In registration matters, regulators often ask for additional information to support the application. Often the application is considered incomplete until all of the requested information is provided. However, where the applicant declines to provide any additional information and insists upon a decision by the regulator, a standoff can ensue.
That is what happened in Tynes v. Nova Scotia College of Nursing, 2025 NSSC 69 (CanLII). An applicant had a history of several criminal charges, discipline by another health profession regulator, and expulsion from university. Some of the criminal charges were serious, including issuing threats against a fellow student. However, all were resolved short of a criminal conviction by such alternatives as a conditional discharge, probation, and a peace bond. While most of the history was disclosed by the applicant on the initial application, some was not. The applicant provided documentation for most of the history and made submissions. The regulator made several, rather extensive, requests for additional information from the applicant, including asking the applicant to obtain information from third parties and court files. The applicant finally stated that he possessed no more of the requested documents, that the regulator could approach the third parties directly, and requested that a decision be rendered on the application. The regulator declined to make a decision until the outstanding requests were answered. The applicant sought judicial review.
The Court concluded that, in the circumstances, the applicant was entitled to a decision. The regulator had a statutory obligation to make one. The decision could consider the refusal of the applicant to provide more information. However, the regulator could not insist on doing nothing further, particularly since the applicant had no means to challenge the appropriateness of the requests for additional documents. The Court gave the regulator one month to decide whether it would exercise its right to interview the applicant and three months to make its registration decision.
However, the Court declined the applicant’s request that the regulator be directed to register the applicant, saying:
The question of whether Mr. Tynes is eligible for registration and licensure fall within the College’s statutory responsibilities and specialized expertise. Courts have consistently found in such circumstances that the court is without jurisdiction to make licensing decisions….
Depending on the wording of the enabling legislation, when a regulator and an applicant disagree as to whether the application is complete, the regulator may be obliged to render a decision, even if it involves a refusal based, in part, on incomplete information