Christine L. Lonsdale

The Member requested an adjournment of her discipline hearing, citing pending complaints involving third parties and a recent hospitalization.

The College consented to the adjournment but requested conditions.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment subject to conditions, including that the Member confirm the language of the hearing, a new date be set within five months, the parties discuss the case, and the Member provide a detailed medical report if seeking a future adjournment on medical grounds.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing for a teacher found to have engaged in professional misconduct by failing to adequately supervise elementary students and showing a lack of compassion for a student who soiled his underwear.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it was not contrary to the public interest.

The member was ordered to receive a reprimand, serve a two-month suspension, and complete a course on classroom management and effective supervision.

The appellant appealed a Master's order granting the respondent leave to discontinue its defamation action.

The appellant argued that his outstanding anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act precluded the respondent from discontinuing the proceeding, relying on the statutory stay in s. 137.1(5).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory prohibition on taking 'further steps' does not prevent a plaintiff from moving to bring the entire proceeding to an end with prejudice.

The court found the Master had jurisdiction and properly exercised her discretion to grant leave to discontinue on terms that barred subsequent actions.

The member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for repeatedly losing his temper, making inappropriate and sarcastic remarks, and using an inappropriate tone with students, which adversely affected them.

He also reacted violently in front of colleagues by hitting a chair and swearing.

The member pled no contest to the allegations.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a written reprimand, a six-month suspension of the member's certificate, and a condition requiring the successful completion of a course on classroom behaviour management before returning to teaching.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against two members.

The allegations stemmed from the same incident.

The College sought the withdrawal because both members had entered into Undertakings, Agreements and Acknowledgments requiring them to complete a course on conducting investigations in school settings following allegations of harassment.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal was reasonable, protected the public interest, and avoided lengthy and difficult contested hearings.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against two members, Lucien Chaput and Gilles Auger.

The members had each entered into an Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgment requiring them to complete a course on conducting investigations in school settings following allegations of harassment.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the allegations was reasonable and protected the public interest given the members' voluntary undertakings.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought allegations of professional misconduct against a teacher for incidents occurring during the 2016-2017 academic year.

The allegations included failing to accommodate a student's Individual Education Plan, inadequately supervising students, making inappropriate and religiously-themed comments to students, and failing to assess student work or follow the approved curriculum.

The Discipline Committee found that the College proved the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee concluded that the teacher committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain the standards of the profession, verbally and psychologically abusing students, failing to supervise adequately, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The Member brought a second motion for an adjournment of his discipline hearing, citing medical issues and potential legal proceedings in Gabon.

The Discipline Committee first ruled that a document sent by a third party was protected by solicitor-client privilege and inadmissible.

Applying the factors under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Committee denied the adjournment, finding the Member's last-minute medical evidence and lack of transparency unreliable, and noting the prejudice of further delay given the presence of witnesses ready to proceed.

The Member, an occasional supply teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for failing to adequately supervise students on multiple occasions.

The incidents included falling asleep in class, leaving the schoolyard before the on-duty teacher arrived, and failing to intervene or seek help when a student experienced a severe medical emergency.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension, and the completion of a classroom management course focusing on student safety and supervision.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the agreed-upon amount of $3,500.

The Member, a teacher facing allegations of professional misconduct including sexual abuse of two students, brought two pre-hearing motions before the Discipline Committee.

First, the Member sought to sever the allegations relating to Student 1 from those relating to Student 2, arguing that hearing them together would cause prejudice through propensity reasoning.

Second, the Member objected to the College's intention to hold the hearing electronically, arguing that an electronic hearing for key witnesses violated section 7 of the Charter and breached his right to procedural fairness.

The Discipline Committee dismissed both motions.

Applying the factors from R. v. Last, the Committee found that the public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings outweighed any potential prejudice, and that the panel's structure mitigated the risk of propensity reasoning.

Regarding the electronic hearing, the Committee held that section 7 of the Charter does not protect the pure economic interest of practicing a profession.

