DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Gregory Lyall Truelove, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
GREGORY LYALL TRUELOVE (REGISTRATION #473500)
PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT Emile Ramlochan
HEARD: January 10, 2022 and February 28, 2022
Eli Mogil, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Gregory Lyall Truelove, self-represented
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.
1These proceedings were heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on January 10, 2022 and February 28, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).
2This is a continuation of a hearing that commenced on September 29 and 30, 2021. Gregory Lyall Truelove (the “Member”) attended on these dates and was represented by legal counsel. When the proceedings continued on January 10, 2022 and February 28, 2022, the Member attended and was self-represented. On January 10, 2022, the Member requested an adjournment of the hearing due to personal medical circumstances. The College did not oppose the Member’s request for an adjournment but did request that it should be made subject to certain terms. The Panel granted an adjournment pursuant to Rule 14.01(3) of the Rules, subject to terms. On February 28, 2022, the Panel held a case conference with the parties to determine next steps in the disciplinary hearing.
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. The Panel ordered that the publication ban will apply to protect the identities of two students depicted in Exhibit 23, who were under 18 years of age at the time of these proceedings.
B. Adjournment Motion On January 10, 2022
(1) Submissions of the Member
4During his adjournment motion on January 10, 2022, the Member indicated to the Panel that he commenced a medical leave from teaching on January 3, 2022. The Member submitted an employment form to the Panel showing that the Member had undergone a medical assessment on December 17, 2021, and that the Member was unable to return to work due to “[XXX] health” reasons (Exhibit 21). The Member submitted that he overestimated his ability to participate in this disciplinary hearing and that he is experiencing cognitive difficulties, including loss of concentration and attention, as well as challenges with memory and a loss for words. These cognitive difficulties may be related to a [XXX] injury sustained in January 2021, when he was struck with a mallet by a student in shop class. The Member presented photographs documenting the mallet incident and his [XXX] injury (Exhibits 22 and 23). He also submitted that the cognitive symptoms that he was experiencing may be related to [XXX] or other medical issues that his physician was investigating.
5The Member submitted that he initially thought not being at work was going to improve his health situation, but in hindsight, he should have notified the College and asked for an adjournment once he received his medical leave from work. In light of these personal medical issues, the Member submitted that an adjournment would allow him to complete medical tests related to his symptoms. The Member then discussed the diagnostic tests recommended by his physician and the prospective timelines for obtaining their results.
(2) Submissions of College Counsel
6While College Counsel did not oppose the Member’s motion, he commented that from the College’s perspective there were unanswered questions about the nature and timing of the Member’s adjournment request. College Counsel further highlighted that due to the timing of the Member’s request, the witness who came prepared to testify on January 10, 2022 would have to be released and four previously-scheduled hearing days would have to be vacated.
7If an adjournment were to be granted by the Panel, College Counsel requested that the Member be ordered to provide medical evidence regarding his [XXX], which took place a year earlier, as well as additional documentation regarding the other issues that the Member raised about his personal medical circumstances. To that end, the College submitted that the adjournment should be made subject to the following terms: (1) that the Member be ordered to provide timelines for completion of diagnostic tests; (2) that he provide medical records regarding his [XXX] and a medical report from his physician regarding his capacity to participate and represent himself in this disciplinary hearing; (3) that he advise the College if he is cleared to return to work by his treating physician during the adjournment; and (4) that he be ordered not to teach during the adjournment. College Counsel emphasized that by proposing these terms, the College was attempting to mitigate the risk of an adjournment running forward indefinitely. College Counsel also requested that if an adjournment were granted, the parties should schedule a date to reconvene for a case conference to review any requested medical documentation so that the Panel would be able to determine if this hearing ought to proceed, and if so, when.
(3) Reply Submissions of the Member
8The Member agreed with College Counsel’s submissions and indicated that he would agree to College Counsel’s terms if the Panel were to order an adjournment.
C. DECISION
9On January 10, 2022, having considered the submissions of the parties as well as the relevant jurisprudence and legislation, the Panel granted the Member’s motion to adjourn the hearing subject to the following terms:
- That by Friday, January 14, 2022, the Member make a formal request to his treating physician to:
(a) provide to the Member medical records related to the Member’s current diagnosis; and,
(b) request a medical report from his treating physician (to be submitted to the Tribunals’ Office in advance of the case conference) regarding the Member’s diagnosis, prognosis, and his ability to attend and represent himself in a disciplinary hearing at the Ontario College of Teachers. The Member will be responsible for any expenses related to obtaining medical records and reports.
That the Member complete bloodwork requisitioned by his treating physician no later than January 19, 2022.
That the Member provide, by January 24, 2022, confirmation in writing to the Tribunals’ Office that paragraph 1 and 2 have been completed.
If the Member is cleared to return to work by a physician, the Member must advise College Counsel in writing within five (5) calendar days of that fact.
On Friday, January 14, 2022, the parties will participate in a Zoom conference at 9 a.m. for the purpose of scheduling a case conference for mid-to-late February 2022 to discuss the Member’s medical records and medical report as well as to schedule the continuation of the hearing.1
D. REASONS FOR DECISION
10The Panel carefully considered the submissions of the Member and Counsel for the College. 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:
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.
11In arriving at its decision to grant the Member’s adjournment request, the Panel applied the factors set out above.
