Applicants for registration often become frustrated when the regulator probes into areas of concern relating to their professional suitability (sometimes called “good character”). In Howell v. Cullen, 2025 ONSC 1449 (CanLII), the Court said that those frustrations should not be taken out on the staff of the regulator through a civil lawsuit.
There the applicant had older criminal findings “relating to narcotics, weapons, and assault.” The regulator delayed its decision on whether the applicant should be registered, seeking additional information:
Mr. Howell became dissatisfied with how RIBO [the regulator] was processing his application for registration. He issued a statement of claim naming Tracy Cullen, the Manager of Licencing at RIBO, as the defendant. He seeks $3.7 million for defamation. He describes the harm he has suffered as including stress, depression and anxiety, and insomnia.
The Court dismissed the action as frivolous and vexatious and ordered him to pay $15,000 in costs to Ms. Cullen:
The legislature provided a statutory immunity for all RIBO employees acting in good faith and within the scope of their employment. Mr. Howell does not plead any facts that suggest that Ms. Cullen would not enjoy statutory immunity from his lawsuit. The evidence is uncontested that Ms. Cullen was just doing her job in the public interest, which brings her squarely within the protection afforded by the Act. …. To the extent that Mr. Howell has concerns about the registration process at RIBO, he could have and should have raised them with the RIBO Qualification and Registration Committee or appealed the QRC decision to the Divisional Court. What he cannot do is sue an employee of RIBO for just doing her job. [citations omitted]
Suing regulatory staff can come at a steep financial price.