pursuant to s. 19(6) of the Act, the Tribunal has the power to order the Superintendent to carry out the proposal, to refrain from carrying out the proposal, to attach conditions to it, or to take such other action as the Tribunal considers appropriate.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
11The respondent called three witnesses at the hearing: Terry Tretter, Manager Compliance of the Superintendent ("Tretter"), Lisa Reed, Investigator Designate of the Superintendent ("Reed"), Charlotte Smaglinski, Superintendent of Career Colleges ("Superintendent"). The appellant called two witnesses: Arif Toor, director of the appellant ("Toor"), and Muhammad Hali, director of Scholarship Council Canada ("Hali").
12The Career Colleges Branch received an application from the appellant for registration of a new career college and assigned it to a Designate of the Superintendent of Career Colleges, Ms Reed, to make inquiries and conduct a background check on the corporation and its sole director, Mr. Toor, pursuant to s. 38 of the Act, and report to the Superintendent of Career Colleges.
13Ms Reed prepared the Report of Investigation File Number 2024022 ("the report") over a period of approximately eight months pursuant to section 38 of the Act.
14The respondent submitted that Ms Reed's report demonstrated the appellant's director Mr. Toor did not declare in the Program Approval and Registration System ("PARIS") Applicant Profile and Reference Section, his involvement in other entities relevant to the application, specifically:
Alpha Management and Training Services - Ontario Business Name Registration – sole proprietorship – active as of January 17, 2024.
CanSmile Immigration & Business Consultancy Inc. – Federal Corporation – active as of July 11, 2024.
NSRIC (Nature Science Research and Innovation Centre) International College – Business Name Approval (BNA) application of September 19, 2023.
Scholarship Council Canada Inc. – Federal Corporation – active as of January 16, 2024.
15The respondent submits Ms Reed's report outlines two primary areas of concern: Mr. Toor's failure to disclose his involvement in these other entities, and activities by Mr. Toor involving these entities, which show the appellant does not meet the requirements for registration.
16The appellant submits Mr. Toor did nothing wrong nor engaged in any action that has resulted in a failure to meet a requirement described in with section 14(1) of the Act.
Alpha Management and Training Services ("Alpha")
17The respondent submits Mr. Toor registered Alpha as a sole proprietorship on November 22, 2010, and that it is still an active business registration. Its principal place of business is listed in corporate documents as 730 Yonge St., Suite 209, Toronto, ON.
18Ms. Reed testified regarding the results of her investigation, consistently with her report. The report states that Alpha's website, www.alphamt.org, appears to have been dormant since sometime after January 2019; the Internet Archive from 2012 provides the website as it was then. The respondent submitted that Alfa offered programs that mostly appear to be designed for in-company training; however, some courses, such as "How to Become a Private Detective" – 60 hours, $4940 USD, were viewed by the respondent to be vocational in nature, the advertisement of which contravened s.11 and s.33 of the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 28. ("PCCA"), according to the respondent.
19With respect to the concern regarding the failure to include information about Alpha on the appellant's PARIS Applicant Profile, the appellant submits it made an error as it believed a sole proprietorship by Mr. Toor was not required to be included, and apologized for the mistake. With respect to the concern regarding whether Alpha, not registered as a private career college, advertised a vocational program contrary to the requirements of s. 11 and s. 33 of PCCA, Mr. Toor testified that the title of the course, "How to Become a Private Detective," did not indicate it was vocational training. Upon cross-examination designate Ms. Reed admitted she did not review the course outline or syllabus as the web archive did not preserve it, nor was it available to evaluate and substantiate her findings.
20Mr. Toor testified the course did not run every day in the date range indicated on the website and only ran 3 to 4 hours per day. He stated that it was designed for Nigerian students who were taking the course for the dual purpose of both learning and visiting Canada to gain familiarity with the country. Mr. Toor testified the course included organized tours on two days and extensive free time each day the course ran; the course did not offer enough instructional hours to qualify as a vocational course.
21I find although it strains reason that an individual would pay significant fees for a course that is not a vocational program, it is the respondent's onus to prove its assertions on a balance of probabilities. Given the limited evidence available to the respondent, I find the respondent did not meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that Alpha advertised a vocational course in violation of and contrary to s. 11(1) and s. 33 of the PCCA.
