Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCATA
  3. 2022
  4. Teacher QLN v Queensland College of Teachers - [2022] QCATA 84

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Teacher QLN v Queensland College of Teachers[2022] QCATA 84

Teacher QLN v Queensland College of Teachers[2022] QCATA 84

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Teacher QLN v Queensland College of Teachers [2022] QCATA 84

PARTIES:

TEACHER QLN

(applicant)

v

Queensland College of Teachers

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR332-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 May 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Howard

ORDERS:

  1. The application for an extension of time to file an application for review of the decision of the Tribunal dated 18 June 2021 is refused.
  2. Other than to the parties to this proceeding, and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the applicant or any relevant third party, other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – EDUCATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – where Tribunal made orders continuing the suspension of teacher – where teacher filed an application to review the decision and an application for an extension of time to apply for the review – where teacher filed application for review four months out of time – whether extension of time should be granted

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 s 53, s 55

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2011] QCATA 229

QCT v CXJ [2017] QCAT 83.

QCT v Teacher QLN [2021] QCAT 451

Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    The Tribunal made orders continuing the suspension of Teacher QLN as a teacher on 18 June 2021.[1]  On 18 November 2021, Teacher QLN filed an application to review the decision of 18 June 2021, together with an application for an extension of time to apply for the review.
  2. [2]
    An application for review must be filed within 28 days after QCAT has given notice of its decision whether to continue the suspension.[2]  As Teacher QLN filed her application for review outside of the prescribed period, the proposed review can proceed only if the tribunal exercises its discretion to make an order pursuant to s 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) granting an extension of time for the application to be made.
  3. [3]
    Both parties were directed to, and have provided, written submissions in relation to the application for an extension of time.
  4. [4]
    Based on her application and submissions, Teacher QLN claims that an extension of time should be granted because she needed time to seek counselling (sic) so that a medical professional could ‘verify my mental health & safety around children’, and ‘to allow for my 10 sessions of councilling’ (sic). She says this enables her to provide more ‘medical documents’ and to finalise the ‘Ombudsman & ERT matter’ so the outcome of the Ombudsman matter could be included in the material in determining the review.
  5. [5]
    Relevant considerations in deciding whether to grant an extension of time include the duration of the delay and whether there is a satisfactory explanation for it; the strength of the case intended to be brought and its prospects of success; the likelihood of prejudice to other parties or potential parties; and overall, whether an extension of time is in the interests of justice.[3]
  6. [6]
    For the reasons that follow, the application for an extension of time is refused.

The length of the delay and Teacher QLN’s explanation for it

  1. [7]
    Teacher QLN says that she did not receive the Tribunal’s decision dated 18 June 2021 until September, although she also states in her material that the decision was made in September. Further, she contacted the registry by telephone at the end of August 2021 enquiring about the review, and was advised there was no review in progress. It is reasonable to infer, and I do so infer, that Teacher QLN must therefore have received the Tribunal’s decision before the end of August 2021 and it seems believed at that stage that she had already applied for a review. I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, Teacher QLN received the Tribunal’s decision on a date proximate to the date it was made. Accordingly, it was filed outside of the 28 day time for review when filed on 18 November 2021 by approximately 4 months.
  2. [8]
    Teacher QLN says that she ‘commenced treatment shortly after receiving QCAT’s reasons on a care plan of 10 treatments.[4] However, she provides a medical certificate dated 2 November 2021 that indicates she was at that time to commence treatment shortly. The certificate does not support her claim that she commenced treatment shortly after QCAT’s decision dated 18 June 2021.
  3. [9]
    She also refers to seeking to finalise the Ombudsman and ‘ERT matter & matter lodged with Human Rights’ matters. In any event, she has not included details of outcomes in relation to those matters, other than as referred to and summarised in these reasons for decision.
  4. [10]
    Accordingly, I am satisfied that Teacher QLN received the Tribunal’s decision in June 2021. Further, Teacher QLN believed in August 2021 that she had already filed an application for review, but then having been advised there was no review in progress, did not proceed to file an application until November 2021. Further, despite saying the time was required for her to seek counselling, she did not make arrangements for counselling to commence, if it has commenced, until November 2021. Nor is it apparent that the Ombudsman and other matters she refers to have been finalised, and if so, whether they are relevant to the proposed review.

The strength of the case sought to be brought and its prospects of success

  1. [11]
    Teacher QLN states in her proposed review application that she is remorseful and committed to ‘furthering my career in teaching’; that she has sought appropriate treatment; and considers herself ‘to be an unacceptable (sic) risk of harm’. She refers to being on a care plan and continuing with treatment. She refers to having been under the influence of alcohol and ‘mentally unstable’ at the time, but that she does not drink ‘around’ children, stating ‘this was a one off event’ in circumstances that she had raised an issue about not receiving the ‘correct pay’ with the Ombudsman.  She further says she understands ‘the consequences of actions… and understand why they might have indicated I was a risk to  harm to children’ and that ‘The matter was not to do with school children the matter was to do with a prior employeer (sic)’.  She further submits that ‘a restriction’ could be placed on her registration requiring her to continue counselling for a period of time.
  2. [12]
    The Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) submits that the evidence provided by  Teacher QLN is inadequate to support a finding that she does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. Further, it says that in so far as she seeks an extension of time to resolve ‘the NZ matter to send the findings to QCAT’, that matter appears to be unrelated to the decision sought to be reviewed and the Tribunal’s legislative task in deciding whether a suspension should be continued.
  3. [13]
    If an extension of time was to be granted and the proposed review was to proceed, the tribunal would be required to decide whether Teacher QLN’s suspension should be continued[5] based on the material before it.[6]  In Teacher QLN’s circumstances, the tribunal must decide that a suspension should be continued unless it is satisfied that the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk to children.[7]
  4. [14]
    QCT suspended Teacher QLN’s teacher registration having formed the view that Teacher QLN posed an unacceptable risk to children. The basis is set out in the Tribunal’s reasons for decision dated 18 June 2021 as follows:

