Court File and Parties

CITATION: Ontario Teachers’ Certification Council v. Ontario (Min. Education), 2020 ONSC 2763

COURT FILE NO.: TBA

(Ottawa)

DATE: 20200501

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - DIVISIONAL COURT - ONTARIO

RE: Ontario Teachers’ Certification Council and Petrucci v. Ontario (Minister of Education)

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Matthew Estabrooks, for the Applicants Ravi Amarnath, for the Respondent

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT

[1] This endorsement reflects a case management conference held on April 24, 2020 by teleconference.

[2] This application for judicial review shall proceed before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court on a date and in a manner to be directed by the court on subsequent request of the parties, as provided below.

[3] This matter initially came to the attention of the court as a request for an urgent motion for a stay of a provincial regulation, a matter to be heard by a single Divisional Court judge in Ottawa. The court directed that the teleconference be held on April 24^th to establish a schedule and to give directions for the urgent motion before a judge in the East Region sitting as a single judge of the Divisional Court.

[4] Urgency was claimed on the basis that the impugned regulation took effect, or was to have effect, from March 31, 2020. After the case management conference was scheduled, but before it was held, the impugned Regulation (O. Reg. 271/19) was amended by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council to delay the effective date of the impugned provision to August 31, 2021, some sixteen months distant.

[5] Counsel then contacted the court to advise that there would be no need for a motion for an urgent stay, and that the parties had agreed upon a schedule to move forward with the underlying application, so that it may be heard and decided on the merits before August 2021.

[6] The parties have agreed to the following schedule:

(a) May 1, 2020 – applicants to advise if they intend to proceed with the application

(b) June 15, 2020 – applicants to deliver any additional evidence on which they rely

(c) August 7, 2020 – Ontario to deliver any evidence upon which it relies

(d) August 28, 2020 – cross examinations to be completed on dates to be agreed between counsel

(e) October 2, 2020 – applicants’ factum to be delivered

(f) November 13, 2020 – Ontario factum to be delivered

(g) November 20, 2020 – applicants’ reply factum to be delivered

[7] The parties requested that the court set a date for the hearing during the week of November 23, 2020. There are three problems with this request. First, the court is not currently scheduling any hearings in the Divisional Court for after August 31, 2020. The court does not know what the backlog of cases will be by the end of August 2020, and the court intends to adopt a consistent set of scheduling principles to prioritize matters fairly once ordinary court operations resume. It would not be fair to schedule this one case now, while others await directions from the court before scheduling their matters.

[8] Second, the court does not know when the current suspension of ordinary court operations will end, or how the Divisional Court will be conducting hearings after August 2020. If things have returned to normal by September 2020, this case will be scheduled in the usual course in Ottawa. If things have not entirely returned to normal, the parties will need to consult current Directions to the Profession for guidance on how to proceed.

[9] Third, the parties proposed that the application be heard the week after they complete their filings. That timing is not acceptable to the court. File materials must reach the court in time for a judicial law clerk to prepare a bench memo, for the file (including the bench memo) to be distributed to the three judges on the panel, and for the panel to have time to review the file in preparation for the hearing. In the ordinary course, the parties should leave at least three weeks for all of these steps to be completed.

[10] I indicated to the parties that they could seek further directions to schedule the application once the court begins scheduling dates after August 2020. In the alternative, if the parties change their schedule to complete materials more quickly, they may seek a further case management conference to schedule a return date by videoconference.

[11] The schedule agreed by the parties also requires a gloss: “deliver” means “serve and file”. The parties will not be able to file their materials during the current suspension of ordinary court operations. If this matter proceeds by videoconference, then the parties will be required to file their materials with the court electronically, pursuant to a case management order. If this matter proceeds by way of an in-person hearing, then the parties will be required to file their materials in the usual way, in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, in the court office in Ottawa. The parties should await the resumption of ordinary court operations, or seek a further direction from the court, before they file materials.

[12] In the result:

(a) The urgent stay motion is considered withdrawn without costs and will not be scheduled at this time, without prejudice to any future claims for interlocutory relief;

(b) The schedule proposed by the parties is not ordered by the court: it has the status of an agreement between the parties on how to proceed;

(c) The parties may seek further directions from the court, including directions scheduling return of the application for a hearing and filing of materials, in accordance with current Notices to the Profession so long as the current suspension of ordinary court operations continue. If the suspension of ordinary court operations ends, then the parties will file their materials and schedule their return date in the usual manner with the Divisional Court office in Ottawa.

[13] If a party believes that there are points from the case management conference that are not reflected in this endorsement, they should so advise the court by email as soon as they can.

[14] The court has endorsed its fiat on this endorsement this day; the unsigned version distributed to the parties today has the authority and effect of the signed version, a copy of which will be provided to the parties in due course after the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: May 1, 2020