22However, I find that the appellant was obligated to disclose Mr. Toor's sole proprietorship Alpha in the PARIS Application Profile and failed to do so.
CanSmile Immigration & Business Consultancy Inc. ("CanSmile")
23The respondent submitted the appellant failed to disclose his role as a director in CanSmile in the PARIS Applicant Profile. The report stated that on January 29, 2024, during a phone call discussing other businesses for which Mr. Toor was director, Mr. Toor told Reed that he omitted CanSmile because he had "resigned" and was no longer involved in it. He stated that a few months ago, he had asked for his name to be 'taken out.' The report indicated, however, that as of July 2024, Mr. Toor was still listed as a director of CanSmile.
24The appellant largely agreed with these facts but added that CanSmile was a project of one of Mr. Toor's students, whom he assisted with the project. Mr. Toor testified he resigned from CanSmile and requested his name be removed as a director. It was for this reason Mr. Toor failed to register it on the PARIS Applicant Profile. He testified he was completely open with Ms Reed about his role with CanSmile. Upon cross-examination Ms Reed agreed with Mr. Toor about his openness on this subject.
25I find that the appellant did not obstruct the investigation in respect of disclosure of Mr. Toor's role in CanSmile, rather he openly disclosed his omission to Ms Reed. Further I find any error with respect to the registration of Mr. Toor's resignation is not a matter within his control given his request to be removed as a director. However, it was an omission on the part of Mr. Toor not to confirm removal of his name as a director. nevertheless it was not a failure to disclose on the PARIS Applicant Profile as the appellant did take steps to resign.
NSRIC (Natural Science Research and Innovation Centre) International College
26The respondent submits that Mr. Toor did not disclose his role with NSRIC in the PARIS Applicant Profile as required. The report states that on September 19, 2023, NSRIC Inc. submitted a Business Name Approval (BNA) application to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities for approval to register the name: "NSRIC (Nature Science Research and Innovation Centre) International College in Toronto"; its BNA application included a Business Plan which provided information relating to Mr. Toor.
27The respondent further submitted that NSRIC Inc. violated s. 11(1) of the Act, through wording on its website describing it as a career college despite it not being registered. Subsection 11(1) provides that no person shall advertise a career college unless the person is registered.
28The appellant submitted that Mr. Toor had no association with NSRIC Inc. other than a declined job offer, and had no knowledge of the use of his name by NSRIC Inc. Mr. Toor testified he was offered a teaching position by Dr. Ambareen Atisha of NSRIC Inc., which Mr. Toor declined due to a potential conflict with his other teaching commitments.
29Mr. Toor testified that upon Ms Reed advising him of the reference to him in the NSRIC Inc. application, he contacted the CEO of NSRIC, Dr. Enamul Hossain, and requested that any reference to him in any materials be deleted. I find this evidence of Mr. Toor to be credible and supported by the email chain between Mr. Toor and Dr. Hossain dated September 25, 2024. However, I find that Mr. Toor did not persist to ensure NSRIC removed his name from its materials.
30I find that Mr. Toor did not authorize use of his name by NSRIC Inc., and had no knowledge or part of the activities of NSRIC Inc. in violation of the Act. I find Mr. Toor is not associated with NSRIC Inc. and cannot be held accountable for its actions. The respondent has not met its burden in this regard.
Scholarship Council of Canada ('SCC")
31The respondent submits that the appellant failed to disclose his role with SCC, that the activities of SCC were questionable and amounted to a "fee scam", and that Mr. Toor obstructed the investigation designated to Ms. Reed.
32The respondent submitted the appellant was obligated to disclose Mr. Toor's role as director of SCC in the PARIS Application Profile and failed to do so. Mr. Toor updated his information into PARIS once the omission was identified by Ms Reed.
33The respondent submits the report details the following chronology of SCC's activities: a domain name www.scholarshipcouncil.com was first created on August 31, 2014; a Facebook page was established on September 1, 2014, as "Scholarship Council"; SCC was federally incorporated on January 1, 2021; the Facebook page was renamed Scholarship Council Canada on February 24, 2021; an Instagram account "Scholarship Council Canada" was established in March 2021; and an 'X' account for Scholarship Council Canada was established in April 2021.
