Christine L. Lonsdale

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for physically abusing a student.

During a disciplinary confrontation over a non-uniform sweatshirt, the Member wrestled with the student and pushed him against lockers.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, completion of an anger management course, and publication of the decision including the Member's name.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member who had been convicted criminally of sexual touching of four minor students and possession of child pornography.

The member did not attend the hearing.

Relying on the criminal convictions, the Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of students.

Given the egregious nature of the conduct and the need to protect children, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate and publication of the decision.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the Member.

The Member did not attend the hearing but provided an undertaking to resign from the College immediately, never seek reinstatement, and never teach again in Ontario.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing upon these undertakings was reasonable and protected the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct and sexual abuse of a former student.

The member engaged in inappropriate electronic communications with the student and met with her outside of school on several occasions, during which physical contact occurred.

The member had previously been reprimanded by his school board for similar conduct but continued the relationship.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and sexual abuse, rejecting his claim that he was merely trying to end the relationship.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The respondents brought a motion to transfer the hearing of an application regarding a road access dispute from Toronto to Parry Sound.

The applicants, who reside in British Columbia, commenced the application in Toronto.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the events occurred in Parry Sound and the subject property is located there, the court found that transferring the matter would not be desirable in the interests of justice, primarily because an expeditious hearing date had already been set in Toronto and it was unclear if a timely hearing could be accommodated in Parry Sound.

The motion was dismissed.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to criminal charges of possessing child pornography and was sentenced to nine months in prison.

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

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, noting that possession of child pornography is a serious crime that victimizes children and puts students at risk.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the member's certificate of qualification and registration, and directed that the decision be published.

The member, a school principal, submitted fraudulent invoices and accepted reimbursement from the school board for teaching materials and a television that were never located at the school.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, a 1.5-year suspension of his teaching certificate, and publication of the decision.

The College brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of incompetence and misconduct against the member.

The parties consented to disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, allowing the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing in exchange for the member's undertaking to complete an Additional Qualification course in reading and to obtain a satisfactory performance appraisal upon returning to work.

The Committee found the resolution reasonable and in the public interest.

The Member, a Vice-principal, pleaded no contest to professional misconduct for failing to report an incident of sexual assault involving a student to the proper authorities, contrary to school board policy.

The Discipline Committee initially found the Member guilty and ordered a reprimand, completion of an ethics course, and publication with name.

The Committee later reconsidered its decision because it had erroneously relied on a withdrawn allegation regarding a failure to report to the Children's Aid Society.

Upon reconsideration, the Committee affirmed its original penalty, including publication with the Member's name, emphasizing the serious nature of failing to report a sexual assault and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the member, which were based on three unsatisfactory teacher performance appraisals.

With the consent of the parties, the Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing was reasonable and protected the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member following his criminal conviction for the sexual assault of a student.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a student, based on his guilty plea and conviction in criminal court.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the member's certificate of qualification and registration, noting that his behaviour was dangerous, despicable, and totally outside the realm of civilized behaviour.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the member.

The member did not attend but had voluntarily submitted his resignation and undertaken not to teach in Ontario or seek reinstatement.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal in exchange for the undertaking, which would be published on the Public Register, was reasonable and protected the public interest.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action for being commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The motion judge found that the appellant knew she had suffered an injury from an unconsented surgical procedure on September 3, 2004, and immediately sought legal advice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the limitation period began to run on that date and dismissed the appeal.

The member, an elementary school teacher, was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to six months of house arrest and two years of probation.

At a discipline hearing before the Ontario College of Teachers, the member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, revoking the member's teaching certificate and ordering the publication of his name in the College's official publication, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and public protection.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member due to insufficiency of evidence.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee authorized the withdrawal on consent, in exchange for the member's undertaking to complete a pre-approved course on classroom management and ethnocultural sensitization before accepting any teaching position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Committee found this resolution reasonable and in the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a teacher for allegedly using inappropriate physical force and restraint on several students in a special education class.

The teacher argued that the students were aggressive and that he used approved restraint techniques to ensure safety.

The Discipline Committee heard expert testimony on the appropriate use of physical restraint, establishing that it must only be used as a last resort when there is an imminent risk of injury.

The Committee found that in multiple incidents, the teacher used physical force and restraint when there was no imminent danger and without attempting other intervention methods.

The Committee concluded that the teacher's actions constituted professional misconduct, including abusing students, failing to maintain professional standards, and engaging in disgraceful and unprofessional conduct.

The respondent operated a direct mail business in Ontario that sold lottery tickets and merchandise to persons outside Canada.

He was acquitted of making false or misleading representations 'to the public' under s. 52(1) of the Competition Act because the trial judge held the phrase only applied to the Canadian public.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that 'to the public' is not restricted to the Canadian public where there is a real and substantial link to Canada.

However, the Court ordered a new trial because the trial judge's excessive interventions and cross-examination of the respondent compromised the appearance of trial fairness.

The Court also clarified that reliance on legal advice is a mistake of law, not fact, and that the post-1999 mens rea requirement for s. 52 requires proof of knowledge or recklessness regarding the misleading nature of the representations.

The Ministry of Correctional Services and a journalist (Jane Doe) both brought applications for judicial review of decisions by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) regarding access to records relating to allegations of abuse by Ministry employees.

The Divisional Court held that the IPC correctly interpreted the employment-related exclusion in s. 65(6) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, finding it did not apply to records of civil litigation where the Crown is vicariously liable for employee torts.

The Court also upheld the IPC's findings on solicitor-client and litigation privilege under s. 19, and personal privacy under s. 21.

However, the Court found the IPC erred by failing to apply the public interest override in s. 23 to records exempted under s. 19, and referred the matter back to the IPC.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a teacher for using inappropriate force against two Grade 2 students, including striking one in the forehead and dragging another by the arm.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and guilty plea, finding the teacher guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand and a six-month suspension, which would be postponed and ultimately not imposed if the teacher successfully completed an Additional Qualification course in Special Education.

The Ministry of Correctional Services appealed an order granting a requester's counsel access to records subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege for the purpose of arguing a judicial review application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that records subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege may only be disclosed where 'absolutely necessary'.

The Court found no such absolute necessity in this case.

The Court also held that while the procedural provisions of the Access Act prohibiting disclosure apply to the Commissioner, courts on judicial review are governed by their own procedural rules but must adopt procedures to protect confidentiality until a substantive decision is made.