Last Updated: August 22 2026
Can I sue a regulatory licensing body or its staff in Ontario for malicious prosecution during an investigation or discipline process?
In Ontario, regulatory bodies and their staff are generally protected from liability for decisions made in good faith during investigative or disciplinary (quasi-judicial) processes, and a claim for malicious conduct like malicious prosecution typically requires evidence of malice, not just an error or an unfavourable outcome; for example, the Law Society Act immunizes officers and employees acting in good faith, and courts have recognized absolute privilege for quasi-judicial regulatory functions with a malice requirement in the rare malicious case scenario. If you believe you were harmed by malicious or bad-faith conduct, Access Ontario Legal Services can help you evaluate your options, collect relevant facts, and prepare next steps with a paralegal-led approach across Ontario, call (905) 302-1851.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Malice Exception to Prosecutorial Immunity
Regulatory entities functioning as licensing bodies for various professions, and the personnel employed or engaged within, ordinarily receive legal protection against potential liability for errors in judgment or decisions made during investigations or disciplinary proceedings subject to exception for malicious behavior.
Note: Please contact Access Ontario Legal Services by phone at: (905) 302-1851 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
A regulatory body as well as the personnel employed or engaged by the regulatory body will, generally, be immune from liability via codified provisions within the statute law that empowers the regulatory body or via common law principles involving the absolute privilege that applies to quasi-judicial proceedings. The Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, provides an example of an immunity provision within an empowering statute while the common case of Dechant v. Stevens, 2001 ABCA 39, provides an example of the absolute privilege applicable to regulatory bodies as well as the employed persons thereof who act in a quasi-judicial capacity, whereas each state:
Liability of benchers, officers and employees
9 No action or other proceedings for damages shall be instituted against the Treasurer or any bencher, official of the Society or person appointed in Convocation for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of any duty or in the exercise or in the intended exercise of any power under this Act, a regulation, a by-law or a rule of practice and procedure, or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of any such duty or power.
[36] Canadian courts have held that the disciplinary processes of Law Societies can fall within the ambit of quasi-judicial proceedings. Consideration of the role of the Law Society began with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Harris v. Law Society of Alberta, 1936 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1936] 1 D.L.R. 401 S.C.C.) at 414 where Rinfret J. said:
It is obvious that the Benchers were acting in good faith. They were only “endeavouring to do their duty to the public and the profession.” Now, provided they take the proper course, and within the conditions specified by the statute, the Benchers have the power to order the striking of the name of a member from the rolls of the Society. In the exercise of those powers, they perform a function not merely ministerial, but discretionary and judicial.
This decision, however, did not deal with absolute privilege and instead considered whether the professional body could be liable for damages for wrongful disbarment. In concluding that the Law Society could not be liable for damages, the court not only noted that the Law Society’s decision-making functions were discretionary and judicial, but also emphasized that the professional body acted in good faith. Thus, while the Law Society is protected from suit, the protection specifically involved a good faith component.
[37] Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris, the Ontario Court of Appeal in French et al. v. The Law Society of Upper Canada (1975), 1975 CanLII 40 (ON CA), 61 D.L.R. (3d) 28 (Ont. C.A.) found that the investigative functions of the Law Society, as well as the selection of the Discipline Committee, were quasi-judicial in nature. In particular, Lacourciere J.A. noted, at 32 that “[t]he investigative function of the Law Society and the preparation and swearing of the complaints against the appellant solicitor were discretionary and quasi-judicial acts.” Notably, the court cited Harris, with approval, as authority for the proposition that the Law Society would not be liable for erroneous exercise of its discretion, if it acted bona fide and without malice.
Conclusion
If a person who was subjected to the investigative or disciplinary processes of a regulatory body wishes to bring a lawsuit against the regulatory body or those persons who were acting on behalf of the regulatory body, evidence of malicious conduct is required whereas immunity from liability for innocent mistakes exists.
NOTE: A significant quantity of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” often indicate a pressing need for competent legal assistance rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and possess the authority to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Skills in advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this position. Access Ontario Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy directed at securing efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