34The respondent submits the report outlines that the SCC website represents that it is associated with 50,000 universities, 80,000 colleges and 200,000 scholarships; it also contained numerous pages referring to legitimate institutional scholarships with a link to an application to be submitted to SCC. The SCC website also indicates SCC staff will review applications, assign applications a code, rank applications, and, if the application is acceptable, SCC will forward it to SCC's educational partners. In addition, the SCC website indicates the successful applicants will receive an offer letter with information about their program and scholarship, plus SCC will guide the successful candidates about further processes to obtain travel permits and other requirements.
35The respondent further submits the report outlines that the SCC application process required detailed information from the applicants including copies of national identity cards and/or passports, details of their education, plus personal physical and psychological health details.
36The respondent also submits the report outlines how the SCC website referenced "Homework Lab" $1,000 scholarship prizes with an SCC application link and information that presented it in a manner that gave the impression the $1,000 scholarship was an SCC contest program.
37The respondent submitted the report detailed that the SCC application included a paywall for non-refundable application fees of $23.50 USD. Ms Reed testified that numerous social media reviews complained of the SCC application process, with some warning it is a scam for fees.
38Ms Reed testified that she directly confronted Mr. Toor with this information and inquired whether SCC was a fee scam. Ms Reed testified Mr. Toor responded inconsistently about the amount of the fees and the timelines the fees were in place; specifically, whether the fees were eliminated a year ago or six months ago, and whether the fess were $10.00, $22.50 or $47.00.
39Mr. Toor testified that the SCC organization was philanthropic in nature and the fees were put in place to address the issue of student applicants submitting multiple applications under the mistaken belief it would increase their chances of gaining a scholarship.
40Further, Mr. Toor testified that only 45 students paid SCC application fees during his involvement with SCC, and that he designed and offered to these 45 students a complimentary web-based program on how to apply to a Canadian university.
41Regarding the "Homework Lab" $1,000 scholarship contest, Mr. Toor testified he had set up a $1,000 scholarship contest out of money from his own pocket and identified 5 potential winners who could claim the scholarship if successful in a career college application; the $1,000 scholarship was to be paid directly to the institution. The evidence from both parties substantiated that one individual succeeded in gaining admission to a career college and paid a $500 deposit directly to a college. Unfortunately, the college could not accept third party funds from Mr. Toor/SCC for the $1,000 scholarship and it was not awarded. Further, the successful applicant was unsuccessful in obtaining a student visa and lost the $500 deposit paid to the college.
42While Mr. Toor provided answers to the fee and scholarship concerns raised by the respondent, I note that he apparently found it necessary to compensate the students who paid application fees with a complimentary course, which is puzzling if the scholarship processing promised was properly completed. Also why did Mr. Toor feel it necessary to facilitate a $1,000 scholarship program himself, if the "Homework Lab" $1,000 scholarship was properly represented as a third-party program. Mr. Toor's conduct demonstrates at the very least a disorganized approach to matters with seemingly random solutions that are not necessarily focused on the issue at hand, and which could understandably lead to disappointment on the part of those engaging with the organization.
43The respondent submits that the appellant did not cooperate with Ms Reed's investigation, to the extent of obstruction. One specific example explored extensively in Ms Reed's testimony was that she asked Mr. Toor repeatedly for quarterly reports for SCC he had referenced earlier, but he did not provide them. Mr. Toor testified at this hearing that the quarterly reports were informal texts but did not disclose this information to Ms Reed at the time of her requests. Further, Mr. Toor testified that Ms Reed asked him for many items, and he had difficulty addressing all her concerns, but he maintained in his testimony that he provided all items that Reed requested in writing.
44Further, Mr. Toor testified he cooperated fully with Ms Reed, and he had "nothing to hide". He testified that he had voluntarily offered Ms Reed access to his cell phone and laptop. Ms Reed confirmed this under cross examination and indicated she captured some items from Mr. Toor's devices that were included in the respondent's disclosure.
45Mr. Toor in his testimony complained that Ms Reed presented in the report items that he did not have an opportunity to address. Ms Reed testified that she was continuously open to accept any evidence Mr. Toor wished to submit throughout her investigation.
