) ) WARD I. HOUGHTON, OLS Applicant – v. –, 2017 ONSC 133

CITATION : Houghton v. Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, 2017 ONSC 133 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 279/16 DATE: 20170105 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT R.S.J. MORAWETZ, LEDERMAN and STEWART JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) WARD I. HOUGHTON, OLS Applicant – and – ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO LAND SURVEYORS Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Robert C. Taylor and Allyson Lee for the Applicant Robert J. Fenn and Ashleigh L. Tomlinson for the Respondent Carol Street for the Discipline Committee of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors ) HEARD at Toronto: January 5, 2017 R.S.J.

MORAWETZ (Orally) [ 1 ] Having heard the submissions of counsel for the Applicant and the Respondent, we have concluded that this application for judicial review of the ruling of the panel of the Discipline Committee (the “DP”) of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors (“AOLS”) dated March 16, 2016, should be dismissed as the application has been brought prematurely. [ 2 ] We have reached this conclusion for the following reasons. [ 3 ] The DP commenced a hearing of certain charges against the Applicant. The DP heard a motion brought by the Applicant to quash, strike or dismiss all of the charges.

The DP, in written reasons, decided that because of insufficiency of evidence, a decision on the motion by the Applicant should be reserved until the end of the hearing. In our view, this interim ruling does not constitute a decision amendable to judicial review. [ 4 ] Second, the DP has the authority and jurisdiction to control its own process, pursuant to the enabling statute, the Surveyors Act and Statutory Powers Procedure Act . [ 5 ] Third, we note that counsel to the Applicant adduced some evidence in respect of his position that the DP lacked jurisdiction.

Thus, he recognized that an evidentiary basis is required in order to determine the jurisdictional issues raised by the Applicant. [ 6 ] The DP was, in our view, properly exercising its discretion to defer its decision until such time as a full evidentiary record was available to permit them to give effect to some or all of the several jurisdictional arguments raised by the Applicant. [ 7 ] Fourth, courts are reluctant to hear and determine applications for judicial review of interim or interlocutory decisions of administrative decision makers.

Such applications fragment and delay the administrative decision making and they undermine the legislative goal to have a more speedy and less costly decision making process through the use of an administrative tribunal. Moreover, depending on the outcome, there may be no need for judicial review. Even if there is a judicial review application, the court will have the opportunity to consider the tribunal’s ruling on the issue, which may be of assistance.

In addition, for some time, the Divisional Court has taken the position that it should not fragment proceedings before administrative tribunals as fragmentation causes both delay and interruptions in administrative proceedings (see Ontario College of Art v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (1993), 11 OR (3) 798 (Div. Ct.)).

[ 8 ] Fifth, it is open to the Applicant, if so advised, to seek relief under Rule 12.1 of the Discipline Panel Rules in respect of procedural rulings. [ 9 ] Finally, we see no exceptional circumstances in this case that would require us to determine this application at this time.

If necessary, we are of the view that it is preferable to consider the issues raised in the application for judicial review with the benefit of a full record and with the benefit of the reasons and decisions of the Tribunal. costs [ 10 ] I have endorsed the Fresh Application Record as follows: “For oral reasons given, application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent (AOLS) fixed at $13,500 inclusive and with disbursments payable to counsel to the Discipline Committee in the amount of $1,910.00. ___________________________ R.S.J. MORAWETZ I agree ___________________________ LEDERMAN J.

I agree ___________________________ STEWART J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 5, 2017 Date of Release: January 10, 2017 CITATION : Houghton v. Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, 2017 ONSC 133 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 279/16 DATE: 20170105 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT R.S.J. MORAWETZ, LEDERMAN and STEWART JJ. BETWEEN:

WARD I. HOUGHTON, OLS Applicant – and – ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO LAND SURVEYORS Respondent ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT R.S.J. MORAWETZ Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 5, 2017 Date of Release: January 10, 2017