Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Accreditation Canada's denial of program approval raised questions about procedural fairness and reasonableness.

• The court considered whether the accreditation decision was judicially reviewable as a public decision.

• Accreditation Canada argued the dispute should be resolved through private arbitration under a contractual clause.

• BizTech claimed the arbitration clause was invalid due to public interest and statutory authority concerns.

• The court upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement and stayed the judicial review.

• Judicial review of the Superintendent’s decision was dismissed, as it depended on the accreditation outcome.

Background and parties involved

BizTech Institute Inc. is a private for-profit career college offering healthcare-related programs, including a Diagnostic Medical Sonography (DMS) Program. The College of Medical Radiation and Imaging Technologists of Ontario (CMRITO) regulates the medical imaging profession in Ontario. CMRITO requires that educational programs be accredited by Accreditation Canada. Accreditation Canada, a private not-for-profit body, was designated by CMRITO as its official accreditor. The Superintendent of Career Colleges is the provincial official responsible for overseeing private vocational institutions under the Ontario Career Colleges Act.

Accreditation denial and program revocation

BizTech’s DMS Program was conditionally accredited for several years due to deficiencies. After a follow-up review in 2024, Accreditation Canada concluded the program failed to meet key “high priority” standards and issued a “Not Accredited” status in January 2025. Following this, the Superintendent revoked BizTech’s approval to offer the DMS Program, triggering automatic student refunds and placing the college under financial stress.

BizTech’s judicial review application

BizTech challenged both the accreditation denial and the Superintendent’s revocation through judicial review. It claimed Accreditation Canada’s decision was procedurally unfair, unreasonable, and not made in accordance with the legal standards of its delegated authority. However, Accreditation Canada argued the matter should be arbitrated under a clause in its contract with BizTech. The contract included a mandatory arbitration agreement covering any dispute arising out of the accreditation process.

Judicial review and public character of decision

The court first determined that Accreditation Canada’s decision was indeed subject to judicial review. Although Accreditation Canada is a private body, it exercises delegated statutory authority from CMRITO. The decision not to accredit BizTech’s DMS Program directly affected public rights, such as access to professional registration in a regulated health field. The court concluded the decision had sufficient public character to attract public law remedies.

Arbitration stay and adequacy of alternative remedies

Despite ruling that judicial review was available, the court upheld Accreditation Canada’s motion to stay the proceedings in favour of arbitration. It found the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract to be valid and enforceable. The court rejected BizTech’s claim that arbitration was unconscionable or inappropriate for resolving public law disputes. It emphasized that arbitration could offer an adequate alternative forum for resolving the underlying issues and was consistent with principles of party autonomy and judicial efficiency.

Outcome and implications

The court stayed the judicial review of Accreditation Canada’s decision and dismissed BizTech’s application to review the Superintendent’s decision, without prejudice to future action depending on the arbitration outcome. BizTech was ordered to pay costs to CMRITO and Accreditation Canada. The ruling affirms that even decisions with public consequences, when made by private entities under contract, may be directed to arbitration if an adequate remedy is available. Judicial review remains available, but courts may defer to arbitration where appropriate under Ontario’s Arbitration Act.