46It may be that Mr. Toor, in his disorganization and carelessness, missed opportunities to advocate for himself during the investigation by submitting relevant evidence that could have cleared up some of the issues. For example he could have chosen to submit the paywall records for SCC to clear up the issues respecting fees, notwithstanding that Ms Reed did not specifically request them. I accept Ms Reed's testimony she would accept evidence from Mr. Toor that may assist him. Furthermore, Mr. Toor did not, as noted above, provide SCC quarterly reports to Ms Reed, or explain why they were not forthcoming, and had challenges responding thoroughly to all of her inquiries.
47I note that should I accept Mr. Toor's testimony at face value, it would still reveal a level of disorganization and carelessness incompatible with ensuring compliance with the regulatory structure governing the operation of a career college. I further note that Mr. Toor acknowledged in his testimony his carelessness in respect to his role with SCC. I find Mr. Toor's admission of carelessness is sufficient in itself to provide grounds for the respondent to believe the appellant would not operate a career college within requirements of the Act.
48I find that it is not necessary to determine if Mr. Toor obstructed the investigation or determine whether he engaged in some nefarious activity. I find Mr. Toor to have been at a minimum so careless in his role with SCC that, on the basis of his past conduct, I am not satisfied that the appellant will operate a career college in compliance with the Act and the regulations, and in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, as required by sections 14(1)(b) and 14(1)(e) of the Act, for the above stated reasons. In respect to section 14(1)(a) I am also not satisfied that it is in the public interest to grant registration.
CONCLUSION
49I find that the respondent has discharged its onus for belief that the appellant has not met the requirements of section 14(1) of the Act and may refuse the application pursuant to section 18(1) of the Act for the above stated reasons.
50The cumulative effect of Mr. Toor's disorganization and carelessness causes me to find that the respondent did have a reasonable belief that the appellant would not operate a career college in compliance with the Act. His role in each of the enterprises outlined above, taken in combination, is a strong indicator of overall disorganization and carelessness incompatible with participation in an enterprise regulated with a view to public protection.
51I find in respect to Alpha, Mr. Toor was obligated to disclose his activity when applying, yet failed to do so. He stated he failed to disclose because he did not believe a sole proprietorship was subject to disclosure. It is an applicant's responsibility to know and understand the forms and disclosure required for registration. This failure is indicative of disorganization and carelessness.
52I find in respect to CanSmile, Mr. Toor failed to disclose his activity, again because he did not take time to determine to discover what was required of him for disclosure in the application process. He believed he had resigned, but the records did not reflect it. It was Mr. Toor's responsibility to confirm his resignation and again this failure is indicative of disorganization and carelessness.
53I find in respect to NSRIC, that Mr. Toor did not authorize use of his name by NSRIC, I find that Mr. Toor did not persist to ensure NSRIC removed his name from its materials. I find that Mr. Toor did not persist to ensure NSRIC removed his name from its materials and it was Mr. Toor's responsibility to confirm his name was removed from NSRIC materials; again, his omission to follow up with NSRIC is indicative of disorganization and carelessness.
54I find in respect to SCC, that Mr. Toor was not thorough in addressing the concerns that arose in the investigation. He did not offer information and records that were relevant to and could perhaps have easily allayed the investigator's concerns about financial abuse of vulnerable persons through the SCC organizational paywall. Mr. Toor acknowledged in his testimony his carelessness in respect to his role with SCC in terms of both responding to organizational challenges and responding to the investigation. I find that this level of disorganization is indicative of foundational shortcomings incompatible with the skills required to operate a regulated enterprise in compliance with the law.
55I find the cumulative effect of disorganization and carelessness stated above are foundational shortcomings that causes me to confirm that the respondent did have a reasonable belief that the appellant would not operate a career college in compliance with the Act. I therefore find that the respondent has satisfied its burden under ss. 14(1)(a), (b), and (e) of the Act.
ORDER
56The Tribunal issues the follow orders and directions pursuant to section 19(6) of the Act:
i. The Tribunal directs the Superintendent to carry out the proposal specified in the NOP.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Robert Maich, Vice-Chair
Released: May 21, 2025