A2Z Driving School, Financial Penalty, 13 August 2026

Particulars of Notice of Contravention and Review Decision

s. 49 (1) Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005 (“Act”)

August 13, 2026

These particulars are posted following the issuance of an administrative penalty for which a review was requested. Penalties may be reviewed upon request within 15 days of receipt of a Notice of Contravention. The review decision is made considering not only the information originally available at the time the Notice of Contravention was issued, but also any new information not previously available that may have been supplied in support of the request for a review. On review, an administrative penalty may be upheld, rescinded or reduced. A review decision is final.

Original service date: March 20, 2026

NB Bros Ltd.   
o/a A2Z Driving School (“A2Z Driving School”)   
440 Weber Street North, Unit Basement
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 4E7

Original penalty

Description

Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005: s.15(3) – Registrant to comply with conditions:

Subsection 15(3) of the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005 mandates the A2Z Driving School to operate the career college in accordance with the conditions applicable to the registration or renewal of registration.

The Superintendent of Career Colleges Career Colleges believed that the Registrant had breached a condition of its registration, contravening subsection 15 (3) of the Act.

On December 19, 2023, the Superintendent added conditions to the Registrant’s registration, requiring the Registrant to retain the services of a compliance monitor for a period of 6 months.

On June 18, 2024, the Superintendent modified the conditions on the Registrant’s registration to postpone the December compliance monitor requirement until such time that the Registrant enrolls students. On June 18, 2024, the Superintendent also added a further condition to the Registrant’s registration requiring the Registrant to notify the Career Colleges Branch when it enrolled a student.

The Registrant enrolled students into a vocational program and failed to notify the Career Colleges Branch of the enrollment, thereby breaching a condition of its registration and contravening subsection 15(3) of the Act.

Original amount

One-time penalty of $750

Total

$750.00

Review decision

On August 13, 2026, the review requested by A2Z Driving School was completed by the Reviewer. In rendering their decision, the Reviewer conducted a thorough examination of the materials submitted by both A2Z Driving School and the Superintendent of Career Colleges. The Reviewer’s findings are below.

The Reviewer upheld the Notice of Contravention and associated administrative monetary penalty issued to A2Z Driving School on March 20, 2026, and provided the following rationale for their decision:

The balance of evidence before me indicates that despite the progressive enforcement measures administered by the Office of the Superintendent of Career Colleges, first by completing an inspection, then issuing a condition of registration to retain a compliance monitor for six months at a date outlined by the Superintendent, then by modifying the condition to retain a compliance monitor for six months only after you enrol students as you requested, and confirming the condition of registration on multiple occasions and providing significant opportunity for cooperation and compliance before issuing the notice of contravention on March 20, 2026 and issuing a monetary penalty, you:
 

1. Failed to operate the career college in accordance with the conditions applicable to the registration, contravening subsection 15(3) of the Act.

   (1) I considered the evidence both you and the Superintendent provided with respect to the contravention of subsection 15(3) of the Act. I reviewed the evidence you provided to demonstrate that communication and system related issues contributed to this situation. You submit that you did not receive a clear and complete communication regarding the condition (CON-6660) because the letter you received was blank. You also submit that CON-6660 did not appear on your dashboard on PARIS, which is your primary tool for tracking compliance obligations, which you suggest significantly contributed to your lack of awareness of an active reporting requirement. However, the Superintendent sets out evidence that up until the blank notice was issued, you were contacted outside of PARIS –first by email on December 19, 2023, to notify you of the condition of registration, and then by your inspector to follow up with you on the conditions of registration, also by email on multiple occasions. The Superintendent provides evidence that on January 16, 2024, you emailed the inspector to confirm receipt of the first notice of condition of registration which required you to retain a compliance monitor at a date and period outlined by the Superintendent.

   The Superintendent also provides evidence that supports that you were contacted on multiple occasions, outside of PARIS, by email, to confirm compliance with the requirement of registration. Further evidence from the Superintendent demonstrates how you requested an extension of the condition in the same January 16, 2024, email and how you later made repeated requests asking for the requirement to be removed and/or postponed (through an inquiry on PARIS addressed to the Superintendent on March 19, 2024, and again on May 14, 2024). In your requests you submitted that you were more qualified than any compliance monitor that you would be required to pay thousands of dollars to per month.

   The Superintendent responded to you by email and upheld the decision for the compliance monitor in both responses to each inquiry, noting the requirement was a result of the September 2023 inspection. In your May 14, 2024, inquiry you requested postponing the requirement for a compliance monitor until you enrolled new students. The Superintendent’s evidence demonstrates that to accommodate your request for a modification of the condition, in good faith, the condition of registration was modified on June 18, 2024 to require a compliance monitor only after you began to enrol students as per your request, with the added condition that you must notify your inspector by email immediately upon commencing enrollment. You were notified of this modification on the conditions of registration by email on June 18, 2024, but did not respond to the email. The inspector followed up by email on July 2, 2024, with no response. The inspector followed up again by email on November 14, 2024.

