Mooney et al. v. Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, 2011 FC 496

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 13, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2011 FC 496;(2011), 389 F.T.R. 8 (FC)

Mooney v. CSIC (2011), 389 F.T.R. 8 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.009

Philip Mooney, Rhonda Williams and Gerd Damitz (applicants) v. Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (respondent)

(IMM-2077-10; 2011 FC 496)

Indexed As: Mooney et al. v. Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants

Federal Court

Russell, J.

April 27, 2011.

Summary:

Three board members of the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (the applicants) were disciplined by their regulatory body, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and quashed the discipline decisions on grounds of procedural unfairness and unreasonableness.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See Aliens - Topic 11 ].

Aliens - Topic 11

Definitions and general principles - Immigration consultants - Ryan, the Chairman of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), the professional regulator for immigration consultants, opined that a federal government Standing Committee's recommendation that the CSIC be wound up and reestablished under a federal statute was "unacceptable" - Mooney, a board member of the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC), a non-profit organization that provided education, information and recognition to immigration consultants, etc., drafted and published an open letter on the CAPIC website supporting the Standing Committee's recommendations and criticizing Ryan's comments - The CSIC disciplined Mooney and issued warnings to two other board members under the CSIC's rules of professional misconduct - Mooney and the board members applied for judicial review - The Federal Court quashed the CSIC's decisions as being procedurally unfair and unreasonable - Alleged inaccuracies in the letter were not explained to Mooney - The discipline proceedings were not a legitimate use of the CSIC's Rules of Professional Conduct - The specifics were not given at the investigative stage with an opportunity for Mooney to respond - There was no reason why Mooney should have been singled out for discipline or the others singled out for warnings - See paragraphs 66 to 168.

Cases Noticed:

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2009] 2 F.C.R. 466; 383 N.R. 200; 2008 FCA 243, refd to. [para. 2].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 23].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 28].

Desjardins v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Commissioner) (1986), 3 F.T.R. 52 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 28].

Onuschak v. Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants et al. (2009), 357 F.T.R. 22; 2009 FC 1135, refd to. [para. 29].

Moresby Explorers Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney Genreal) et al. (2006), 350 N.R. 101; 2006 FCA 144, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 31].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416, refd to. [para. 32].

Kuntz v. Optometrists Association of Saskatchewan, [1993] 3 W.W.R. 651; 107 Sask.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 34].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 36].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, refd to. [para. 38].

Perry v. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists (B.C.), [2005] B.C.T.C. 1102; 2005 BCSC 1102, refd to. [para. 40].

Ahrens et al. v. Alberta Teachers' Association et al. (1994), 147 A.R. 383; 15 Alta. L.R.(3d) 388 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40].

Histed v. Law Society of Manitoba, [2008] 2 W.W.R. 189; 225 Man.R.(2d) 74; 419 W.A.C. 74; 2007 MBCA 150, refd to. [para. 40].

Kutsogiannis v. Association of Regina Realtors Inc. (1989), 79 Sask.R. 214 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Strauts v. College of Physicians & Surgeons (B.C.) (1997), 94 B.C.A.C. 254; 152 W.A.C. 254; 36 B.C.L.R.(3d) 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Butterworth v. College of Veterinarians (Ont.), [2002] O.J. No. 1136 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

Silverthorne v. College of Social Workers and Social Services Workers (Ont.) (2006), 206 O.A.C. 375; 264 D.L.R.(4th) 175 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 489, refd to. [para. 45].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 45].

Zündel v. Citron et al., [2000] 4 F.C. 225; 256 N.R. 201 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Barry and Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301; 93 N.R. 1; 96 A.R. 241; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 458, refd to. [para. 48].

College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.) v. J.H. et al. (2008), 445 A.R. 251; 2008 ABQB 205, refd to. [para. 49].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 50].

Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses (2008), 304 Sask.R. 290; 413 W.A.C. 290; 2008 SKCA 6, refd to. [para. 54].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 54].

Singh (Kanchan) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 134; 2010 FC 212, refd to. [para. 59].

Via Rail Canada Inc. v. National Transportation Agency et al., [2001] 2 F.C. 25; 261 N.R. 184 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Salway v. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists (B.C.) (2010), 284 B.C.A.C. 136; 481 W.A.C. 136; 2010 BCCA 94, leave to appeal denied (2010), 410 N.R. 383; 298 B.C.A.C. 319; 505 W.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 117].

Proprio Direct Inc. v. Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 195; 375 N.R. 1; 2008 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 119].

Spring v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1988), 28 O.A.C. 375; 64 O.R.(2d) 719; 50 D.L.R.(4th) 523 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 125].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 126].

Kinsey v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 313 F.T.R. 88; 2007 FC 543, refd to. [para. 127].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 128].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Complaints and Discipline Policy, ss. 2.6, 3.3 [para. 22].

Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 16.5, 16.6 [para. 21].

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (4th Ed. 2004), pp. 100, 105, 107, 108 [para. 37]; 169 [para. 29].

Régimbald, Guy, Canadian Administrative Law (2008), p. 208 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Adam J. Stephens and Nafisah Chowdhury, for the applicants;

John E. Callaghan and Benjamin Na, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Miller Thomson, LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 13, 2011, in Toronto, Ontario, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on April 27, 2011.