Golden Pinnacle Consultants Ltd. received a Notice of Administrative Penalty for 16 contraventions of the Consumer Protection Act, related to operating an unlicensed employment agency and charging excessive fees.
The Appellants appealed to a statutory appeal board, which upheld 9 of the contraventions and reduced the administrative penalty from $145,000 to $100,000.
Issues on Appeal:
Standard of Review: The appellate standards of correctness and palpable and overriding error were applied, per the Vavilov decision.
Jurisdiction: The court could not decide on jurisdiction due to the absence of a constitutional question notice.
Abuse of Process: The appellants alleged misconduct by Alberta Immigration Nominee Program (AINP) officers, but the court found no substantial evidence of abuse.
Errors in Evidence Consideration:
Credibility: The Appeal Board's assessment of witness credibility, including that of Ms. Chi and the complainants, was found adequate.
Fee Survey: The Board's reliance on a survey regarding immigration consultant fees was upheld as it was relevant and admissible.
Ignored Considerations: The court found that the Appeal Board properly evaluated the relationship between the appellants and the corporate employers of the complainants.
Interpretation of Section 158.1: The Appeal Board correctly interpreted s. 158.1 of the Consumer Protection Act as imposing a maximum penalty of $100,000 for a single administrative penalty.
Penalty Reasonableness: The court upheld the $100,000 penalty, finding it proportionate to the violations' severity and consistent with the Act’s deterrence goals.
Conclusion:
Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed. The Appeal Board’s decisions on the contraventions and penalties were upheld.