The notice of suspension sets out the College’s reasons for forming the view that Teacher QLN posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The College’s reasons may be summarised as follows: email correspondence said to have been sent by Teacher QLN to the New Zealand Teaching Council ‘NZTC’) in 2020 and 2021, in which country Teacher QLN had previously taught, which was of ‘a threatening and menacing nature’; also a video said to have been sent by Teacher QLN to the NZTC in April 2021 (on three occasions), which ‘is extremely threatening and highly concerning’ (including showing the pointing of a gun). In the reasons, reference is also made to medical treatment which, it is said, Teacher QLN is currently undertaking. There is also reference to an ‘episode’ which occurred some years ago in the context of a family bereavement.

  1. [15]
    Teacher QLN has provided little further material in support of the proposed review application. She says she needed more time to send more medical documents. She states that she is remorseful and now understands the consequences of her actions after having sought assistance.
  2. [16]
    However, she has provided a medical certificate that shows no more than that she had a mental health plan completed on 2 November 2021 and should have commenced counselling thereafter. As discussed, she states that she needed time to finalise matters with the Ombudsman, ERT and the Human Rights Commission, but there is no apparent relevance to her actions which resulted in the suspension, other than that she may claim those matters relate to a pay claim in respect of which she acted in a manner that resulted in her suspension, but in any event, she has not provided evidence of the outcomes.[8]
  3. [17]
    Further, it is not open to the Tribunal in Teacher QLN’s proposed review proceeding to impose conditions on her teacher registration. The Tribunal’s function in a review is limited to deciding whether the suspension should be continued or ended. I make the observation here that, separate to this proceeding, the QCT is investigating Teacher QLN’s suitability to teach. QCT submits that has been delayed by Teacher QLN’s delays in providing requested information.  In any event, if a disciplinary ground is established in due course arising out of the investigation, the option of imposing conditions may be considered in due course in any disciplinary proceedings.   
  4. [18]
    Based on my preliminary assessment, Teacher QLN’s prospects of success in the proposed review application are not favourable.
  5. [19]
    Likelihood of prejudice to other parties
  6. [20]
    QCT says it will be prejudiced if the extension of time is allowed. However, the  prejudice identified is as to costs only, which could be remedied by an order as to costs.
  7. [21]
    Is an extension of time in the interests of justice?
  8. [22]
    For the reasons set out earlier, I am not satisfied on the available evidence that Teacher QLN has satisfactorily explained the lengthy delay in filing her application for review. This factor weighs against exercising the discretion to grant the extension of time sought.
  9. [23]
    Further, as discussed earlier, based on my preliminary assessment of Teacher QLN’s arguments and further material filed, the review application sought to be brought by Teacher QLN does not have favourable prospects of success. This factor also weighs against granting the extension sought.
  10. [24]
    There is no prejudice identified that could not be remedied by costs. However, on balance, having regard to the matters identified in these reasons for decision, I am not satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that an extension of time to 18 November 2021 be granted to Teacher QLN to file the proposed review application.
  11. [25]
    The application for an extension of time is refused.

Non-publication order

  1. [26]
    Pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act, a non-publication order may be made if the tribunal considers it necessary in the prescribed circumstances, on the application of a party or on the tribunal’s own initiative. There is no application.
  2. [27]
    That said, the issues raised are yet to be determined and contain references to Teacher QLN’s medical information. I am satisfied that it is in not in the public interest to allow publication of information that would allow Teacher QLN or relevant third persons to be identified, other than necessary to enable QCT to perform its functions. 
  3. [28]
    I make an order accordingly.

Footnotes

[1] QCT v Teacher QLN [2021] QCAT 451.

[2] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 s 55, esp 55(6) (‘Education (QCT) Act’).

[3] See, for example: Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2011] QCATA 229, [9]; Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133, [36].

[4] Application to review a decision filed 18 November 2021 Part C.

[5]Education (QCT) Act s 53(1).

[6]QCT v CXJ [2017] QCAT 83.

[7]Education (QCT) Act s 53(3)(b).

[8]QCT v Teacher QLN [2021] QCAT 451 [7]-[8].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Teacher QLN v Queensland College of Teachers

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Teacher QLN v Queensland College of Teachers

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCATA 84

  • Court:

    QCATA

  • Judge(s):

    Senior Member Howard

  • Date:

    11 May 2022

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2011] QCATA 229
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 229
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 229
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2017] QCAT 83
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCAT 83
Cite 2 - [2017] QCAT 83
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher QLN [2021] QCAT 451
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 451
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 451
Cite 3 - [2021] QCAT 451
Reeve v Hamlyn [2015] QCATA 133
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCATA 133
Cite 2 - [2015] QCATA 133

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.