Association of Professional Engineering (Ont.) v. Gurpersaud, 2015 ONSC 804

• Judge: Sachs, Corbett and Gilmore, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: February 03, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2015 ONSC 804;(2015), 331 O.A.C. 217 (DC)

Assoc. Prof. Eng. v. Gurpersaud (2015), 331 O.A.C. 217 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.034

The Registrar of the Association of Professional Engineering of Ontario (appellant) v. Naresh Gurpersaud (respondent)

(136/14; 2015 ONSC 804)

Indexed As: Association of Professional Engineering (Ont.) v. Gurpersaud

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Sachs, Corbett and Gilmore, JJ.

February 3, 2015.

Summary:

The Registrar of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) appealed a decision of the Registration Committee of the PEO (Committee), which directed the Registrar to issue the respondent a licence to practice professional engineering. The respondent did not have a bachelor's degree from an accredited engineering program at a Canadian university. The Committee held that the respondent had met the academic requirements for licensure specified in s. 33(1)1(ii) of Regulation 941 made under the Professional Engineers Act as of the date he received his Masters of Applied Science degree from Carleton University in Ottawa.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

Evidence - Topic 7154

Opinion evidence - Prohibited opinions - Re basic or ultimate issue to be decided - The respondent did not have a bachelor's degree from an accredited engineering program at a Canadian university, but he received his Masters of Applied Science degree from Carleton University in Ottawa - At issue was whether he met the equivalency requirements for licensure specified in s. 33(1)1(ii) of Regulation 941 made under the Professional Engineers Act - The Registration Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario answered the question in the affirmative and directed the Registrar to issue the respondent a licence to practice professional engineering - The Registrar appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court stated that "in some instances the Committee asked particular witnesses whether they felt the respondent should be required to write examinations, given his academic attainment. These questions, going to the ultimate issue before the Committee, should not have been asked. However, it is clear from the Committee's decision, read fairly and as a whole, that the Committee came to its own decision as to whether the respondent had met the equivalency standard, and did not simply defer to views presented by any of the respondent's witnesses." - See paragraph 28.

Professional Occupations - Topic 3229

Engineers - Regulations - Accreditation - Equivalent qualifications - The respondent did not have a bachelor's degree from an accredited engineering program at a Canadian university, but he received his Masters of Applied Science degree from Carleton University in Ottawa - At issue was whether he met the equivalency requirements for licensure specified in s. 33(1)1(ii) of Regulation 941 made under the Professional Engineers Act - The Registration Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario held that he had met the requirements under s. 33(1)1(ii) as of the date he received his Masters - The Committee directed the Registrar to issue the respondent a licence to practice professional engineering - The Registrar appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the appropriate standard of review of the Committee's decision was reasonableness - The court dismissed the appeal.

Cases Noticed:

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 16].

Barbosa v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board et al. (2012), 292 O.A.C. 176 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Professional Engineers Act Regulations (Ont.), Regulation 941, sect. 33(1)1(ii) [para. 21].

Counsel:

Leah Price, for the appellant;

Neil J. Perrier, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, by Sachs, Corbett and Gilmore, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court, on February 3, 2015. Sachs, J., delivered the following oral decision for the court on the same date.