Christine L. Lonsdale

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with a student.

The Member exchanged gifts with the student, spent time alone with her, communicated via social media, and allowed her access to prohibited areas of the school.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a 12-month suspension of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the successful completion of a course on appropriate boundaries.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving a pattern of inappropriate comments and behaviour towards students and colleagues.

The member pled guilty to the allegations, admitting to psychological abuse of students, failing to maintain professional boundaries, and sexually harassing female colleagues.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The member was ordered to receive a reprimand, serve a 20-month suspension, and complete a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers held an electronic hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct against the Member, who did not attend.

The Committee found that the Member engaged in professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, terms and conditions on her certificate including a professional ethics course and a medical assessment, and $5,000 in costs.

Written reasons were to follow.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member who used a school board-issued laptop to access dating sites and pornographic videos.

The laptop was kept in the member's office where students could have accessed it.

The member admitted to the facts and pled guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, an eight-month suspension of the member's certificate of qualification, and the completion of a professional ethics course.

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

The College submitted there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding, as the Member's professional competencies had improved through the New Teacher Induction program and there was insufficient evidence of misconduct.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding it was not in the public interest to expend resources where there was no reasonable prospect of a finding.

The Member, a high school dramatic arts teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct spanning over a decade.

The Member pleaded no contest to a statement of uncontested facts detailing a pattern of verbal, physical, and emotional abuse of students, failure to maintain professional boundaries, and failure to adequately supervise students.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, noting his behaviour was abhorrent, reprehensible, and caused emotional harm to students.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Member, a teacher, faced a discipline hearing for professional misconduct related to an overnight school trip where he verbally, physically, and emotionally abused students.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations, which included grabbing students, using inappropriate language, and sending a student outside in the dark alone as punishment.

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

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension of the Member's teaching certificate, and the completion of a course on classroom management and appropriate discipline.

The court determined costs following two anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendant broadcaster, having successfully dismissed the defamation claim against it, was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, though the requested amount was reduced to $500,000 plus disbursements due to the motion's excessive complexity.

The plaintiff, having successfully defeated the defendant university's novel anti-SLAPP motion regarding a negligence claim, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $222,000, as the university's motion lacked the characteristics of a true SLAPP suit.

The member faced allegations of incompetence following two performance appraisals that resulted in 'Development Needed' and 'Unsatisfactory' ratings.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, admitting to serious deficiencies in teaching practice, including poor classroom management, failure to adapt lessons for students with IEPs, and failure to conduct ongoing assessments.

The Discipline Committee found the member incompetent and accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The member's certificate was made subject to terms, conditions, and limitations, requiring the successful completion of an additional qualification course in teaching strategies and classroom management, as well as two performance appraisals upon resuming a teaching position.

The appellant, a former member of the Ontario College of Teachers' Council, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion judge found that the appellant's communications to College members, the Attorney General, and the Minister of Education did not relate to matters of public interest and were merely private grievances.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to properly apply the objective test for public interest, impermissibly considering the appellant's motive at the first threshold step, and providing inadequate reasons that failed to engage with the appellant's arguments.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

The defendants, CBC and Trent University, brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' $210 million defamation and negligence action.

The action arose from a Marketplace report alleging the plaintiffs' chicken sandwiches contained only 50% chicken based on DNA tests conducted by Trent University.

The court granted CBC's motion, finding that while the defamation claim had substantial merit, CBC had a valid defence of responsible communication and the public interest in protecting investigative journalism outweighed the plaintiffs' private harm.

The court dismissed Trent University's motion, holding that the negligence claim regarding faulty laboratory testing did not arise from an expression relating to a matter of public interest and was therefore not subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP provisions.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations against the Member set out in a Notice of Hearing.

The Member consented to the motion.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, noting that the Member's case had already been dealt with by another Committee of the College, making the withdrawal reasonable and in the public interest.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for repeatedly leaving students unsupervised, failing to ensure student safety, and engaging in verbally and physically aggressive behaviour towards a student.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The parties presented a joint submission on penalty proposing the revocation of the Member's certificate of qualification and registration.

Although the Committee expressed concerns that the penalty was severe compared to prior case law, it concluded that the joint submission did not meet the high threshold for rejection established in Anthony-Cook.

The Committee accepted the joint submission and ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a teacher for multiple incidents of verbal abuse, falling asleep in class, and leaving students unsupervised.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations and agreed to a statement of uncontested facts.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the completion of a course on classroom and anger management.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action and approve a $2.25 million settlement regarding the defendants' systemic collection of credit scores during the automobile insurance claims adjusting process, which the Privacy Commissioner found breached PIPEDA.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved a 60-day opt-out period, a cy-près distribution to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the notice plan, a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, and class counsel fees of $500,000 plus disbursements.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers held a hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The member did not attend but was represented by counsel and entered a plea of no contest.

The panel found the member engaged in professional misconduct contrary to multiple subsections of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the panel ordered the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The member faced a discipline hearing before the Ontario College of Teachers for professional misconduct.

The member did not contest the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member engaged in professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The member was ordered to receive an oral reprimand, serve a three-month suspension of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and complete a pre-approved course on classroom management and anger management.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who sexually harassed two colleagues by touching them inappropriately after consuming excessive alcohol at a professional conference.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a four-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the completion of a professional ethics course.

The Plaintiffs (Subway) sought a sealing order for 10 documents in a defamation action, comprising six financial documents and four private contracts.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) opposed the motion, citing the open courts principle.

The court applied the Sierra Club test, requiring a serious risk to an important interest and a balancing of salutary and deleterious effects.

The court found that the financial documents met the test due to detailed, commercially sensitive sales data that could provide competitors with an unearned advantage, and ordered them sealed.

However, the four private agreements (supplier and internal corporate structure agreements) were not sealed, as the potential harm from their disclosure was deemed speculative and did not outweigh the public interest in open courts.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed success and public interest nature of the opposition.