DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION AND REASONS ON MOTION
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 discipline proceeding against
Christopher Russell Williams, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL WILLIAMS (REGISTRATION #213211)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Ben Drory Diane Freeman
HEARD: October 14, 2021
Nicholas Fitz, for the Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Christopher Russell Williams
Rebecca Durcan, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
1On October 14, 2021, counsel for the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) brought a motion to seek leave from a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) to withdraw the allegations against Christopher Russell Williams (the “Member”) set out in a Notice of Hearing dated September 5, 2018 (Exhibit 1). In accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, this proceeding was heard electronically.
2The Member did not attend the proceeding and did not have legal representation.
A. PUBLICATION ban
3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
B. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
4College Counsel sought the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. According to College Counsel, there was no reasonable prospect of proving the allegations, should the matter proceed to a hearing.
5The College sought to interview student witnesses in this matter, but the relevant students were either unable to recall the events as there had been a significant passage of time since the alleged events took place in early 2017, or they were unable to be located. While the Vice-Principal who took statements from the students and conducted the investigation at the school was available to testify, the College submitted that it would be unfair to the Member to proceed with the prosecution of its case solely based on the Vice-Principal’s hearsay evidence when the Member intended to dispute the factual allegations.
6The Notice of Hearing was served on the Member in September 2018. At that time, the Member was represented by counsel. The Member had requested a pre-hearing conference, which was originally scheduled for February 2019. The Member then requested an adjournment, and a pre-hearing was re-scheduled to April 2019. That pre-hearing was held, and new counsel was retained by the Member. A hearing was scheduled for September 2020, but Member’s counsel requested a medical adjournment on behalf of the Member. The adjournment was granted and a new date for the hearing was scheduled for March 2021, at which time counsel for the Member requested a further adjournment and to be removed as counsel of record for the Member on the basis that he was unable to take instructions from the Member. That adjournment was granted, and a new hearing date was set for October 14, 2021, with the Member intending to proceed without counsel.
7The College has an ongoing obligation to assess and reassess the merits and viability of the prosecution. With the significant passage of time, the College determined that it was no longer able to proceed with the prosecution of this matter. Furthermore, the nature of the Member’s alleged misconduct was relatively minor and there is no risk to the public. The Member has been on long term disability for over two years and is currently not teaching. College Counsel also submitted that prior to returning to the classroom, the Member would need to satisfy his Board that he is fit to return to teaching.
C. DECISION
8On October 14, 2021, upon hearing the submissions of College Counsel and given that the Member did not attend and did not apparently oppose the motion, the Panel authorized the College to withdraw the allegations against the Member set out in the Notice of Hearing dated September 5, 2018.
D. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Panel has jurisdiction to make the order requested pursuant to Rule 13.13 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee. The Panel accepts the submission of College Counsel that there is no reasonable prospect of proving the allegations of professional misconduct. Given the passage of time, student witnesses were either unable to recall the events or were unreachable. The allegations were also relatively minor in nature. Furthermore, the Member has no prior discipline history, and he is not currently teaching. Recognizing that the Board has a return-to-work process, concerns related to the Member’s ability to successfully return to teaching will be considered before the Member returns to the classroom. The Panel is therefore satisfied that there is no significant risk to the public.
10The Panel finds that the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing in these circumstances is reasonable and appropriate. It is not in the public interest to expend the resources to proceed with a discipline hearing for low-end conduct where the College has no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding of professional misconduct.
Date: October 14, 2021
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Ben Drory Member, Discipline Panel
Diane Freeman Member, Discipline Panel