ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, CUMMING AND SHAW JJ.
B E T W E E N:
GARY PIETERS
Applicant
- and -
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS, TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD and GORDON KINGSMILL
Respondents
Selwyn Pieters, for the Applicant
David E. Leonard, for the Respondent Ontario College of Teachers
Clifford G. Bowers, for the Respondent Toronto District School Board
Sarah A. Colman, for the Respondent Gordon Kingsmill
HEARD at Toronto : February 7, 2008
kiteley J.: (Orally)
1This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Investigations Committee of the College of Teachers to not refer a complaint to the Discipline Committee.
2Gary Pieters was the complainant in his capacity as Vice Principal observing the principal’s actions.
3The preliminary issue is whether Mr. Pieters has standing to bring this judicial review application. The College of Teachers Act does not confer party standing on a complainant. He is a complainant under s.26(1)(b) of the Act. The College investigated and pursuant to s.26(7), the registrar gave the complainant a copy of the decision and reasons. He is simply the complainant. He does not have any special interest in the decision of the Investigation Committee. His position is no different than any member of the public or other member of the College of Teachers.
4The burden is on the applicant to show that he has “some special interest, private interest or sufficient interest”. That quotation is taken from Cowan1, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which is referred to in the Voratovic2 case found at Tab 1 of the Brief of Authorities of the Respondent College. We were referred as well to cases at Tabs 2, 3 and 5 of the Brief of Authorities of the Respondent, the Friends of the Old Man River Society,3 M.H. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta4 and Metropolitan Centre Inc.5, and those contain an analysis of standing issues that is supportive of the proposition I have just articulated.
5The burden of establishing standing has not been met. We therefore dismiss the application for judicial review because of the lack of standing.
6I have endorsed the Application Record as follows: “At the outset, counsel agreed that the names of students contained in the materials before us ought not to be in the public domain. Order to go: prohibiting the publication of the names of students mentioned in the application record and the record of proceedings. For oral reasons given, the application for judicial review is dismissed because of lack of standing of the applicant. Costs follow the event. There was no basis for including TDSB in this application. That would attract substantial indemnity costs; however, given all the circumstances including the totality of cost, we are not prepared to order substantial indemnity costs. The amounts requested by counsel are all modest. The applicant shall pay to each respondent on a partial indemnity basis the sum of $2,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements and GST, for a total of $7,500.”
KITELEY J.
CUMMING J.
SHAW J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 7, 2008
Date of Release: February 11, 2008
COURT FILE NO.: 309/07
DATE: 20080207
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, CUMMING AND SHAW JJ.
B E T W E E N:
GARY PIETERS
Applicant
- and -
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS, TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD and GORDON KINGSMILL
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
KITELEY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 7, 2008
Date of Release: February 11, 2008
Footnotes
- Cowan v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. 1966 225 (ON CA), [1966] 2 O.R. 309 at 311
- Voratovic v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1978) 1978 1460 (ON SC), 20 O.R. (2d) 214
- Friends of the Old Man River Society v. Association of Professional Engineers et al. 2001 ABCA 107, [2001] A.J. No. 568
- M.H. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta [2006] A.J. No. 668
- Metropolitan Centre v. Kaspar et al. [2007] A.J. No. 916