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
Ginette Carmen Thanase, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
GINETTE CARMEN THANASE (REGISTRATION #417952)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Scott Barker, OCT Élaine Legault
HEARD: January 23, 2023
Émilie Bruneau and Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Paulette Thanase, for Ginette Carmen Thanase
Renée Kopp, 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.
This hearing was conducted electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on January 23, 2023, in accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”), to hear the allegations against Ginette Carmen Thanase (the “Member”) set out in the Notice of Hearing dated May 11, 2020.
The Member attended the hearing. Paulette Thanase, who stated that she was the Member’s counsel (the “Member’s Counsel”), also attended the hearing.
On January 20, 2023, the Member requested an adjournment by email (Exhibit 1) which, for the purposes of this hearing, will be considered a Motion to Adjourn. At the outset of the proceeding, College Counsel submitted that the College was prepared to agree to Member’s request for an adjournment, subject to certain conditions.
A. PUBLICATION BAN
The 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. MEMBER’S SUBMISSIONS
The Member’s Counsel put forth an explanation as to why the Member had requested an adjournment and why she was not able to begin the hearing on the merits as scheduled. Among other things, the Member’s Counsel informed the Panel of other pending complaints involving third parties that needed to be addressed before this hearing could take place. The resolution of these complaints, she said, could directly impact the outcome of the present hearing. The Member’s Counsel requested that the hearing be adjourned indefinitely and that a new date be set only when the other complaints involving third parties were resolved. While the Member’s Counsel indicated that she also wished to make submissions to the Panel regarding the dismissal of the present disciplinary proceedings, she had not provided notice of her intention to make such a request or filed a motion to that effect in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules. Thus, the Panel dealt solely with the request for an adjournment.
The Member’s Counsel did not raise the Member’s medical condition in her oral submissions; however, she had raised that concern in a letter she sent to the College, dated January 17, 2023 (Exhibit 4 at Exhibit B). In her letter, the Member’s Counsel indicated that the Member was hospitalized from late November 2022 to late December 2022, and as a result, her health specialists had recommended that she avoid any type of stress as well as legal proceedings. The letter was accompanied by a medical bill.
Referring to the factors listed at Rule 14.01 of the Rules, the Member’s Counsel raised the sufficiency of the reasons advanced for the request for an adjournment, stating that refusing the request would cause a prejudice to the Member, who would be unable to resolve the other complaints involving third parties which may impact the outcome of the present hearing. Further, the Member’s Counsel mentioned that one adjournment had already been granted in this case, and therefore, the Panel should grant another.
C. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
College Counsel indicated that the College consented to the Member’s request for an adjournment. However, they argued that the Panel should only grant the adjournment under certain conditions.
College Counsel provided the history of their communications and attempted communications with the Member, up to her request for an adjournment, sent via email by the Member’s Counsel on her behalf and received on January 20, 2023. The College submitted the Affidavit of Annie Lacroix, sworn on January 16, 2023 (Exhibit 3), which provides the history of communications between College Counsel and the Member regarding the present hearing. In this affidavit, the College indicates that the parties appeared before the Discipline Committee on August 31, 2022, to schedule the hearing. The Member attended the meeting, and the hearing date was set for January 23, 2023, with her consent. College Counsel also submitted the Supplementary Affidavit of Annie Lacroix, sworn on January 20, 2023 (Exhibit 4), which set forth the communications between the College and the Member’s Counsel. Exhibit C of this affidavit presents College Counsel’s response to the letter sent by the Member’s Counsel, dated January 17, 2023. The College requested more details regarding the Member’s medical condition and mentioned that the health professional’s name on the medical bill was not legible. In addition, the College sought the Member’s consent to consult with her health professional, which the Member’s Counsel refused to provide (Exhibit D of this affidavit). For these reasons, College Counsel requests that the adjournment be granted subject to certain conditions.
Given the history between the parties, College Counsel requests that should the Panel grant the request for an adjournment, the following conditions be attached to the order: first, that the Member confirm the language in which the hearing will be conducted; second, that a new hearing date be set; third, that the Member and the Member’s Counsel agree to discuss the case with College Counsel, and; fourth, that should the Member reapply for an adjournment based on her medical condition, she provide the College with a detailed medical report at least 30 days prior to the new hearing date.
