Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)
Indexed as: Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) v Naneff, 2023 ONAPE 13
IN THE MATTER OF a hearing under the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 28;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a complaint regarding the conduct of Boris P. Naneff, P. Eng., a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.
BETWEEN:
The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)
-and-
Boris P. Naneff, P.ENG.
PANEL MEMBERS: Warren Turnbull, P.Eng. CHAIR Paul Ballantyne, P.Eng. MEMBER Reena Goyal, J.D. MEMBER
Hearing Dates: 2023-11-27
Decision Date: 2023-11-27
Release of Written: 2023-11-28
Reasons:
NAME OF LAWYER Leah Price and Cori, Counsel for the Association (PEO)
NAME OF LAWYER Boris P. Naneff, Self-represented
NAME OF LAWYER Jordan Stone, Independent Legal Counsel to the Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS – MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT
1The Panel of the Discipline Committee met to hear this matter electronically via videoconference on November 27, 2023. At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Boris Naneff (the “Member”) indicated he was bringing a motion to adjourn the hearing.
2After hearing submissions from the parties and the advice of independent legal counsel, the Panel grants the request for an adjournment to the week of March 18, 2024 peremptory to the Member.
Member’s Submissions
3The Member says he has terminated the retainer with his current legal counsel, Mr. Neil Perrier, effective November 25, 2023. Mr. Perrier confirms his retainer was terminated by the Member, because the Member has lost confidence in him. Hence the Member requests an adjournment to allow time to retain new legal representation.
Association’s Submissions
4The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (the “Association”) takes no position on the adjournment request. However, counsel for the Association explains there has been significant delay to date bringing this matter to a hearing and submits that the public interest requires the matter be brought to hearing expeditiously.
5If an adjournment is granted, the Association requests the matter be rescheduled to a fixed hearing date peremptory to the Member. Having canvassed the Tribunal office for Panel availability, as well as the availability of the Association’s witnesses, counsel for the Association offered one of the weeks beginning either February 26, 2024, March 18, 2024 or April 8, 2024 as possible hearing dates.
Member’s Reply Submissions
6The Member says he is out of the country during the proposed February week but could be available during the proposed March or April weeks.
Decision
7The Panel grants an adjournment of the hearing to the week of March 18, 2024 peremptory to the Member.
Reasons for Decision
8In considering a request for an adjournment, the Panel is required to balance the Member’s right to procedural fairness against the public interest in ensuring discipline matters are adjudicated in a timely manner. More specifically, the Panel considered the factors set out by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in The Law Society of Upper Canada v Igbinuson, 2009 ONCA 484.
9The Panel believes an adjournment is warranted in the circumstances. The allegations against the Member are serious. The Panel believes it is important the Member be given another opportunity to retain legal representation. Concerns regarding the timely adjudication of this case are adequately addressed by rescheduling the hearing to occur within four months and ordering those hearing dates to be marked peremptory to the Member.
10It is the Panel’s expectation the Member acts promptly to obtain new legal representation and ensure he is prepared to proceed with the hearing the week of March 18, 2024.