Ontario College of Teachers v. Leroux, 2025 ONOCT 28

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Leroux 2025 ONOCT 28

Date: 2025-05-22

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 Justin Patrick Claude Leroux, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JUSTIN PATRICK CLAUDE LEROUX (REGISTRATION #566927)

PANEL: Rachelle Coleman, Chair Susan Arbour, OCT Terrence Singh, OCT

HEARD: May 8, 2025

COUNSEL: Jordan Stone and Joshua Freedman, for the Ontario College of Teachers Christopher Perri and Newsha Zargaran, for Justin Patrick Claude Leroux Emily Graham, Independent Legal Counsel

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on May 8, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).

2Justin Patrick Claude Leroux (the “Member”) did not attend the proceeding but had legal representation.

A. THE MOTION

3At the outset of the hearing, Counsel for the Member brought a motion for an adjournment of the hearing.

B. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE MEMBER

4Mr. Perri, lead Counsel for the Member, advised the Panel that he had recently discovered a personal conflict of interest that required him to withdraw as the Member’s legal representative. He had arranged for another lawyer from his firm to represent the Member as lead counsel, but incoming counsel would require time to review the file and prepare for the hearing. The parties had initiated discussions with the Tribunals Coordinator regarding potential rescheduled hearing dates, but none had been finalized.

C. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

5Mr. Stone, lead Counsel for the College, indicated that he had been made aware of the conflict issue four days before the scheduled start of the hearing. College Counsel noted that this was the Member’s first adjournment request and that the parties expected to be able to begin the hearing on a new date within approximately six weeks. He also submitted that requiring the Member to participate in the hearing without legal representation would be unfair. Under these circumstances, College Counsel indicated that the College was consenting to the request for an adjournment.

D. DECISION

6On May 8, 2025, having considered the submissions of the parties and the relevant legislation, the Panel made the following order:

1. The request for an adjournment is granted.
2. The parties are to collaborate with each other and the Tribunals’ Office to reschedule dates for the hearing.
3. This panel is not seized.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Panel carefully considered the submissions of Counsel for the Member and College Counsel. Pursuant to rule 14, 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 in deciding whether to grant an adjournment:

a) the sufficiency of the reasons advanced for the request to adjourn; b) the timeliness of the request; c) the resources of the Committee; d) any prejudice to the parties; e) whether any adjournments have been granted previously; f) the consent of the parties; or g) any other relevant factor.

8In deciding to grant the adjournment, the Panel considered the following factors: First, the Panel determined that the Member’s Counsel advanced sufficient reasons to support the adjournment request. A personal conflict of interest requires Mr. Perri to withdraw as the Member’s legal representative, and while substituting counsel from the same firm minimizes disruption, the Panel accepts that incoming counsel requires preparation time to effectively represent the Member at the hearing.

9Second, the Panel finds that the Member’s adjournment request was not unreasonably delayed. When both parties became aware of the conflict issue, they acted diligently to address the scheduling implications with Tribunals’ staff immediately.

10Third, the Panel finds that the anticipated rescheduling of the hearing presents no apparent operational challenges to the Tribunal. As this Panel is not seized on the matter, the rescheduled hearing may proceed before a differently constituted panel, if needed, and the parties are willing to work with Tribunals’ staff to find alternate hearing dates.

11Fourth, the Panel finds that no meaningful prejudice arises from a brief adjournment of approximately six weeks, particularly given the absence of any prior adjournments, the College’s consent, and the unfairness that would result if the Member were required to proceed with a hearing on the merits without counsel.

12Accordingly, the Panel grants the Member’s motion for an adjournment. The adjournment appropriately balances the Member’s right to legal representation, the College’s interest in the timely prosecution of the matter, and the interests of the profession and the public in a fair disciplinary process.