Ontario College of Teachers v. Truelove, 2025 ONOCT 8

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Truelove 2025 ONOCT 8

Date: 2025-01-22

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 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 17, 2025

Eli Mogil, for the Ontario College of Teachers No one appearing for Gregory Lyall Truelove Ahmad Mozaffari, 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 January 17, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Gregory Lyall Truelove (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have legal representation.

3On September 26, 2024, the Panel found that the Member engaged in professional misconduct. A penalty hearing was scheduled for January 17, 2025. However, at the outset of the hearing, the Panel was advised that the Member had corresponded with College Counsel on January 16, 2025, and requested an adjournment of the penalty hearing. This correspondence was put before the Panel and considered as a request to adjourn the penalty hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

4The 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. submissions of college counsel

5College Counsel presented the Panel with their correspondence with the Member on January 16, 2025, including the Member’s email requesting an adjournment of the penalty hearing and the College’s response to that request (Exhibit 45). College Counsel submitted that the Member provided two main reasons for his adjournment request: 1) the Member asserts health issues prevent him from participating in the hearing as scheduled; and 2) the Member is unable to obtain legal representation to assist him with the penalty portion of this proceeding.

6College Counsel further advised the Panel that he responded to the Member’s email stating that the College is prepared to consent to a very short adjournment peremptory upon the Member. College Counsel acknowledged the Member may be facing potential health issues and does not want to put the penalty process at risk of review. College Counsel noted that the Member had made multiple adjournment requests at the finding stage of this proceeding, but this was the Member’s first adjournment request at the penalty stage of the proceeding. College Counsel submitted that a short adjournment is appropriate in the circumstances and the Member ought to be required to provide medical evidence in advance of any other adjournment requests.

7College Counsel asked the Panel to grant the adjournment request on the following conditions: 1) that a new penalty hearing date be scheduled and that such date be peremptory upon the Member and 2) that if the Member seeks another adjournment, he be required to provide medical evidence in advance.

C. Decision

8On January 17, 2025, the Panel made the following order:

1. The request for an adjournment is granted;
2. The parties are to collaborate to schedule dates for the penalty hearing. Once agreed upon, the new date will be peremptory on the Member;
3. College Counsel shall communicate this order via email to the Member.

D. reasons for decision

9The Panel has jurisdiction to adjourn the hearing pursuant to Rule 14.01(1) of the Rules. Further, the Panel may grant an adjournment subject to such terms and conditions as it deems fair, in accordance with Rule 14.01 (3) of the Rules.

10In ordering the adjournment, the Panel gave considerable weight to the College’s position confirming that they consented to the Member’s request for an adjournment, subject to the terms and conditions the Panel considers to be fair. The Panel notes that the Member gave the College very short notice of his adjournment request and did not provide medical documentation to support his adjournment request. Additionally, the Panel is mindful that the Member has requested adjournments in the past, at the findings stage of this proceeding, and that public interest requires matters to be carried out expeditiously. However, given the College’s consent to a short adjournment, that this is the first adjournment request at the penalty stage, and the importance of providing Members with the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, the Panel is satisfied that it is fair to grant a short adjournment and that once a new date is agreed upon, that it be peremptory on the Member.

11The Panel finds that it is fair and reasonable to order that the parties collaborate in fixing a date for the penalty hearing. Given that the Member had not yet responded to College Counsel’s email dated January 16, 2025 (Exhibit 45) and did not attend the proceedings, the Panel had concerns that imposing a new peremptory date in his absence would not be procedurally fair to the Member. Ordering that the parties collaborate on fixing the penalty hearing date ensures fairness to the Member.

12Further, the Panel has ordered that College Counsel shall communicate their order via email to the Member. Recognizing that the issuance of their order may take some time and College Counsel’s submissions that it may delay his efforts in trying to schedule a date with the Member, the Panel finds it fair to order that College Counsel shall communicate this order to the Member via email.

13The Panel is satisfied that the adjournment, with the conditions set out above, appropriately accommodates the needs of the Member, while not unduly prejudicing the College’s interests, and it satisfies the public interest.