Biztech Institute Inc. v. Accreditation Canada, 2025 ONSC 2455
CITATION: Biztech Institute Inc. v. Accreditation Canada, 2025 ONSC 2455
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000091-00JR
DATE: 2025-04-24
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
S.T. Bale, Nakatsuru and Shore JJ.
BETWEEN:
Biztech Institute Inc.
Applicant
– and –
Ontario (Superintendent of Career Colleges), Accreditation Canada and College of Medical Radiation and Imaging Technologists of Ontario
Respondents
Counsel:
David Levangie, Teodora Obradovic and Shannon Reid, for the applicant
Christopher Thompson and Liam Dart, for Ontario (Superintendent of Career Colleges)
Aaron Rubinoff, John Siwiec and Joshua Nutt, for Accreditation Canada
Benjamin Kates and Amy Block, for the College of Medical Radiation and Imaging Technologists of Ontario
Heard: April 9, 2025, at Toronto.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
[1] Biztech Institute Inc. has applied for judicial review of a decision of Accreditation Canada dated January 27, 2025, and a decision of the Superintendent of Career Colleges dated March 31, 2025. In its decision, Accreditation Canda gave Biztech’s diagnostic medical sonography (DMS) program a “Not Accredited” status. In her decision, the Superintendent revoked her approval of the program because of the loss of accreditation. The program had been operating since October 2020 pursuant to a conditional accreditation which was set to expire on January 31, 2025. As of the date of the revocation decision, there were approximately 41 students in the program.
[2] We heard Biztech’s application for judicial review on April 9, 2025, together with two motions. The first was a motion made by Biztech for a stay of the Superintendent’s revocation decision pending our disposition of the judicial review application. The second was a motion made by Accreditation Canada for a stay of the application under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991. We reserved judgment on the judicial review application and the motion to stay the application in favour of arbitration. On the motion to stay the revocation decision pending disposition of the judicial review application, we issued a temporary stay which expires today.
[3] For the reasons that follow, the temporary stay of the Superintendent’s revocation decision will not be continued and Biztech’s motion for a stay is dismissed.
Background facts
[4] On January 30, 2025, Biztech notified the Superintendent of Career Colleges that Accreditation Canada had revoked its DMS program accreditation status. Biztech stated that it planned to challenge the decision in Divisional Court and requested that the Superintendent pause any revocation of the program pending disposition of a planned emergency stay motion.
[5] On March 11, 2025, the Superintendent wrote to Biztech advising that having regard to the loss of accreditation, she proposed to revoke the program’s approval. She gave reasons for the proposed revocation and advised that in recognition of the potential impacts of a revocation, and in light of Biztech’s request for a pause, she was amenable to receiving further information before making her final decision. She asked that any such further information be provided by March 17, 2025.
[6] In a letter dated March 14, 2025, Biztech made submissions to the Superintendent in response to her proposal to revoke the DMS program approval and asked that her decision be delayed until this court releases its decision on the judicial review application. On March 31, 2025, the Superintendent revoked the program’s approval, again giving reasons for doing so.
Motion to stay under s. 4 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act
[7] In Halton District School Board v. Ontario (Special Education (English) Tribunal), 2004 10316 (ON SCDC), [2004] O.J No. 1149 (Div. Ct.), at para. 25, the court set out the test for a stay under s. 4 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act. The moving party must show:
• that there is a serious issue to be tried; • that the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the order is not granted; and • that the balance of convenience favours granting the order; that is, the potential harm to the applicant if the order is not granted outweighs the potential harm to the respondent and to the public interest should the interim order be granted.
Serious issue to be tried
[8] The Superintendent concedes that there is a serious issue to be tried, because of Biztech’s challenge to the accreditation decision upon which her revocation decision is, in part, based.
Irreparable harm
[9] Section 25 of O. Reg. 415/06 under the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005 provides that where a college’s approval to provide a program is revoked by the Superintendent, the college is required to give students a refund of all fees paid for the program. In the present case, Biztech says that the refunds required to be paid to DMS students will exceed $1.3 million, and that the college will have no other option but to cease operation and declare bankruptcy.
