Many regulators are protected from civil lawsuits with respect to actions taken in good faith. Anyone suing a regulator must specify facts that, if proved, could demonstrate bad faith. Bald assertions are insufficient.
These principles were illustrated in Hogg v. College of Paramedics of Nova Scotia, 2026 NSSC 56 (CanLII). Ms. Hogg applied to become a paramedic. The College denied the application because of concerns that allegedly discriminatory public posts by Ms. Hogg made her unsuitable for registration. Rather than participate in a registration hearing on the issue, Ms. Hogg initiated extensive litigation to try to compel registration, all of which were unsuccessful. Ms. Hogg then sued the regulator, its committees, its staff, a committee member, and its legal counsel for damages. The Court found that Ms. Hogg’s pleadings could not possibly succeed holding that unless Ms. Hogg prepared adequate fresh pleadings, the action would be dismissed.
In making this ruling, the Court made the following observations:
- Assertions that the regulator “acted in bad faith”, “with malicious intent”, and engaged in a “deliberate coverup”, “coordinated campaign of corruption”, “political motivated conduct” and “intentional wrongdoing” are not material facts. Specific facts supporting those conclusions must be plead.
- It was not bad faith for the regulator to scrutinize whether Ms. Hogg’s expressions of political opinions and sincerely held moral and religious beliefs made her unsuitable for registration.
- The immunity provision’s requirement for bad faith applies to claims related to an alleged breach of a right conferred by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Otherwise, the regulator would be distracted from their statutory duties, their impartiality would be compromised, and this would “‘open up new and undesirable modes of collateral attack on [its] decisions’ [which] is exactly what has transpired….”
- Inspecting an applicant’s personal social media that “was there for all the world to view”, is not a material fact of bad faith.
- Lawyers for the regulator are not “public officers” for the purposes of a “misfeasance in public office” claim. That the lawyers took positions which Ms. Hogg disagreed with does not constitute bad faith.
The regulator and its representatives were entitled to insist on claims that specifically identified how they acted in bad faith before having to defend themselves.