Finally, College Counsel made submissions based on the factors listed in Rule 14.01 of the Rules. With respect to the sufficiency of the reasons advanced, College Counsel recognized that the Member provided a medical bill but noted a lack of information regarding the Member’s current medical condition. This supports College Counsel’s submission that the Panel make an order requiring the Member to provide a detailed medical report should she request any subsequent adjournment due to her medical condition. Further, College Counsel raised the issue of the short timeframe in which the Member requested an adjournment. The request was submitted to the College essentially on the eve of the hearing scheduled several months ago with the Member’s consent. The College finds this to be unreasonable.
D. DECISION
On January 23, 2023, 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:
Within 20 days, the Member or the Member’s Counsel must confirm the language in which the hearing will be conducted.
A new hearing date will be set today at the conclusion of this proceeding, so that the hearing may take place at the earliest available date in the next five months.
Within 20 days, the Member and the Member’s Counsel must contact College Counsel to discuss the case.
If the Member presents a new request for an adjournment based on her medical condition, she must send the College a detailed medical report on her condition, including the name of her treating physician and their professional qualifications, at least 30 days prior to the new hearing date.
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
The Panel carefully considered the parties’ submissions. The Panel has jurisdiction to adjourn the hearing pursuant to Rule 14.01(1) of the Rules. Further, the Panel may grant adjournments subject to such terms and conditions as it deems fair, in accordance with Rule 14.01(3) of the Rules.
Given that the College did not oppose the Member’s request for an adjournment, there is no need for the Panel to consider whether beginning the hearing on the scheduled date would cause a prejudice to the Member, as was submitted by the Member’s Counsel. The Panel gave considerable weight to College Counsel’s submissions confirming that the College did not object to an adjournment being granted and, accordingly, granted the Member’s request for an adjournment, subject to the following terms and conditions the Panel considers to be fair.
First, with respect to the language in which the hearing on the merits will be conducted, the Panel finds it is reasonable to require the Member to confirm her language preference so that the Tribunals’ Office may make the necessary arrangements to ensure the Panel assigned to the hearing is able to rule in the language the Member chooses. The Member has the right to carry out her dealings with the College in either English or French, but she must inform the College of her choice without further delay so that the hearing may take place in a timely manner.
Second, the Panel believes that five months is a reasonable timeframe in which to reschedule the hearing on the merits. The Panel rejects the argument raised by the Member’s Counsel to support her request for the hearing to be adjourned pending the resolution of unsubstantiated complaints involving unidentified third parties. The Panel finds these grounds to be vague and insufficient and cannot conclude or accept that they would have a direct impact on the outcome of this hearing. Further, the Panel believes that rescheduling hearings is important to ensure the efficient management of disciplinary files and emphasizes that disciplinary hearings must be held in a timely manner to protect the public interest.
Third, with respect to the College’s request that the Member agree to discuss the case with College Counsel, the Panel finds that this request is reasonable given the many issues raised in the parties’ letters and emails to date. The discussions will allow the parties to address and resolve procedural issues prior to the hearing on the merits, which in turn will contribute to resource savings when the hearing is held.
Fourth, the Panel finds it is appropriate to require that the Member provide a detailed medical report if she intends to apply for a medical adjournment at a later date. The Member’s Counsel presented the Member’s medical condition as being one of the reasons she was seeking an adjournment. However, the Panel notes that the medical bill provided refers to a period prior to December 23, 2022. It is therefore unclear whether the Member’s medical condition has persisted. In addition, the Member’s Counsel did not provide any details about the Member’s medical condition that would preclude her from participating in a disciplinary hearing, including the nature of her medical condition, the name of her treating physician or their professional qualifications. An order requiring that the Member provide a detailed medical report at least 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing on the merits will allow for a reasonable timeframe in which the Panel may assess the merits of any future requests for medical adjournments.
Overall, the Panel finds that this Order of Adjournment, subject to the conditions set out above, fairly accommodates the Member’s needs without unduly prejudicing the College’s interests and protects the public interest.
Date: March 28, 2023
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Scott Barker, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel