In order to better protect the public, regulators of professions often collaborate with other regulators or government officials that have overlapping mandates. Most commonly, this collaboration is with the police: British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives v Lemay, 2025 BCSC 256 (CanLII). But not always.
A recent court decision found that such collaboration is not presumptively improper: Moore v. Glick et al., 2025 ONSC 1725 (CanLII). There, a plaintiff was suing representatives of the regulator who had obtained a court order shutting down his illegally-operated retirement home. The plaintiff was also suing a government official responsible for providing home care services who had assisted the regulator.
Among the many claims made, was that the representatives of the regulator and the government official had conspired for an improper purpose to shut the plaintiff down. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that the government official, Nieson, “became upset because the plaintiff questioned the quality of work done by Personal Support Workers (“PSWs”) and spoke to his Member of Parliament about payment models for PSWs.” The plaintiff alleged that Nieson approached the regulator and conspired with its representatives to misuse the regulator’s authority in order to harm his business. This conspiracy allegedly included “duping” the plaintiff into accepting a quadriplegic resident who required certain care services that could only be provided at a licensed retirement home. The plaintiff alleged that the regulator was aware of the plan to move the resident into the home and intentionally stayed silent in order to obtain evidence against the plaintiff for operating an unlicensed retirement home. The conspiracy also allegedly included providing misleading information or deceptive evidence in the court application.
The Court held that the specific facts of the alleged bad faith on the part of Nieson and the representatives of the regulator needed to be pleaded in the applicant’s material for court. Bad faith could not be assumed simply because Nieson and the regulator’s staff worked together in the regulator’s enforcement proceeding. The bald assertions above were inadequate to constitute particulars of bad faith and the Court dismissed this claim.
Several other defences were relied upon by the Court in dismissing the other claims, including:
- The claim is an abuse of process and frivolous and vexatious for making a collateral attack on the previous court orders to shut down the retirement home;
- The plaintiff cannot rely on evidence from the regulatory proceedings that the legislation says cannot be used in civil proceedings;
- The statutory immunity provision protected the individuals for actions taken in good faith (where no factual particulars of bad faith were alleged);
- The pleading disclosed no cause of action; and
- Absolute immunity applies to the allegedly false affidavit evidence filed in the regulatory proceedings.
It is not improper for regulators and government officials to collaborate when dealing with a risk to the public interest.