12First, the Panel determined that the Member advanced sufficient reasons to support his request for an adjournment. The Member provided the Panel with an employment form indicating that the Member had been assessed by a physician on December 17, 2021, and that the Member was approved for a medical leave from work due to [XXX] health issues. The Member commenced his medical leave on January 3, 2022 (Exhibit 21). The Member also provided photo evidence of a [XXX] injury that he had sustained in the classroom during the previous school year (Exhibits 22 and 23). Given the Member’s employment status and his submission that, at the time of the proceeding on January 10, 2022, he was experiencing medical struggles that interfered with his ability to process information, concentrate and deliver his case (possibly due to the symptoms of a [XXX] or complications arising from the [XXX]) the Panel determined that it would be appropriate to grant an adjournment, subject to the terms set out above. An adjournment with the terms set out above gives the Member an opportunity to complete the diagnostic medical testing recommended by his physician and gather relevant medical documentation as it relates to his capacity to participate in a disciplinary hearing and to represent himself in his case. Further, during the time of the adjournment, the Member will not be teaching, and must notify College Counsel if he is medically cleared to return to the classroom, which protects the public interest.
13Second, the Panel finds that the Member’s request for an adjournment was not unreasonably delayed, given the circumstances of this case. The Member was assessed by a physician on December 17, 2021 and placed on medical leave commencing on January 3, 2022. He requested an adjournment one week later, on January 10, 2022.
14Third, the Panel determined that there were no significant scheduling issues that should lead it to deny the request for an adjournment. The parties have agreed to an adjournment with terms, including to participate in a case conference on February 28, 2022 to review the Member’s medical documents and determine next steps in the hearing. While the Panel needed to expend more resources than anticipated by having to vacate multiple previously-scheduled hearing dates and by postponing the continuation of witness testimony, the terms of the adjournment prevent undue delay by ensuring that the adjournment is re-examined in a timely way and that any extension of it is supported by appropriate medical evidence.
15Fourth, the Panel determined that granting an adjournment would not significantly prejudice either party. The seven-week delay would help determine, through medical diagnostics and reports, whether the Member is suffering from a medical condition that would interfere with his ability to defend himself, thereby assuring fairness in these proceedings once the hearing on the merits resumes. Further, the Panel granted terms of the adjournment, in accordance with Rule 14.01(3), as proposed by College Counsel.
16Fifth, the Panel noted that no previous adjournments had been requested. It is therefore not unreasonable to grant an adjournment with terms in this case.
17Sixth, the adjournment with terms as set out above was agreed to by both parties.
18Accordingly, the Panel granted the Member’s request for an adjournment and finds that it appropriately accommodates the needs of the Member, while not unduly prejudicing the College’s interests, and it satisfies the public interest.
19The Panel found that granting this adjournment with terms was consistent with fairness in the College’s disciplinary process.
E. Case Conference ON February 28, 2022
20The parties attended an electronic case conference on February 28, 2022 to discuss next steps in the hearing.
(1) Submissions of the Member
21In accordance with the Panel’s Order on January 10, 2022, the Member provided confirmation in writing to the Tribunals’ Office on January 24, 2022, in advance of the case conference, that he requested medical records and a medical report from his treating physician (as described at paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Panel’s Order). In the same letter, the Member also confirmed that he completed diagnostic bloodwork requisitioned by his physician (as described in paragraph 2 of the Panel’s Order).
22During the case conference, the Member presented a letter from his treating physician, Dr. Bob Van Noppen, to the Panel. On February 2, 2022, Dr. Van Noppen wrote that the Member “is diagnosed with [XXX]” due to work-related stress and is undergoing treatment for these issues. Though Dr. Van Noppen could not guarantee that the Member’s participation in this hearing would not affect the Member’s level of [XXX], he nevertheless found the Member to be “competent and able to represent himself if he so chooses” (Exhibit 24). Dr. Van Noppen's report did not reference any health complications as a result of [XXX], or a [XXX]”previously sustained by the Member.
23During the case conference, the Member explained that the other health concerns he had raised during his adjournment request on January 10, 2022 have been medically ruled out. The diagnostic testing that the Member underwent confirmed that he is not suffering from complications relating to the [XXX]. The Member also submitted that Dr. Van Noppen was aware that the Member had sustained a [XXX] in the past, but as of February 2, 2022, the Member’s physician made no mention of the [XXX] having any adverse impact on the Member’s present state of health or on his ability to participate in this hearing and present his case. The Member indicated that he was prepared to schedule dates for the continuation of the hearing.
(2) Submissions of the College
24College Counsel made no responding submissions and asked the Panel to proceed to schedule the continuation of the hearing.
F. THE CONTinuation of the hearing
25After reviewing the medical evidence submitted by the Member and on consent of the parties, the Panel determined that the hearing could continue and proceeded to schedule subsequent hearing dates. Recognizing the Member’s medical circumstances and that the Member would be representing himself in the hearing going forward, the Panel asked the Member whether there were any accommodations for the Panel to consider regarding his participation in the hearing. The Member asked for assistance with the technological platform to upload documents before the continuation of the electronic hearing. The Panel indicated to the Member that Tribunals’ staff would provide him with instructions and support to ensure that his documents are properly uploaded for use in the hearing. The continuation of the hearing was set for 9:00 a.m. on July 25, 2022 with subsequent hearing dates set for July 28-29, 2022 and August 5, 2022.
Date: March 3, 2022
Hanno Weinberger, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Emile Ramlochan Member, Discipline Panel