Counsel for Xx. Xxxxxxxxxx argues that the Hearing Committee should accept a higher degree of deference to the recommendation of Investigation Committee. He submits that we should adopt the approach to joint submissions on penalties discussed in the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC2303(CanLII) which includes the following passage:
Counsel for Xx. Xxxxxxxx-Xxxx says that during cross-examination Officer Xxxxxxxx would not acknowledge a series of statements put to him that essentially stated that he was stopping young black men, filling out 208 cards and running searches on their identification info, and that he stopped Xx. Xxxxxxxx-Xxxx because he was black. He makes the same complaint about Officer Xxxxxxxxx. The fact the Officers would not agree with defence counsel's statements, does not lend support to the argument that Xx. Xxxxxxxx-Xxxx was racially profiled. Officer Xxxxxxxx made it clear that he did not know how many people he stopped to talk to that night and how many were white, black or Hispanic.
Counsel for Xx. Xxxxx, Xx. Xxxxxxxxx and the Attorney General of British Columbia oppose the application by the media. Xx. Xxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxxxx do not consent to Expanded Media Coverage. 12 The application was initially set to be heard in June, 2001, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, however, as the trial judge has the ultimate decision with respect to Expanded Media Coverage, it was determined that I, as the trial judge, should hear the application. Further, counsel for the Attorney General and the amicus curiae had only recently become involved, and could not be ready for a June hearing. The matter was then set for a week of hearing in September.
Counsel for Xx. Xxxxxx supported the position adopted by the Avoncore plaintiffs. While the point was made by counsel for the moving parties in reply that Xx. Xxxxxx was insured by the same insurer as the Avoncore plaintiff, I found the submissions on behalf of Xx. Xxxxxx to be very helpful in the context of the application of the Kalix principles. Counsel for Xx. Xxxxxx submitted that, on the basis of the decision of Xxxxxx X. in Kalix, the moving parties have the burden of demonstrating that a stay of the Avoncore proceedings is (a) necessary and (b) proportionate to prevent unnecessary expense and usage of court time. Counsel suggested that the application gives rise to an important question which he posed in the following way:- “Can a well-resourced Defendant choose the case in which it is sued and which will go to trial first and which, accordingly, will determine the important issues in the case, the case in which it, perhaps, perceives that it has some strategic advantage?” He highlighted that, from his client’s perspective, Xx. Xxxxxx’x position is quite different in both sets of proceedings. In the Callistoy proceedings, she has been named as a defendant whereas, in the Avoncore proceedings, the case against her is at one remove in circumstances where, as a third party, there will be no case against her unless one of the defendants is found liable and that defendant succeeds in its claim for indemnity and/or contribution as against her.
Counsel for Xx. Xxxxxx shall, in addition to the opinions set forth in Section 10.1 above, deliver an opinion to the effect that (a) for purposes of this Agreement, Xx. Xxxxxx is the duly authorized trustee for the Trust and in such capacity, as Trustee, has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform any obligations thereunder and to lend the shares of Company Common Stock held by the Trust in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and (b) by delivery by the Shareholders of a certificate or certificates representing the shares of Company Common Stock loaned to Borrower, Borrower shall have acquired all the rights of the Shareholders in such shares, free of any adverse claim, any lien in favor of the Company, and any restrictions on transfer imposed by the Company, assuming Borrower has purchased such shares for value, in good faith and without notice of any adverse claim, subject to the terms of this Agreement.
Counsel for Xx. Xxxxxx complains that his client was not given adequate notice of the meeting with Xx. Xxxxxxx on November 28th. Further, it is contended that he was not given sufficient notice of the complaints against him, or that termination of his services was being considered in the meeting of November 28th. As to the notice of the meeting itself, the evidence is clear that Xx. Xxxxxxx attended Xxxxxx River, and, upon his arrival asked for a meeting with Xx. Xxxxxx, without any prior notification. Once again, the unusual role played by Xx. Xxxxxxx assumes some importance. He is the personification of an elected school board. Instead of a teacher being notified that a meeting of the board will be held at a certain time and place, where termination will be considered, the school board, in the person of the official trustee, attends upon the teacher, to discuss termination with the teacher directly. This is not a case where the teacher was not able to attend and make representations because of insufficient notice; in this case the teacher did attend because, in effect, the board came to him. On the question of notice, the learned xxxxxxxx judge appears to have relied upon para. 17 of the affidavit of the official trustee which reads as follows: "That I asked the applicant whether he required any further or other notice from me of a meeting or whether he wished to postpone it to another time. The applicant indicated that my notice to him was satisfactory and that he had no objection to meeting with me." The learned xxxxxxxx judge cites that paragraph, plus a portion of the transcript of the cross- examination of Xx. Xxxxxxx on his affidavit, which touches upon the same subject matter:
