DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Motion of the Applicant, Sheila Angela O’Shea, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Jane Ishibashi, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT Stéphane Vallée, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Shane D’Souza, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Duane Crocker, ) Law Clerk -and- ) SHEILA ANGELA O’SHEA ) Sheila Angela O’Shea, (CERTIFICATE #421862) ) Self-represented ) Rebecca Durcan, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) Heard: March 22, 2016
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on March 22, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated July 31, 2012, was served on Sheila Angela O’Shea (the “Member”) requesting her presence on August 30, 2012 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set to commence on March 22, 2016.
THE MOTION
On March 22, 2016, the Member brought a motion seeking an adjournment of the March 22, 2016 hearing.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Member advised College Counsel late on March 21, 2016 that she required accommodation with respect to a hearing impairment, specifically closed captioning, in order for the hearing to proceed.
In the circumstances, College Counsel advised that he had made inquiries to see if closed captioning could be arranged for the first day of hearing. He advised that the arrangements could not be made for March 22, 2016. However, he also advised that there was a possibility that closed captioning could be arranged for 9:00 a.m. on March 23, 2016. Both parties agreed to the proposed adjournment to 9:00 a.m. on March 22, 2016.
The Member acknowledged on the record that she agreed with College Counsel’s submissions with respect to the adjournment.
DECISION
Having considered the submissions of both parties as well as Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practice Committee (the “Rules”), the Committee grants the motion for adjournment.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee carefully considered the submissions of the Member and College Counsel. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules, the Committee has the discretion to adjourn a hearing. Furthermore, pursuant to sub-rule 14.01(2) of the Rules and in accordance with section 21 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Committee may consider one or more of the following factors when deciding whether or not to grant an adjournment:
the sufficiency of the reasons advanced for the request to adjourn;
the timeliness of the request;
the resources of the Committee, including scheduling related issues;
any prejudice to the parties;
whether any adjournments had been granted previously;
the consent of the parties; or
any other relevant factor.
In arriving at its decision to grant the Member an adjournment, the Committee applied the seven factors set out above. First, the Committee determined that the Member advanced sufficient reasons to support her request for an adjournment. The Committee accepts that Member requires accommodation through closed captioning in order to participate fully in the hearing. The Committee determined that it was appropriate to allow a brief adjournment so that the Member can have access to closed captioning.
Second, the Committee finds that while the Member’s request for an adjournment was brought on the day that the hearing was to commence (and she only advised College Counsel of her request late on March 21, 2016), the Committee also noted that the Member submitted that her former counsel had failed to advise College Counsel of her requirement for accommodation. The Committee finds that the timing of the request for the adjournment was unfortunate, but the Committee understands that it was beyond the Member’s control.
Third, the Committee determined that there were no significant scheduling issues that should lead it to deny the request for an adjournment. The Committee is available to proceed at 9:00 a.m. on March 23, 2016 and, in fact, decided to seize itself of this hearing.
Fourth, the Committee determined that not granting an adjournment would significantly prejudice the Member. While the College was prepared to proceed on March 22, 2016 and had witnesses present and prepared to give evidence, the inconvenience to the College is outweighed by the fairness factor of ensuring that the Member’s accommodation is met.
Fifth, the Committee noted that there was no submission with respect to previous requests for adjournment, so the Committee considers this to be irrelevant to the adjournment request.
Sixth, College Counsel consented to the adjournment because the College recognized that the Member required accommodation.
Seventh, with regards to any other relevant factor, the Committee acknowledged the potential prejudice to the Member of proceeding without appropriate accommodation.
Accordingly, the Committee grants the Member’s request for an adjournment.
The Committee is satisfied that the adjournment to 9:00 a.m. on March 23, 2016, subject to the College arranging sufficient accommodation for the Member, does not prejudice the parties and satisfies the public interest.
Date: March 22, 2016
Jane Ishibashi Chair, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel