3 total
Costs of $45,000 awarded against unsuccessful applicants in judicial review; public interest litigation argument rejected.
Following the dismissal of their judicial review application, the applicants argued they should not pay costs because the application was public interest litigation.
The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding the application was motivated by the practitioner applicants' commercial interests.
The court awarded costs of $30,000 to the Transitional Council and $15,000 to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, finding the Transitional Council's initial claim of up to $125,297.56 excessive.
The court ordered all applicants, including patient applicants, to be jointly and severally liable for the costs.
Application challenging Traditional Chinese Medicine Act regulations as ultra vires and unconstitutional dismissed.
The applicants sought a declaration that Ontario Regulation 27/13 under the Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, 2006 was ultra vires and breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.
They argued the regulation failed to create a 'doctor' class of practitioners and imposed discriminatory English or French language fluency requirements.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulation was intra vires, there is no section 7 Charter right to practice a profession unfettered by regulation, and language alone is not a protected ground under section 15.
Human rights application regarding draft acupuncture regulations dismissed at summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant, an anatomical acupuncturist, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of ancestry and place of origin by proposing a draft registration regulation that would exclude anatomical acupuncturists from the new College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the application was premature as the regulation was only in draft form and had not yet prevented the applicant from applying.
Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of establishing a breach of section 13 of the Human Rights Code, as the draft materials and presentations did not demonstrate an intention to discriminate.
The application was dismissed.
