Ontario College of Teachers v. Spence, 2021 ONOCT 65

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Spence 2021 ONOCT 65

Date: 2021-06-18

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: June 17, 2021

Caroline Zayid, for the Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Christopher Michael Spence
Julie Maciura, 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 June 17, 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.

7On March 23, 2021, the Member brought a motion to adjourn this hearing indefinitely. The College did not contest the request for an adjournment but submitted that the adjournment should not be indefinite. The Panel granted an adjournment but refused the Member’s request that the adjournment be indefinite. The hearing was rescheduled to June 17 and June 28, 2021.

A. PUBLICATION ban

8The 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

9On June 14, 2021, the Member wrote to the Tribunals Office at the College, requesting an indefinite adjournment of his discipline hearing. The Member’s Notice of Motion reads:

“We are devastated at the passing of the mother of my children. This heartbreaking tragedy has been complicated by the global pandemic. We are not okay. We ask for privacy during this extremely difficult time and ask this matter be adjourned indefinitely as we recover.”

10The Member’s communication did not include any further submissions as to why an indefinite adjournment is appropriate in this case. The Member’s motion was almost identical to his previous motion made on March 23, 2021.

11The Member did not attend the electronic motion hearing on June 17, 2021 to make further submissions.

C. EVIDENCE SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

12Counsel for the College submitted the Affidavit of Daniela Spano, dated June 15, 2021. In this affidavit, the College provided the Panel with a history of their communication with the Member in the days prior to this proceeding. In this communication, the Member has requested that the College “cease and desist with any further communication on this matter” as the communication is an interruption to his family’s healing process following the death of his ex-wife and the mother of their children.

13Ms. Spano has also conducted an internet search of the Member and his ex-wife. Her affidavit pointed to two findings. First, an obituary of the Member’s ex-wife confirmed that she passed away on March 26, 2020. Second, the Member is listed as an employee on a website of a non-profit organization in Chicago. However, College Counsel submitted that she did not confirm whether he is currently actively working or whether he is on leave from his position.

14Counsel for the College submitted that it would be appropriate for the Panel to grant an adjournment of today’s hearing date but to continue on June 28, 2021. They also requested that the Panel communicate to the Member that the hearing will proceed on June 28, 2021, whether or not he attends.

D. DECISION

15On June 17, 2021, the Panel denied the Member’s motion to adjourn the hearing indefinitely and ordered that the matter be adjourned to June 28, 2021.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

16The Panel carefully considered the evidence submissions of the parties. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules, the Panel has the discretion to adjourn a hearing. 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 adjourn the matter to June 28, 2021, the Panel gave significant weight to the fact that the College consented to adjourning the June 17, 2021 hearing date.

18In deciding to deny the Member’s motion, the Panel further placed weight on three other relevant factors. First, the Panel finds that the Member has not advanced sufficient reasons for this further adjournment. According to the evidence presented by College Counsel, the Member’s ex-wife’s death occurred 15 months ago. In the absence of any additional submissions as to why the Member requires an indefinite adjournment or additional bereavement time, the Panel finds that it is reasonable for the Member’s hearing continue expeditiously.

19Second, the Panel has already granted two adjournments of this hearing. This has delayed the hearing significantly and has led the Discipline Committee to forgo two and a half hearing days, and all the resources allocated to those hearing days. It would be inappropriate to cancel two additional hearing days and forego additional Committee resources.

20Finally, the Panel notes that the conduct which is the subject of this hearing occurred between eight and 19 years ago. The Panel finds that it is in the public interest for this matter to be concluded and not delayed any longer. Continuing to delay this hearing leads to further uncertainty for the parties, witnesses, and the public. As such, the Panel finds that it is reasonable to continue the hearing on the previously scheduled date of June 28, 2021.

21In coming to its decision, the Panel has not placed any weight on the evidence provided by the College as to the Member’s current employment.

22The Panel finds that this order appropriately accommodates the needs of the Member, while not unduly prejudicing the College, and it satisfies the public interest.