Ontario College of Teachers v. Spence, 2021 ONOCT 26

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Spence 2021 ONOCT 26

Date: 2021-03-24

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT

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 Michael Spence, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SPENCE (REGISTRATION #184667)

PANEL: John Hamilton, OCT, Chair Diane Ballantyne, OCT Jonathan Rose

HEARD: March 23, 2021

Caroline Zayid, for the Ontario College of Teachers No one appearing for Christopher Michael Spence Erica Richler, 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.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on March 23, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).

2Christopher Michael Spence (the “Member”) did not attend the proceeding and did not have legal representation.

3This is a continuation of a hearing that commenced on October 2 and 3, 2019.

4On October 3, 2019, the Member requested an adjournment of the hearing in order to adduce further evidence. The Panel granted this request and the hearing was adjourned to March 23, 2020.

5On March 17, 2020, the Tribunals Office of the College postponed all in-person hearings, including the present matter, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

6On February 22, 2021, the Panel presided over a set-date hearing and this hearing was scheduled to continue on March 23 and 24, 2021.

A. PUBLICATION ban

7The 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. THE MOTION

8On March 11, 2021, the Member wrote to the Tribunals Office at the College, requesting that his discipline hearing, which was scheduled to continue on March 23 and 24, 2021, be adjourned indefinitely due to a death in his family. The Member’s communication did not include submissions as to why an indefinite adjournment is appropriate in this case.

9The Member did not attend the electronic motion hearing on March 23, 2021 to make further submissions.

C. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

10Counsel for the College did not oppose the Member’s request for an adjournment. College Counsel submitted that, as the Member has experienced a death in the family, it would be appropriate for the hearing to be adjourned on compassionate grounds.

11College Counsel did, however, oppose the Member’s request for the adjournment to be indefinite and requested that the Panel set new hearing dates. College Counsel submitted that there is a public interest in having the hearing concluded as it has been ongoing since October 2019, and some of the alleged misconduct at issue is almost 20 years old.

12Additionally, College Counsel submitted that, since this hearing has already been adjourned once at the request of the Member and another time due to the COVID-19 pandemic, any hearing dates set by the Panel should be made peremptory on the Member.

D. DECISION

13Having considered the evidence and the submissions of the parties, on March 23, 2021 the Panel granted the Member’s request for an adjournment but refused his request that the adjournment be indefinite. The continuation dates will not be made peremptory on the Member.

14On March 23, 2021, the Panel additionally made the following order:

This hearing is scheduled for two more days. In order to give the Member an opportunity to choose available dates, the Panel will set four days today. The Tribunals office will write to the Member to give him the opportunity to choose two of these dates. If the Member does not respond by April 23, 2021 with his preferred dates, the hearing will proceed on the first two days set and the later two days will be vacated.

15The Panel set the following dates for the continuation of this hearing: June 17, 2021, June 28, 2021, June 29, 2021 and July 14, 2021.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

16The Panel carefully considered the submissions of the parties. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules, the Panel 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 Panel may consider one or more of the following factors when deciding whether or not to grant an adjournment:

1. the sufficiency of the reasons advanced for the request to adjourn;
2. the timeliness of the request;
3. the resources of the Committee, including scheduling related issues;
4. any prejudice to the parties;
5. whether any adjournments had been granted previously;
6. the consent of the parties; or
7. any other relevant factor.

17In arriving at its decision to grant the Member’s request for an adjournment, the Panel gave significant weight to the fact that the adjournment was not opposed by the College. The Panel agrees with College Counsel’s submission that a death in the family is an appropriate reason for this matter to be adjourned.

18The Panel does not grant the Member’s request for the hearing to be adjourned indefinitely. In the absence of submissions from the Member as to why an indefinite adjournment is appropriate, it would not be suitable for the Panel to grant an indefinite adjournment. Additionally, the Panel agrees with College Counsel that there is a public interest in having this matter concluded given the two previous adjournments of this hearing.

19The Panel does not agree with College Counsel’s submission that the new dates set ought to be made peremptory on the Member. The Panel recognizes that the Member is self-represented and that he was not present. As such, making the next hearing dates peremptory would be unduly restrictive on the Member. The Panel believes that it would be appropriate for the Member to have a choice of hearing dates and has therefore ordered that four hearing dates be scheduled, of which the Member can choose two.

20The Panel finds that this order appropriately accommodates the needs of the Member, while not unduly prejudicing the College, and it satisfies the public interest.