Ontario College of Teachers v. Curtis, 2022 ONOCT 86

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Curtis 2022 ONOCT 86

Date: 2022-09-21

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

Tyler John Curtis, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

TYLER JOHN CURTIS (REGISTRATION #653498)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair Maria Lourdes Bueno-Marcial, OCT Kiran Qureshi

HEARD: September 21, 2022

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jerry Raso, for Tyler John Curtis Julie Maciura, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(3) and 32.1(4) 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, or the person who was allegedly sexually abused, or the subject of sexual misconduct, a prohibited act involving child pornography, or a prescribed sexual act.

1On September 21, 2022, 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 Tyler John Curtis (the “Member”) set out in a Notice of Hearing dated October 23, 2020 (Exhibit 1). In accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”), this proceeding was heard electronically.

2The Member did not attend the proceeding but had 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, 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.

4Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request of Person A, who was allegedly sexually abused or the subject of sexual misconduct or a prohibited act involving a prescribed sexual act. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Person A.

B. DECISION

5On September 21, 2022, upon hearing the submissions of the parties, the Panel authorized the College to withdraw the allegations against the Member set out in the Notice of Hearing dated October 23, 2020.

C. REASONS FOR DECISION

6The Panel has jurisdiction to make the order requested pursuant to Rule 13.13 of the Rules. College Counsel explained that it sought to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct in this case because it will not be possible for the College to obtain a finding of professional misconduct against the Member in view of the significant evidentiary challenges which the College expects at this time. Namely, Person A had advised College Counsel that she would be unable to participate in these proceedings at this time because the stress and anxiety associated with this matter has been taking a considerable mental and emotional toll on her health and well-being. College Counsel submitted that without Person A’s testimony, there would be no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding of professional misconduct and that the College cannot proceed with this prosecution, in good faith.

7In requesting that the Panel make the order, Member’s Counsel submitted that given that the parties agreed that there is insufficient evidence to move forward, it would otherwise be an abuse of natural justice and an abuse of process to proceed with a hearing on its merits.

8The Panel accepts these submissions and finds that the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing is reasonable and appropriate. It is not in the public interest to expend resources to proceed with a matter in which the College has no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding of professional misconduct.