- with Inhouse Counsel
- in United States
- with readers working within the Healthcare and Law Firm industries
Why this decision matters
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice's decision in BizTech v Accreditation Canada, 2025 ONSC 2689,1 clarifies how the enforcement of an arbitration clause applies in the context of staying an application for judicial review.
This is the first case applying section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act2 to an application for judicial review. The Court signalled that arbitration can be an appropriate alternative remedy, even for disputes that contain public law elements. When a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration clause and no statutory exception applies, courts may stay judicial review proceedings, affirming the widely held presumption in favor of arbitration.
The Underlying Facts and Proceedings
BizTech, a career college offering paramedical education, operated a Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program (the "DMS Program"). The College of Medical Radiation and Imaging Technologists ("CMRITO"), the self-regulating body for medical radiation and imaging technologists in Ontario, requires candidates to complete an accredited program to become licensed. Accreditation Canada is an independent, non-governmental, corporation contracted by CMRITO to conduct program evaluations, to determine whether a given program should be given "accredited" status. Once Accreditation Canada assigns "accredited" status to a program, the CMRITO considers it accredited.
BizTech and Accreditation Canada entered into an accreditation contract on March 14, 2024. The contract contained an arbitration clause with the following language:3
"any dispute, claim, controversy or disagreement relating to or arising out of the Contract (a "Dispute") that is not amicably resolved within thirty (30) days from the date of a written request by one Party to the other to attempt to resolve it, shall, unless the Parties mutually agree to prolong the time for amicable resolution, be finally resolved by arbitration...".
In 2022, Accreditation Canada granted Biztech "conditional accreditation" until January 31, 2025, to allow it to operate the DMS program while addressing certain deficiencies. Biztech failed to address the deficiencies. In January 2025, Accreditation Canada assigned the DMS Program a "not accredited" status.4 In March 2025, the Superintendent officially revoked the DMS Program's accreditation, triggering a statutory refund obligation for students, resulting in BizTech experiencing financial difficulties.5
BizTech sought judicial review of Accreditation Canada's and the Superintendent's decisions, arguing that Accreditation Canada exercised a "statutory power of decision" under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.6 In turn, Accreditation Canada moved to stay the judicial review under s.7(1) of the Arbitration Act which reads:7
"7 (1) If a party to an arbitration agreement commences a proceeding in respect of a matter to be submitted to arbitration under the agreement, the court in which the proceeding is commenced shall, on the motion of another party to the arbitration agreement, stay the proceeding."
The Court's Analysis & Decision
The Court found that Accreditation Canada had exercised statutory authority as a delegate because CMRITO has the exclusive power to accredit programs under the Medical Radiation and Imaging Technology Act.8 This authority had sufficient public character to make the decisions amenable to judicial review.9 The Court then turned to consider the s.7(1) motion to stay the judicial review.
The Court applied the two-step test enunciated in the Supreme Court of Canada's 2022 decision in Peace River to determine whether court proceedings should be stayed in favour of arbitration.10 The first step asks whether the technical requirements for a mandatory stay of proceedings are met. If so, the second step considers whether any of the statutory exceptions under the Arbitration Act apply.
The technical requirements for a stay are:
- Whether an arbitration agreement exists;
- Whether court proceedings have been commenced by a party;
- Whether the court proceedings are in respect of a matter that the parties agree to submit to arbitration; and
- Whether the moving party seeks a stay before taking any steps in the court proceedings.
In this case, the Court found that Accreditation Canada had established the technical requirements, noting that the arbitration clause was broad, covering "any dispute, claim, controversy or disagreement relating to or arising out of the Contract" would be subject to arbitration.11
Additionally, the Court concluded that there were no statutory exceptions in the Arbitration Act that would preclude a stay of proceedings from applying to judicial review proceedings.12
BizTech argued that judicial review of statutory decision-makers cannot be displaced by a private arbitration agreement, as this would "descend administrative law into chaos".13 The Court disagreed. Judicial review is a "cornerstone of our justice system" protected by s.96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.14 The Court reasoned that the contextual Peace River test confirms, while the right to seek judicial review is protected, there is no right to compel a court to conduct it regardless of context.15
The Court granted Accreditation Canada's motion to stay the judicial review in favor of arbitration. It held that where the contextual analysis under the Peace River test establishes that arbitration is an appropriate, courts may stay judicial review proceedings―even when the dispute includes public law elements..
Key Takeaways
The BizTech decision provides that arbitration agreements may be upheld by Courts in disputes involving public law elements. In such circumstances, the Courts are prepared to uphold the principle of primacy of arbitration, assuming the technical requirements for the stay are met and there are no other statutory exceptions that would preclude a stay.
Footnotes
1. BizTech v. Accreditation Canada, 2025 ONSC 2689. [BizTech]
2. Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 7(1).
3. BizTech at paras [8], [88].
4. Biztech at para [5].
5. BizTech at para [6].
6. BizTech at paras [57]-[63]; Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s.1.
7. BizTech at para [87]; Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s.7(1).
8. BizTech, at paras [64]-[71]; Medical Radiation and Imaging Technology Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 25, Sched. 6.
9. BizTech at para [72].
10. BizTech at paras [90]-[93]; Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41.
11. BizTech at paras [98], [101].
12. BizTech at paras [141]-[142].
13. BizTech at para [128].
14. BizTech at para [133]; The Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s.96.
15. BizTech at para [136].
To view the original article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
