Austen Metcalfe

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for failing to provide a student with timely and adequate Individual Education Plan (IEP) documentation.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession, failing to keep records, and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and requiring the member to complete coursework on ethical and professional responsibilities related to students with identified needs.

The College discipline panel found a registrant social worker guilty of professional misconduct for making sexualized remarks to two vulnerable teenage clients during school counselling sessions.

Applying the balance of probabilities to an agreed statement of facts and admissions, the panel held the conduct breached professional standards, constituted sexual abuse within the governing statute, and amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

A publication ban was granted to protect the clients’ identities and identifying school information.

The panel accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, publication of the finding and order, and $5,000 in costs, noting the registrant had permanently surrendered his certificate and undertaken never to practise again.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in a personal and sexual relationship with a student during the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 academic years.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations, admitting to boundary violations, making comments of a sexual nature, and engaging in physical contact and touching of a sexual nature with the student.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including physical and sexual abuse.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and the immediate revocation of the Member's teaching certificate.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct.

The member pled no contest to allegations of making disparaging comments to students and failing to provide accommodations set out in their Individual Education Plans.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal and psychological abuse, failing to maintain professional standards, and disgraceful or dishonourable conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and required the member to complete an additional qualification course on classroom management and accommodating individual learning needs.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the registrant admitted conducting multiple unauthorized searches in the Child Protection Information Network and improperly accessing confidential records belonging to several child protection agencies.

The panel found that the conduct breached employer confidentiality policies, contravened Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and constituted professional misconduct under the governing statute and regulation.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, a three-month suspension, remedial coursework, practice restrictions and reporting obligations, and publication terms.

The panel also ordered costs of $5,000 payable to the College.

The applicant, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers, sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Discipline and Fitness to Practise Committees to amend their rule regarding third-party record production to align with R. v. Mills.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing as he was not currently subject to any proceedings where the rule would apply.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if standing were established, the Committees' decision to update the rule was reasonable and within their statutory authority.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member for professional misconduct, including allegations of sexual, emotional, and psychological abuse of multiple female students.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, which involved inappropriate touching, sexual remarks, and grooming behaviour.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate and issued a reprimand.

The applicant brought a motion for the production of notes made by an adjudicator who resigned from the discipline committee panel before a decision was rendered.

The applicant sought the notes to support a motion to set aside the underlying decision based on fresh evidence, alleging bias and a breach of natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no procedural basis to order production under Rule 30.06 in a statutory appeal.

Furthermore, the court held that the notes were protected by deliberative secrecy, and the applicant's speculative allegations did not meet the threshold to lift the privilege.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against the Member, a university athletic coach, for professional misconduct.

The Member did not contest allegations that he engaged in a sexual relationship with a high school student athlete and later engaged in inappropriate boundary violations with a university student athlete.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a student.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of the Member's certificate of qualification and registration, and directed that he receive a written reprimand.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying an adjournment of eviction proceedings pending the resolution of her Human Rights Tribunal application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant had already found new accommodation and vacated the premises.

The court noted this dismissal does not affect her ongoing human rights application regarding the cancellation of her rent-geared-to-income subsidy.