Truman v. Association of Professional Engineers (Ont.), (2016) 343 O.A.C. 355 (DC)

Judge:Sachs, Thorburn and Abrams, JJ.
Court:Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
Case Date:January 06, 2016
Jurisdiction:Ontario
Citations:(2016), 343 O.A.C. 355 (DC);2016 ONSC 472
 
FREE EXCERPT

Truman v. Prof. Eng. Assoc. (2016), 343 O.A.C. 355 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.022

Jeffrey D. Truman, P.Eng. and Truman Services Inc. (appellants) v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (respondent)

(330-15; 2016 ONSC 472)

Indexed As: Truman v. Association of Professional Engineers (Ont.)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Sachs, Thorburn and Abrams, JJ.

January 20, 2016.

Summary:

A Complaints Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario referred a complaint of professional misconduct against Truman and his company to the Discipline Committee. The Discipline Committee found that the referral did not the meet the requirements to enable a discipline hearing to take place as it lacked sufficient detail to identify what the complaint was and to enable Truman to respond. The Discipline Committee stayed the proceedings. Truman and his company sought costs. The Discipline Committee denied the request, holding that the commencement of the proceedings had not been unwarranted where there had been evidence before the Complaints Committee which, if proved, would have allowed a finding of professional misconduct. Truman and his company appealed the decision denying costs.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal and awarded Truman and his company costs.

Professional Occupations - Topic 3295

Engineers - Disciplinary proceedings - Costs - A Complaints Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario referred a complaint of professional misconduct against Truman and his company (collectively, Truman) to the Discipline Committee - The Discipline Committee stayed the proceedings - Truman sought costs - The Discipline Committee denied the request - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed Truman's appeal from the decision denying costs - In denying costs, the Discipline Committee held that the commencement of the proceedings had not been unwarranted where there was evidence before the Complaints Committee which, if proved, would have allowed a finding of professional misconduct - On the stay application, it came to the opposite conclusion - The Discipline Committee's reasons on costs were flawed in the same way as the Complaints Committee's referral: they drew a conclusion without providing any justification for the conclusion - Given that the Discipline Committee held that a finding of professional misconduct could not succeed based on the allegations, the decision denying costs was unreasonable - The court exercised its powers under s. 31(3) of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario Act and awarded Truman costs.

Cases Noticed:

Shore v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2009), 250 O.A.C. 331; 96 O.R.(3d) 450 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Lin v. Association of Professional Engineers (Ont.) (2011), 23 Admin. L.R.(5th) 106; 2011 CarswellOnt 3294, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Neil Perrier, for the appellants;

Leah Price, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 6, 2016, by Sachs, Thorburn and Abrams, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of the court was released on January 20, 2016.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP