There are many types of claims (called “causes of action”) that can be made against regulators. There are also several defences that regulators can raise against such claims and absent exceptional circumstances, the defences usually succeed. This principle was illustrated in Hanif v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario et al., 2026 ONSC 1377 (CanLII).
A veterinarian was disciplined for his treatment of two pets. The proceedings were extensive and complex but after two appearances before the Discipline Committee, and two appeals, ultimately the regulator was largely successful (although there were strong dissenting reasons by one panel member and the sanction was reduced).
The veterinarian then sued the regulator, and the government, for $1,600,000 asserting the following causes of action:
- Abuse of process
- Abuse of power and misfeasance of public office
- Malicious prosecution
- Conspiracy to harm
- Negligent investigation
- Breach of public or statutory duty
- Violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Defamation (including for a post describing the proceedings on the regulator’s website)
Other purported causes of action raised by the veterinarian were held not to exist in law, including the following:
- Abuse of discretion / constructive fraud
- Negligent disclosure
The regulator raised the following general defences:
- The regulator was protected from lawsuit by statutory immunity unless it acted in bad faith.
- Assertions of bad faith must contain detailed supporting facts of improper conduct, not just general assertions about motivations for the regulatory actions taken. The veterinarian could not defer providing those particulars until after having discovery of the regulator’s representatives and documents.
- The dissenting panel member cannot be compelled to testify because the panel is protected by deliberative secrecy.
- Regulatory representatives cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence because of a statutory provision that insulates them from involvement in civil proceedings.
- The action was, in effect, a collateral attack on the previous court decisions dismissing his appeals.
- The action was commenced outside of the two-year limitation.
The regulator also argued that many of the specific elements of the causes of action asserted by the veterinarian were not properly set out. For example, for the tort of conspiracy to harm, the veterinarian had to specify who was part of the conspiracy and the content of their agreement.
The government raised the following different defences:
- The veterinarian failed to provide 60-days’ notice of the claim as required by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
- There is no cause of action for an assertion that the government failed to supervise or control a regulator.
- The government is not vicariously liable for the actions of a statutory regulator.
The Court struck out the veterinarian’s claim and declined to permit him to amend it as there was no chance of success.
Suing and defending regulators is a complex business.
