Robert H. Ratcliffe

The appellant, Pro-Demnity Insurance Company, brought an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) seeking a determination that s. 2(5) of the Architects Act does not prevent it from expanding its insurance business.

The application judge held he had jurisdiction but declined to exercise it, finding it more appropriate for the Superintendent of Financial Services to determine the question in the context of the appellant's pending licence amendment application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's discretionary decision was reasonable.

The applicants sponsored family members immigrating to Canada and signed undertakings to provide for their financial needs.

The sponsored family members received social assistance, resulting in debts owed by the applicants to the Province of Ontario.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ministry's decisions to enforce the debts, arguing a breach of procedural fairness because the Ministry provided boilerplate responses and no proper reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Mavi, which held that the duty of fairness in these debt collection matters is minimal and does not require reasons.

The court found the Ministry considered individual circumstances and complied with the required procedural fairness obligations.

The appellants, the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, appealed a decision regarding the enforcement of sponsorship debts against eight sponsors whose relatives received social assistance.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the government has a duty to collect the full sponsorship debt, it retains a limited discretion to defer enforcement based on a sponsor's circumstances.

In exercising this discretion, the government owes a minimal duty of procedural fairness to notify the sponsor, allow them to explain their circumstances, consider those circumstances, and notify them of the decision.

The Court found that Ontario's debt collection policy did not improperly fetter its discretion and met the requirements of procedural fairness.