Furthermore, applying the Baker factors, the Committee concluded that electronic hearings do not inherently hinder credibility assessments or violate procedural fairness.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the Member, who was almost 80 years old and in frail health.

The Member had signed an Undertaking and Acknowledgement in which he resigned from the College, agreed never to apply for reinstatement, and agreed never to hold a position requiring a teaching certificate.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the allegations in light of the undertaking was reasonable, protected the public interest, and ensured transparency through a notation on the public register.

The Member, who was absent and unrepresented, requested an adjournment of his discipline hearing via email, citing medical issues and an alleged illegal detention in Gabon.

The College did not oppose an adjournment but requested specific conditions and an earlier date than the Member proposed.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment to October 7, 2022, finding that the Member's medical evidence warranted a delay.

The Committee imposed conditions requiring the Member to provide a detailed medical report 30 days prior to the new hearing date and written consent for the College to contact Global Affairs Canada regarding his alleged detention.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that a supply teacher committed professional misconduct during two separate assignments.

The allegations included showing inappropriate music videos to students, making inappropriate and demeaning comments, sending students outside in the rain as punishment, failing to follow lesson plans, and failing to adequately supervise students.

The Discipline Committee found that the member's conduct constituted professional misconduct, including verbal abuse, failure to supervise, and disgraceful or dishonourable conduct.

The Committee accepted hearsay evidence from students and qualified a human resources manager as a participant expert.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct relating to two incidents while acting as an occasional teacher.

The member was alleged to have shown inappropriate music videos to a Grade [XXX] class, made inappropriate comments to students, sent two students outside in the rain as a disciplinary measure, failed to follow a lesson plan, and failed to adequately supervise students.

The Discipline Committee found that the allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee concluded that the member's actions constituted professional misconduct, including verbal abuse, failure to supervise, and disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

A penalty hearing was to be scheduled at a later date.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defamation action against him.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that partial summary judgment was inappropriate because the issues were intertwined with claims against other defendants and a trial was already scheduled.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment could lead to inconsistent findings and would not achieve a proportionate, cost-effective, and timely dispute resolution given the upcoming trial.

The appellant, Glassdoor Inc., appealed a motion judge's order denying its anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action.

The action stemmed from an anonymous critical employee review posted on Glassdoor's website about the respondent, Echelon Environmental Inc. The appellant argued the review related to a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the review, concerning private complaints about a company providing specialized services to a small number of customers, did not relate to a matter of public interest.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was also dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of verbal and psychological abuse, failing to comply with ethical standards, and engaging in disgraceful and unprofessional conduct.

The uncontested facts established that the member repeatedly used a racial slur in front of students and made disparaging remarks about their intelligence and clothing.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The member was reprimanded, her teaching certificate was suspended for two months, and she was ordered to complete a course on appropriate communication and cultural sensitivity.

The Member brought a motion for the production of third-party records from the Children's Aid Society, the York Regional Police, and the York Catholic District School Board, as well as for the disclosure of contact information for two student witnesses.

The Discipline Committee applied the O'Connor test and ordered the production of police records, finding them likely relevant and that the balance of interests favoured production.

The Committee denied the production of CAS records for lack of relevance, and denied the production of student grades from the Board, finding them privileged under the Education Act.

The Committee also ordered the College to disclose the students' contact information to the Member's counsel only, to balance the Member's right to make full answer and defence with the witnesses' privacy interests.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank sought summary judgment to dismiss a proposed class action alleging that it improperly charged a second Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) fee for a single rejected payment that was subsequently re-presented by a third-party payee (PayPal).

The plaintiff argued that the bank's standard consumer banking agreement did not disclose this second fee, constituting a breach of contract, a contravention of consumer protection law, and unjust enrichment.

The court found that the NSF provision in the agreement unambiguously applied only to payments initiated by the customer, not to re-presentments by third parties.

The bank's argument that federal "Network Rules" mandated the second fee or informed the agreement's interpretation was rejected, as these rules were not known to consumers and did not address NSF fees.

Consequently, the bank's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, allowing the class action to proceed to certification.