|
RHPA - Costs. Casella v. Ontario (College of Chiropodists)
In Casella v. Ontario (College of Chiropodists) (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considered professional discipline tribunal costs, here in an RHPA-HPPC context:5. Section 53.1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code[1] (the “Code”) confers on the Committee broad discretion to order costs against a member. The Committee’s costs award is entitled to significant deference; a court should not interfere unless the adjudicator made an error in principle or was plainly wrong. There are no grounds to interfere with the costs award in this case.
....
Issue 4: Did the Committee err in its Costs Decision?
....
52. The Appellant submits that the quantum of costs awarded was demonstrably excessive. The liability hearing lasted 1.5 days during which the Appellant admitted nearly the entirety of the College’s case. The Appellant argues that the costs award greatly exceeds awards for regulated health professions where a costs tariff is in place. He further submits that it does not appear that the court has ever upheld a costs award of this magnitude for such a short, streamlined hearing and that the Committee offers no meaningful explanation for its unprecedented costs award.
53. The College presented a detailed Bill of Costs to the Committee. The Appellant did not. A comparison of parties’ bills of costs is frequently how an appropriate amount for costs is determined. The Appellant argued that the file was overworked and the costs disproportionate. The Committee looked at the evidence, heard the submissions and gave reasons. In these circumstances, it would be inappropriate to second guess the Respondent’s Bill of Costs, especially since the Appellant failed to provide one of the main bases on which a court can assess whether another party’s costs are disproportionate—their own bill of costs.
54. Section 53.1 of the Code grants the College broad discretionary power to make costs orders. A Committee’s costs award is entitled to significant deference; a court should not interfere unless the adjudicator made an error in principle or was plainly wrong. The Committee recognized that the amount ordered was significant but found that it reflected approximately two-thirds of the actual costs incurred, and that this was a reasonable amount for the Appellant to pay given the need to ensure that the membership at large is not left with the burden of paying a disproportionate share of the costs associated with proceedings generated as a result of another member’s misconduct. While the Appellant argued that the Alberta Court of Appeal has taken a different approach to the awarding of costs in professional regulatory proceedings ( a large portion of the costs should be borne by the membership), that case is not binding on us and is not consistent with the approach taken by the Ontario courts.
55. The tariff rates set by other Colleges do not bind or limit the Committee’s statutory discretion to award costs.
56. There is no error in principle or other basis for this court to intervene with respect to the costs award.
|
