Particulars of Notice of Contravention and review decision

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

March 2, 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 On review, an administrative penalty may be upheld, rescinded or reduced.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: July 31, 2025

Tye Alli
TwoPlugs Inc. o/a BusyQA  
Unit 5, 600 Matheson Boulevard West
Mississauga, Ontario

Original multiplied penalty

The Superintendent previously issued the Business a Notice of Contravention for contravention of subsections 11 (2) and 38 (10) of the Act, on June 17, 2025. This Notice is the second occurrence within a three-year period. Subsection 51 (2) of Ontario Regulation 415/06, made under the Act, provides that the amount of the penalty for a second contravention of the same provision within three years of the first incident is doubled.

Description

Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005 s.11(2) – Restrictions on advertising vocational programs

The Superintendent determined that the Business continued to advertise unapproved vocational programs. This included maintaining website pages for vocational programs after being instructed to remove them and replacing scheduled cohort dates with “TBD” instead of ceasing advertising entirely.

Original amount

$1,000 per day × 2 (multiplied as a second occurrence)

Description

Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005 s.38(6) – Duty to assist

The Business failed to provide documents, records, and information requested by the Superintendent’s designate within required timelines. This included withholding student phone numbers, instructor contact information for 24 instructors, and repeatedly failing to comply with lawful section 38 demands despite reminders and explanations.

Original amount

$1,000 per day

Description

Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005 s.38(10) – Obstruction

The Business hindered and obstructed the Superintendent’s inquiry by:

  • providing false or misleading information
  • misrepresenting the identity and existence of “Corporate Counsel”
  • using an email account labelled as legal counsel while claiming counsel was unavailable
  • introducing an individual as a “legal assistant” who was not licensed
  • delaying disclosure of information
  • misapplying privacy legislation to avoid providing instructor contact details

Original amount

$1,000 × 2 (non‑accruing, multiplied)

Total original penalty

$5,000

Review decision

On February 25, 2026, the review requested by TwoPlugs Inc. was completed. In rendering their decision, the Reviewer conducted a thorough examination of the materials submitted by both TwoPlugs Inc. and the Superintendent of Career Colleges. The findings of this review are detailed below.

The Reviewer upheld the Notice of Contravention issued to TwoPlugs Inc. on July 31, 2025, 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, including confirming the requirement for registration and approval of vocational programs, cautioning BusyQA in 2021 with a warning, education and providing significant opportunity for cooperation and compliance before issuing the first notice of contravention on June 17, 2025 and issuing a monetary penalty before issuing a second notice of contravention, you:

  1. continued to advertise the provision of a vocational program at a career college without being registered, and without the provision of the vocational program being approved by the Superintendent, contravening subsection 11(2) of the Act.
  2. refused to answer questions, to produce a document, record, or other thing and to provide assistance, to the Superintendent or designate in the manner and within the period specified by the Superintendent or designate, contravening subsection 38(6) of the Act.
  3. hindered, obstructed, and interfered with the Superintendent or designate conducting an inquiry or examination, and provided the Superintendent or designate with the information on matters relevant to the inquiry or examination that the person knows to be false or misleading thus contravening subsection 38(10) of the Act.

(1) I considered the evidence both you and the Superintendent provided with respect to the contravention of subsection 11(2) of the Act. I reviewed the evidence you provided to demonstrate that you deleted all training web pages from the website and social media after the second NOC. However, the Superintendent sets out evidence that up until it was issued, you continued advertising unapproved vocational programs contravening subsection 11(2) of the Act. Specifically, I reviewed evidence indicating that you continued advertising unapproved vocational programs even after being informed by the Superintendent not to. Rather than completely removing advertising on your website, the evidence indicates you replaced dates of the training schedule for vocational programs with “TBD”. I considered the evidence of the Superintendent as more credible because the Superintendent was able to demonstrate that the designate informed you on multiple occasions by email and by telephone that training pages needed to be removed completely from your website to comply with subsection 11 (2) and that merely removing training dates did not render the advertising compliant. However, there is no evidence that demonstrates that you removed these pages completely before the issuance of the second NOC.

