Christine L. Lonsdale

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

The Discipline Committee granted the motion on consent, finding that the withdrawal was reasonable and served the public interest.

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

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

The Ministry of Correctional Services appealed an order of the Divisional Court that upheld a decision by Blair J. regarding the control of court process and procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal found that Blair J.'s order was discretionary and made within his jurisdiction.

Finding no basis to interfere with the order, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the Requester.

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

The parties consented to a resolution requiring the member to complete a course on student-teacher boundaries and write a letter of apology.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, finding the agreed resolution reasonable and in the public interest.

The appellant sued multiple defendants for malicious prosecution, defamation, and other claims arising from a child sexual abuse investigation that resulted in criminal charges which were later stayed.

After his civil action was dismissed at trial, he appealed, primarily arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the ineffective assistance claim was an abuse of process because the appellant had already sued his trial counsel for negligence and settled that action.

The court also rejected arguments that the trial judge should have ordered a mistrial and that the trial judge erred in dismissing the defamation claim against the child's grandmother.

At a discipline hearing before the Ontario College of Teachers, the College sought leave to withdraw the allegations against the member, as it was unable to call any evidence in support.

The member, who did not appear, consented to the withdrawal.

The Discipline Committee granted the application and ordered the Notice of Hearing withdrawn.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after being convicted criminally for helping to harvest marijuana with an approximate resale value of $260,000.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The member's teaching certificates were suspended for two years, and he was ordered to receive a written reprimand and to report any future criminal charges.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought professional misconduct charges against a member alleging physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, or emotional abuse of a student and failure to maintain professional standards.

At the hearing, the parties presented a settlement agreement wherein all charges would be withdrawn, the member would receive a verbal reminder of professional responsibilities, complete a course on teacher-student boundaries, and undergo a psychological assessment.

The Discipline Committee approved the agreement, issued the verbal reminder, and ordered a publication ban on the member's name in the College's official publication.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff, a doctor and research scientist, $950,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages for defamation arising from a television broadcast.

The broadcast falsely implied the plaintiff supported prescribing killer drugs, was in a conflict of interest, and acted negligently or dishonestly.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment failed because the broadcast was deliberately slanted and the defendants did not honestly believe their thesis.

The damage awards and the award of solicitor and client costs were affirmed due to the egregious and malicious conduct of the defendants.