COURT FILE NO.: 360/02
DATE: 20031219
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
dunnet, jennings and c. campbell jj.
B E T W E E N:
FAMILY AND CREDIT COUNSELLING SERVICES YORK REGION
Applicant
(Appellant)
- and -
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF NOT-FOR-PROFIT COUNSELLING SERVICES
Respondent
Martin Rosenbaum and Bram Lecker, for the Appellant
David Stevens, for the Respondent
HEARD: December 19, 2003
JENNINGS J.: (Orally)
[1] This is an appeal from the March 8th, 2002 decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent denying the applicant reaccreditation as a member agency. Section 9(4) of the Ontario Association of Not-For-Profit Credit Counselling Services Act, provides for an appeal to this Court. It gives this Court broad discretion in dealing with appeals including the right to substitute the Court’s opinion for that of the Board.
[2] Although the applicant chose not to address the standard of review in its factum, we do not accept the respondent’s submission contained in its factum that the standard is reasonableness simpliciter. The absence of a privative clause, coupled with the broad statutory right of appeal suggests to us that the appropriate standard is one of correctness.
[3] The statute, a private act of the legislature, charges the respondent with the responsibility of regulating and governing the conduct of its member agencies, for establishing standards for member agencies and for establishing procedures for the accreditation of agencies and the suspension or expulsion of member agencies which fail to comply with those standards.
[4] The respondent has put in place an accreditation process based on standards established by its members, the most recent version of which was passed by the membership at an annual general meeting held in June, 2000. The applicant, along with all other members of the respondent received a copy of the association’s program manual setting out the requirements for accreditation. Pursuant to the enabling legislation, the respondent established procedures to deal with applications for the required periodic renewals of accreditations. The process of accreditation of an agency under the statute and by-laws of the association is set out in the extensive manual to which we have referred. That provides for a review and approval of the governance, administration and the development and delivery of the programs of agencies which are members of, or seek membership in, the association.
[5] The process includes a review of written descriptions/reports of formal or legal documents, information about the agency obtained from the results of surveys and questionnaires and most importantly, an on-site review. The on-site review is to consist of interviews of agency personnel and Board members and inspections of facilities, documents and records.
[6] The mandatory standards are scored by the review team which, “makes a recommendation for an agency’s accreditation based on its overall performance and on the seriousness and/or number of any deficiencies identified by the review process”. The review team prepares a report which goes to the agency and the report and agency’s comments are submitted to the accreditation committee for its recommendation. The final accreditation is made by the Board of the association.
[7] All of the above was done in this case. In its report of March 4th, 2002, leading to its recommendation denying reaccreditation, the accreditation committee expressed concern about the lack of information available at the time of the on-site review and it went on to say “many documents were provided in response to the on-site that should have been reviewed in preparation for their accreditation review. These documents were either created or amended only following the on-site review demonstrating that the agency had made little effort to comply prior to the on-site review. Despite their late effort, the agency continues to be non-compliant with respect to many ‘accreditation standards’.”
[8] We are not persuaded that the committee erred or that the Board erred in accepting the committee’s report. The recommendation of the accreditation committee was reviewed and confirmed by the Board of the association which gave reasons for its decision. We are not persuaded there was any error in this conclusion. We are not persuaded that the Board’s decision was tainted as urged by counsel for the appellant on the basis that the Board did not refer to having examined all the underlying documentation submitted by the agency before the accreditation committee. The Board had the report of the accreditation committee and as is evidenced from the Board’s decision, gave it due regard.
[9] The appellant was given the opportunity to appear before the Board on appeal from the denial, the appeal being limited by the respondent’s rules to procedural issues only. It should be noted that the enabling legislation does not provide for an appeal from a denial.
[10] In our opinion, the Board properly followed its own procedures which we find to be fair. There was ample material before the Board to support its decision, which in our opinion, was not only reasonable but correct. We find nothing to support the appellant’s bald allegations made in this Court of political motivation or procedural unfairness changing the Board’s decision. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
DUNNET J.
[11] The appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered by Jennings J. Costs to the respondent fixed at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.
DUNNET J.
JENNINGS J.
C. CAMPBELL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 19, 2003
Date of Release: January 22, 2004
COURT FILE NO.: 360/02
DATE: 20031219
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
dunnet, jennings and c. campbell jj.
B E T W E E N:
FAMILY AND CREDIT COUNSELLING SERVICES YORK REGION
Applicant
(Appellant)
- and -
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF NOT-FOR-PROFIT COUNSELLING SERVICES
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JENNINGS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 19, 2003
Date of Release: January 22, 2004