(2) I considered the evidence you provided with respect to the contravention of subsection 38(6) of the Act. I reviewed evidence in Appendix B2 of your submission which is an email that you provided the designate with, which includes an attachment “2025 Student List – Year” with the names and contact information of former students enrolled in a vocational program. However, the Superintendents evidence demonstrates how you withheld contact information from the designate on multiple occasions. When asked to provide the names, email addresses and telephone numbers of former students, you only provided names and email addresses. Rather than provide the complete information requested by the designate, the Superintendent’s evidence demonstrated that you withheld telephone numbers of students. You later provided these telephone numbers, but only after repeated requests made by the designate.

The evidence presented by the Superintendent also demonstrated the ways in which you attempted to withhold contact information of 24 former instructors by referencing privacy legislation.

On July 9, 2025, the designate requested by email the telephone numbers and email addresses of 24 former instructors by July 11, 2025. In Appendix B1 of your submission, you provided an email that you sent to the designate on July 9, 2025. Your email referred to subsection 38(1)(2) which outlines that if a person that is not a registrant is or was required to be registered, a person designated by the Superintendent may make such inquiries and conduct such examinations of the person’s affairs as the designate considers appropriate in the circumstances. You referred to this provision in the Act to ask for further details regarding the relevance of these individuals to the investigation and how this information request aligns with the inquiry, because these employees were not employed after the alleged contravention. You also referred to Section 3  – which refers to student transcripts and is not relevant to the request. You mentioned that applicable privacy legislation obliges you to safeguard the personal information of staff and students, and that disclosure be limited and justified. The superintendent provided evidence to demonstrate that the designate made efforts to explain by telephone and email that a demand under the law (the Act) is a justified requirement for you to abide by. On July 9, 2025, the evidence demonstrates that you provided the designate with email address of 10 instructors and the telephone numbers of 9, out of the 24 requested, and to date, you have not fully released the information requested, by the date and time prescribed contravening subsection 38(6) of the Act.

I considered the evidence provided by the Superintendent as more credible because it demonstrated that there were repeated attempts by telephone and email to justify the need for the information requested, and how you failed on multiple occasions to provide information requested by the prescribed timeline or at all.

(3) I considered the evidence you provided with respect to the contravention of subsection 38(10) to demonstrate your participation in the investigation. You provided names and email addresses of your former students when the designate attempted to confirm that training operations had ceased. However, the Superintendent’s evidence demonstrated that on multiple occasions when the designate requested contact information of students and former employees, you attempted to delay and withhold information.

When the designate requested both telephone numbers and email addresses of former students, you withheld their telephone numbers from the information you provided.

When requested to provide the same contact information for instructors, you misapplied privacy laws to withhold this information. I reviewed additional evidence from the designate who you emailed on July 9, 2025, when you said you did not know where the information was stored by your former employee and continued to fail to meet the deadlines outlined to provide this information in full.

Finally, I reviewed evidence of how you obstructed the investigation by providing misleading information and explanations about legal representation on multiple occasions. I reviewed emails the designate received from the email address: legal@busyqa.com which were signed “Corporate Counsel”. I note that when the designate first received an email from legal@busyqa.com, signed “Corporate Counsel” on June 29, 2025, she asked the sender by email on July 2, 2025, to identify themselves with their full name and professional title by 4pm on the same day. There was no response, so the designate emailed again at 4:32pm, and you replied seven minutes later saying that counsel was on a per hire basis and away on vacation until July 7, 2025, but that you had the authority to speak on their behalf. In a similar matter, when speaking with the designate by telephone, you brought in a third-party Kemesha Claydon who you called your legal assistant and colleague. During this telephone call, you said that you had counsel, who Kemesha spoke to before they went on vacation. I note that during the period that “Corporate Counsel” was away on vacation, the designate continued to receive email correspondence signed “Corporate Counsel”. I note that only after multiple demands to identify themselves, did you reveal that you had sent the emails from legal@busyqa.com with that signature. You said you were having issues securing legal representation and that you were self-representing as “Corporate Counsel”, which contradicted all other explanations and misleading statements you previously provided relating to your legal representation. I note that similarly, you provided misleading statements when speaking with the designate on a phone call with Kemesha, who you introduced as your legal assistant, but was not found to be a member of the Law Society of Ontario. I found the Superintendent’s evidence to be more credible because these misrepresentations demonstrate a calculated pattern where you attempted to mislead, hinder and undermine the integrity of the inquiry.

Total penalty following the review

$5,000