Court File and Parties

Citation: Bouragba v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2018 ONSC 6940 Divisional Court File No.: DC 16-2199 Date: 2018-11-22 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Ahmed Bouragba, Applicant And: Ontario College of Teachers, Respondent Stephane Vachon, Diane Lamoureux and Edith Dumont, interveners/intervenants

Before: Swinton, Thorburn and Copeland JJ.

Counsel: Ahmed Bouragba, self-represented Christine Lonsdale and Charlotte Malischewski, for the Respondent R. Paul Marshall, for the intervenors/intervenants

Heard at Ottawa: November 19, 2018

Endorsement

[1] This application for judicial review was heard at the same time as the judicial review brought by the Applicant in Court File DC 16-2174. The decisions in both matters are being released today.

[2] In the present proceeding, the three decisions of the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers (the "College") that are under review are dated October 29, 2015. In those decisions, which were investigated and determined together, the Committee refused to send the complaints brought by the Applicant against the three intervenors to discipline. The intervenors are a high school principal and two administrators of a school board.

[3] At the outset of the hearing, this Court gave a ruling that the Applicant had standing only to raise issues of procedural fairness, but he did not have standing to challenge the merits of the Committee's decisions.

[4] The Applicant argues that the Committee should have sent the complaint to a third party investigator (that is, one outside the College), that there were conflicts of interest and a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of member Chartrand, and that the Committee was not properly constituted.

[5] In our view, there was no denial of procedural fairness. The Committee was properly constituted in accordance with the Act.

[6] There is no factual basis underpinning the allegation of a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Committee members expressly determined that there were no conflicts of interest regarding the complaints. Applying the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias from Committee for Justice and Liberty v. Canada (National Energy Board), 1976 SCC 2, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at 394, we conclude there is no merit to the bias argument. The fact that Ms. Chartrand once wrote a letter of support regarding Mr. Marshall, the intervenors' lawyer and former Independent Legal Counsel at the College, does not suggest any partiality or possible bias against the Applicant. Mr. Marshall did not participate in the Committee's process. The fact that Ms. Chartrand may have known one or more of the complainants is not enough to show a reasonable apprehension of bias.

[7] The Applicant was given an opportunity to present his position to the Committee, and the reasons of the Committee show that his position was considered by it. He received written reasons for the decision.

[8] In the circumstances, there was no denial of procedural fairness. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

[9] Costs to the respondent College are fixed at $3,500.00, an amount that is reasonable in this case. The intervenors did not seek costs.

Swinton J.

Thorburn J.

Copeland J.

Date: November 22, 2018