[10] Biztech says that if it ceases operation, the DMS students will lose the benefit of their education; the college’s 22 full-time and 12 part-time employees will lose their jobs; and more than 68 students in other programs will also lose the benefit of their education, triggering a further refund obligation of $878,000. Biztech argues that unless the revocation decision is stayed, its challenge to the accreditation decision (whether by judicial review or in arbitration) will become moot. On this basis, Biztech argues that it will suffer irreparable harm if the revocation decision is not stayed.
[11] However, while submitting that if the decision is not stayed, it will have no alternative but to declare bankruptcy, Biztech does not provide any evidence to support its inability to both comply with its refund obligations and continue to carry on business. Biztech argues that the Superintendent has copies of its financial statements and could have put them before the court. However, the statements are not in evidence and the onus to prove its inability to pay is on Biztech.
[12] Biztech’s submission that it will have no other option but to cease operation and declare bankruptcy is a bald assertion of Biztech’s president, Harpal Dharna. However, even if Biztech itself does not have the required funds, before any meaningful weight could be placed on his assertion, evidence relating to the ability of the college to raise the required financing, and evidence of the personal finances of Biztech’s principals, would be required.
[13] We also note that it is not accurate to say that that if Biztech ceases operation, the DMS students will lose the benefit of their education. If Biztech does cease operation, the students will still be able to use the PLAR (prior learning assessment and recognition) process which will offer them the opportunity to use their prior learning to earn credits at another college.
[14] In the result, although we agree that the loss of a business and the rendering moot of a cause of action may amount to irreparable harm, in this case, Biztech has not satisfied us that irreparable harm is likely to occur, if the requested stay is not granted.
Balance of convenience
[15] Biztech argues that if the stay is not granted, the revocation decision “will have an existential impact on the college, its business, its students, and its employees.” Conversely, it argues, there is no harm in preserving the status quo. It has made progress toward compliance and a stay will allow the court time to consider Accreditation Canada’s motion for a stay under the Arbitration Act, 1991, and if that is unsuccessful, time to consider the judicial review application.
[16] However, we do not accept the argument that students in the DMS program will necessarily be better off if the revocation decision is stayed. As the matter now stands, the students are entitled to a full refund of the money they have paid to Biztech. If the revocation decision is stayed, they would lose that entitlement. As the Superintendent points out, they would then have two choices. The first would be to voluntarily withdraw from the program, obtain a partial or no refund depending upon how long they have been in the program, and then pay for training elsewhere (without the benefit of the refund to which they are now entitled). The second would be to continue in Biztech’s unaccredited program, with uncertainty as to the duration of the judicial or arbitration process, and uncertainty as to whether the program will ever return to accredited status.
[17] Between January 23, 2025, and February 26, 2025, the Superintendent received approximately 14 written concerns or complaints from students in the DMS program. These complaints mirror the unenviable choice referred to above. The students express financial and emotional distress and feel trapped – the college is refusing to refund their fees to allow them to seek training elsewhere, with the result that they are forced to remain in an unaccredited program which, unless Biztech’s judicial review application is successful and its conditional accreditation is restored, will not allow them to take the Sonography Canada examination required for entry into the profession.
[18] In assessing the balance of convenience, the court must balance the potential harm to the moving party if the stay is not granted, against the potential harm to the responding party and the public interest if the stay is granted. In the present case, the public interest tips the balance in favour of denying the motion in order that the students may get on with their studies and their lives.
Disposition
[19] For the reasons given, the temporary stay of the Superintendent’s revocation decision will not be continued and Biztech’s motion for a stay is dismissed.
“S.T. Bale J.”
“Nakatsuru J.”
“Shore J.”
Released: April 24, 2025
CITATION: Biztech Institute Inc. v. Accreditation Canada, 2025 ONSC 2455
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO. DC-25-00000091-00JR
DATE: 2025-04-24
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
S.T. Bale J., Nakatsuru J. and Shore J.
BETWEEN:
Biztech Institute Inc.
Applicant
– and –
Ontario (Superintendent of Career Colleges) and others
Respondents
REASONS FOR DECISION
S.T. Bale J. Nakatsuru J. Shore J.
Released: April 24, 2025