Sign In


Since self-evaluation can have extremely positive results, the Fairness Commissioner encourages regulatory bodies to look into their own licensing requirements and procedures to root out unfair practices.

In 2010, she asked them to review these three topics:

Thirty-four regulatory bodies sent in reports about these reviews, and 28 found areas in which they could improve. Reports from 13 non-health bodies, along with reports from five health bodies, are listed later on this page under “Regulatory Bodies’ Reports About Reviews.

Note: The fair access law is different for health and non-health regulatory bodies. The OFC may publish information about health bodies if they have made their own reports public. Five have done so.

Summary of Findings

The information below sums up findings from the reviews of 13 non-health bodies. (A similar summary is not provided for health colleges, because a summary based on only five health colleges would not present an accurate picture.)

Costs for applicants

  • Eleven regulators found their fees reasonable.
  • No regulator said it could reduce its fees.
  • Two found that the fees they charge are not covering their costs.
  • Two regulators said they would describe their fees more clearly to the public.

Timely decision-making and assessment

  • Eight regulators said that they make decisions in a timely way.
  • Ten regulators identified ways to speed up their assessments and decisions. For example:
    • Architects will tell applicants immediately whether they will be exempted from a registration requirement.
    • Chartered Accountants will speed up evaluations and will cut the waiting time for hearings by the applications committee. 
    • Engineers will create an online application system.
    • Land Surveyors will create a way to receive applications continuously throughout the year.
    • Management Accountants will set up online enrolment for all major programs so that applicants can get information overnight.

Work-experience requirements

  • Eleven of 13 non-health regulators require a person to get work experience or practical training before he or she can get a licence without conditions attached. Four of the 11 require Canadian experience, and three specifically require experience in Ontario.
  • All 11 regulators who have work-experience requirements concluded that the requirements are necessary and relevant to public safety.
  • Six of the 11 said they would clarify what they need. For example:
    • Engineering Technicians and Technologists will write a fact sheet to help applicants to find work experience.
    • Land Surveyors will review their assignment about field work to ensure that it reflects actual work experience.

Regulatory Bodies' Reports About Reviews

To access a regulatory body's report, click on the appropriate link below.

Top ›

What is a review?

A registration practices review is a regulatory body’s examination of the registration-related aspects of its governing statute, regulations, bylaws, standards, guidelines, policies and procedures

The purpose of the review is to ensure that registration practices are transparent, objective, impartial and fair.

To help regulators with this work, the office has prepared Conducting
Entry-to-Practice Reviews: Guide for Regulators of Ontario Professions