Alejandro Munoz

The appellant, a high school teacher, was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault against a 14-year-old student.

He appealed his convictions, arguing primarily that the trial judge erred by permitting the Crown to call a vice-principal as a reply witness to rebut the appellant's testimony regarding a conversation between them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the reply evidence did not breach the rule against case-splitting because the Crown could not have reasonably anticipated the appellant's testimony.

The court also dismissed arguments regarding inadmissible hearsay and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for failing to display appropriate sensitivity to a special needs student.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including verbal abuse, taking away occupational therapy devices, and distributing non-peanut-safe treats despite the student's severe allergy.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering the member to be counselled, complete a course on professional boundaries and student sensitivities, and directing publication of the decision without the member's name.