There has been a recent emphasis on the need to process registration applications quickly. In Ontario, legislative timelines are imposed on regulators. The impact of delays on applicants, and on the public needing access to services, can be considerable.
This principle was part of the Court’s discussion in Law Society of Ontario v. A.A., 2024 ONSC 2681 (CanLII). There was evidence that AA, an applicant for registration, had sexually abused three children in 2009. However, the tribunal (both hearing and appeal levels) concluded that the applicant was currently of good character and directed that he be registered with one condition: he could not meet with children alone.
The regulator sought judicial review of that decision as well as an interim order staying the registration of the applicant. (Initiating judicial review did not halt the effect of the tribunal’s decision.)
The Court granted the stay. There was a serious issue to be determined, in part because of the apparent inconsistency in finding that the applicant was currently of good character but still imposing a condition.
The Court also found that there was irreparable harm in that the public would not be protected if the applicant practised and a Court later found that the good character requirement had not been met. That type of harm could not be remedied.
Interestingly, the Court also said that public confidence should not be conflated with public opinion. The regulator had filed many social media posts expressing concern about the decision to register the applicant. The Court said:
I agree with AA that negative public reactions to media reports of a Law Society decision do not establish irreparable harm. In fact, focusing on negative comments on social media (which may or may not be based on an accurate understanding of the Law Society’s legislative mandate and jurisprudence on the good character requirements) distracts from the real issue, namely whether the public interest will be irreparably harmed if a stay is not granted.
The Court also said that the balance of convenience favoured the regulator. The public interest outweighed the obvious harm that would be suffered by the applicant if registration was further delayed. The Court was influenced by the fact that an expedited hearing date was obtained for this summer.
However, the Court was concerned about the regulator’s delay of three weeks between the tribunal’s final decision and it’s bringing of the motion for a stay, commenting that the regulator should have brought the motion immediately. The Court was also concerned that no steps had been taken to begin the paperwork for registering the applicant so that it could occur immediately should the motion for a stay have been unsuccessful. As a result, the Court declined to award costs to the regulator.
Timeliness expectations in the registration process for regulators have never been higher.