Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central dispute involved whether the Registration Appeal Committee proceeding was a true “appeal” or a “hearing de novo,” impacting scope of admissible evidence.

• Judicial review was sought after an unsuccessful statutory appeal attempt, but the review request was dismissed as premature due to procedural timing.

• Applicant's motion to extend time for judicial review was denied because the underlying decision was not final.

• Allegations of procedural misconduct and bad faith by the College were rejected due to lack of supporting evidence.

• Court held that procedural non-compliance by the College under Rule 78.04 did not bar a costs award.

• Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the College; the court declined to apply a multiplier due to absence of exceptional complexity.

Background and proceedings

Sybil Hogg applied for registration and licensure as a paramedic in Nova Scotia through the College of Paramedics of Nova Scotia. The College’s Registration Committee denied her application. She appealed this decision to the Registration Appeal Committee under section 34 of the Paramedics Act, S.N.S. 2015, c. 33.

A dispute arose regarding the nature of the proceeding before the Registration Appeal Committee. Ms. Hogg argued the appeal should be limited to the record before the Registration Committee. She expressed concern that the College intended to introduce new character evidence against her. The College, however, maintained the proceeding was a “hearing de novo,” allowing broader evidence under sections 46(1)(d) and 50 of the Paramedics Regulations, NS Reg 57/2017. On May 23, 2023, the Registration Appeal Committee ruled that it would proceed as a hearing de novo.

Ms. Hogg attempted to overturn that decision before any further steps were taken, but encountered several delays, including an unsuccessful appeal to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal under section 91(1) of the Paramedics Act. In Hogg v. College of Paramedics of Nova Scotia (Registration Appeal Committee), 2023 NSCA 62, Derrick, J.A. held that section 91(1) did not confer a statutory right of appeal regarding the May 23, 2023 decision.

Following this, Ms. Hogg brought a motion in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to extend the time to seek judicial review. The College opposed the motion. On June 6, 2025, in Hogg v. College of Paramedics of Nova Scotia, 2025 NSSC 187, Keith, J. dismissed the motion as premature.

Discussion of policy terms and relevant clauses

The Registration Appeal Committee’s authority was assessed in light of the Paramedics Regulations, specifically:

• Section 46(1)(d) allows the committee to “receive and accept any evidence and information on oath, affidavit or otherwise… whether admissible in a court of law or not.”

• Section 50(1) restricts certain types of evidence (written, expert, or witness testimony) unless the opposing party is given proper notice at least 10 days prior to the hearing.

• Section 50(2) provides the committee with discretion to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence if necessary to prevent prejudice.

These provisions supported the committee’s ability to conduct a hearing de novo.

Costs decision

The College sought $2,000 in costs, based on the higher end of Tariff C for a 2.5-hour motion ($1,000), and requested a multiplier of 2. Ms. Hogg opposed the cost award, arguing the College failed to comply with Rule 78.04 timelines, acted in bad faith, and that a cost order would prejudice her due to financial hardship. She also claimed the College’s conduct warranted a reversal of entitlement and argued that she should be awarded costs instead.

The court rejected these arguments. Keith, J. held that the College was the successful party as it prevailed on the determinative issue of prematurity. He found no evidence of bad faith or misconduct and confirmed that Rule 77 gave the court general discretion to award costs, regardless of procedural defaults under Rule 78.

The court also declined to find that Ms. Hogg was impecunious, noting a lack of evidence and her demonstrated ability to pursue litigation. As such, a cost award would not impair access to justice.

Final outcome

Ms. Hogg’s motion to extend the time for judicial review was dismissed as premature. The court awarded the College $1,000 in costs, finding that the complexity of the case did not justify a multiplier. The amount is payable within 60 calendar days of the June 6, 2025 decision.