|
Bias - Confirmation. Haulage Network Driving Academy Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Career Colleges)
In Haulage Network Driving Academy Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Career Colleges) (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court allowed a JR, here regarding the question of whether the "Superintendent [is] empowered to immediately forfeit a college’s security bond every time she issues a proposal to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew the college’s registration".
Here the court considered 'confirmation bias' due (despite allowing the appeal) to collateral findings by the tribunal. This 'bias' supported deciding the issue itself rather than remitting it back down to the LAT:[41] The Tribunal’s reasons raise serious concerns about the Superintendent’s approach to Haulage, including because the investigation into Haulage was tainted by confirmation bias. While the Tribunal agreed there was a lack of clarity in Haulage’s administrative processes and documentation, it stated at para. 42 of its reasons: “[N]one of these issues rise to a level of severity that warrants refusal to renew the appellant’s registration.” It went on to find that the allegations of safety contraventions “were founded upon multiple assumptions and substantial confirmation bias” (emphasis added).
[42] The Tribunal expressly noted the absence of a history of non-compliance and Haulage’s willingness to respond to feedback. It stated at para. 43 of the decision:Prior to issuance of the NOP and other notices on May 25, 2023, the appellant did not have a history of non-compliance, cautions or any other formal corrective action. Although the respondent described the appellant as refusing to acknowledge the inspectors' concerns and generally resistant to change, the evidence indicates a school that is extremely responsive to the Superintendent's suggestions with a demonstrated record of resolving safety related issues and an ability to respond to and remedy administrative concerns. When the Superintendent identified issues, the appellant either resolved the problems or sought guidance for proposed solutions. [Emphasis added.] [43] The Tribunal lifted the immediate suspension of Haulage’s operations and found Haulage’s proposed action plan represented a reasonable and effective solution to the contraventions the Superintendent had proven.
[44] If the matter were to be remitted now, the Tribunal’s findings would constrain the Superintendent’s reasoning. In light of these factual and legal constraints, the only reasonable outcome at this point is for the Superintendent to return the funds to Haulage.
|