   You responded on November 15, 2024 to say that you had not enrolled any new students and that you would notify the ministry as soon as you had enrollment. The inspector followed up again on January 15, 2025 to confirm compliance with the reporting obligation and compliance monitor condition, to which you replied on the same day that there were no enrollments and that you had already replied to the same request on November 15, 2024. I considered the evidence of the Superintendent as more credible because it demonstrates at least 10 occasions that you were either contacted by email, or responded to an email, relating to the conditions of registration imposed on December 19, 2023. After this communication, on January 27, 2025, your inspector added the ongoing condition (CON-6660) to your PARIS profile, which generated the blank condition letter that you received. The inspector confirmed because there was no end date, but rather an ongoing requirement for reporting enrollment, the condition (CON-6660) did not display on your dashboard. After you received the blank letter for CON-6660 you did not attempt to contact your inspector by email, or make an inquiry through PARIS, to follow up on the letter or the conditions of your registration. I considered the evidence of the Superintendent as more credible because the correspondence demonstrated that you were aware of the condition and that the inspector contacted you on multiple occasions by email to notify you of the initial conditions of registration as well as the modification that you requested. Specifically, you did not provide any evidence to support that your primary method of tracking compliance was through PARIS.

   The evidence provided by the Superintendent demonstrates that email was the primary method of communication used to share notices related the conditions on your registration. You also demonstrated understanding of these conditions through your responses both by email and inquiries you made through PARIS. The two inquiries addressed to the Superintendent through PARIS addressed the conditions specifically and the requests you made to remove or postpone them, demonstrate that you received responses on both occasions through email. This demonstrates further how you understood the requirements and how to comply with subsection 15(3) of the Act. This evidence also demonstrates how your requests for the removal and postponement of the conditions were denied, with the conditions being affirmed on both occasions and that at no point were the conditions ever explicitly rescinded or resolved.

2. The evidence you provided for consideration submits that you previously communicated with the Career Colleges Branch and indicated that you would notify the Ministry upon enrolling students. This suggests you were actively aware of the ongoing condition of registration, despite your earlier submission that you were not aware of a reporting requirement relating to your condition of registration. Further, you submit that your actions were taken in good faith, and that you had no intention to avoid compliance, but you failed to provide evidence to demonstrate how you complied with the conditions of registration, even when they were modified by the Superintendent to accommodate your lack of enrollment. Evidence submitted by the Superintendent demonstrates that you understood the conditions of registration and reporting requirements and had several exchanges with your inspector by email to confirm that you had no enrollments.

3. You submit that the mitigating circumstances (the blank letter and PARIS dashboard) outlined in the notice of contravention significantly impacted your ability to fully understand and act on the conditions of registration, however the investigator has already applied these mitigating circumstances to the notice of contravention issued. By contravening subsection 15(3) of the Act your registration was at risk of revocation, and by considering the mitigating circumstances related to the blank communication letter and PARIS dashboard, the investigator found it appropriate to issue a notice of contravention along with an administrative monetary penalty, rather than to revoke your registration.

   Finally, I considered the evidence provided by the Superintendent which demonstrates that you were aware of the conditions of registration from the onset of notification by email on December 19, 2023, and ongoing through to contact on January 15, 2025, where you were reminded for at least the seventh time by email of your conditions of registration and how to comply with subsection 15(3) of the Act. You have not provided any evidence that demonstrates that you complied with the conditions of registration prior to the issuance of the notice of contravention, or any evidence to support why you would not have known about the conditions of registration. You also failed to provide any evidence to support that you had no reporting requirements or conditions of registration, or that they were rescinded or resolved at any point in time. You have not provided any evidence or rationale to support why the conditions of your registration would have resolved after you received the CON-6660 blank letter on January 27, 2025, or because the condition did not display on your dashboard.

   I found the Superintendent’s evidence to be more credible because the Superintendent’s evidence affirms your knowledge of the conditions through repeated and ongoing correspondence by email for the period spanning from at least December 2023 to January 2025. You have not provided any evidence to demonstrate that you were not aware of the conditions on your registration, or any evidence to suggest that the conditions were explicitly rescinded or resolved in any way after you received the blank CON-6660 letter on January 27, 2025. Although you do not dispute the allegations against you, the evidence provided does not support that the prescribed penalty is excessive in the circumstance. Finally, in your request for review of this administrative monetary penalty, you continue to request removal of the compliance monitor condition of registration, or a reduction in the period required to retain one, which is not in the scope of this review.

Total penalty following the review

$ 750.00