Christine L. Lonsdale

During a discipline hearing, the member's representative brought a second motion for an adjournment.

The representative indicated confusion regarding the adversarial process and a desire to secure legal counsel, which had not been disclosed during the first motion.

The Discipline Committee found this constituted a change in circumstances.

Although not all factors under Rule 14 were met, the Committee granted the adjournment to allow the member to retain counsel and properly prepare, noting that the College would not be prejudiced as it had already called all its witnesses.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion, on consent, for an order to dispose of the motion in writing and to adjourn the scheduled discipline hearing sine die due to the member's medical condition.

The member provided a Declaration of Undertaking and Acknowledgement agreeing not to teach or hold any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration until the complaint is disposed of.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the member's medical condition precluded her attendance, the request was timely, and the public interest was protected by the member's undertaking and the notation on the public register.

The parties were ordered to provide an update within one year.

The Member pled guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in an inappropriate, sexualized, and psychologically abusive relationship with a student.

The Discipline Committee rejected a joint submission on penalty because it did not adequately protect the public, given the Member's prior disciplinary history for boundary violations.

Following contested penalty submissions, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a 24-month suspension, and specific coursework requiring the Member to demonstrate insight and rehabilitation before returning to teaching.

The College and the Member brought motions on consent regarding procedural matters in a discipline proceeding.

The College sought leave to deliver motion materials late and to examine five students via videoconference.

The Member sought an exemption from delivering a motion record and to examine a witness via videoconference.

The Discipline Committee granted both motions, setting out specific conditions for the handling of sealed documents during the witness's electronic testimony.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to schedule a discipline hearing for a Member facing allegations of a sexual relationship with a student, or alternatively, for an interim order prohibiting her from teaching.

The Member opposed scheduling, seeking an adjournment due to a serious medical condition.

The Discipline Committee ordered the parties to schedule a hearing by September 2017 and required the Member to provide an updated medical report one month prior.

The Committee dismissed the College's request for an interim teaching prohibition, finding it lacked jurisdiction to impose what amounted to an interim suspension on a preliminary motion.

The member, a teacher, engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with a student, which included numerous inappropriate electronic communications via social media.

Despite being warned by the school principal to end all communication with the student, the member continued the relationship and invited the student to her home.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including psychological or emotional abuse of a student and failing to maintain the standards of the profession.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the successful completion of a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries.

The applicant bank sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of an affinity agreement between the bank and a university.

The bank argued the agreement was exempt from disclosure under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as confidential commercial information.

The adjudicator found the information was not 'supplied' in confidence because it was a negotiated contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's interpretation and application of the Act to be reasonable.

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

The member had been charged criminally for conduct outside the school setting but was acquitted.

The parties reached an agreement whereby the allegations would be withdrawn in exchange for the member's immediate resignation and an undertaking never to seek reinstatement or carry on any activity requiring a teaching certificate.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing in exchange for the undertaking was reasonable, protected the public interest, and avoided a lengthy and costly contested hearing.

The Member, a school vice principal, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for his involvement in irregular practices related to the administration of EQAO tests and the development of Individual Education Plans (IEPs).

He signed IEPs without consulting parents, authorized inappropriate test deferrals, and allowed students to write tests in a manner contrary to EQAO instructions.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, an eight-month suspension (reducible to six months upon completion of conditions), and the successful completion of a professional ethics course.

The member, a school principal, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for contravening EQAO and Ministry of Education instructions during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years.

The member approved non-compliant Individual Education Plans without consulting parents or informing other teaching staff, implemented inappropriate EQAO test deferrals, and failed to adequately supervise the vice-principal, who allowed students to write tests in a manner that contravened EQAO instructions.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a nine-month suspension (reducible to seven months upon successful completion of a professional ethics course), and the imposition of terms and conditions on the member's certificate.

The member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in a sexual relationship with a minor student.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations and admitted the uncontested facts.

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

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

The Committee also ordered the publication of the member's name, finding that a criminal non-publication order protected the victim's identity, not the member's, and that recent legislative amendments made publication mandatory.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that the respondent member was incompetent and guilty of professional misconduct due to significant deficiencies in classroom management, planning, and teaching strategies.

The allegations were based primarily on the evidence of a school principal who conducted performance appraisals.

The Discipline Committee found the principal's evidence to be unreliable, inconsistent with contemporaneous documents, and contradicted by video evidence of the member's teaching.

The Committee also noted the College's failure to call expert evidence to establish the standard of competence expected of teachers.

Concluding that the College failed to meet its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, the Committee dismissed all allegations of incompetence and professional misconduct.

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

The parties agreed to the withdrawal in exchange for the Member's Undertaking and Acknowledgement, which required him to complete a course in classroom management and placed conditions on his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal in exchange for the undertaking was reasonable and adequately protected the public interest.

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

Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, the Committee found that the member committed professional misconduct.

The parties presented a Joint Submission on Penalty, which the Committee rejected.

The hearing was adjourned to a future date to hear further submissions on penalty.

In a multi-jurisdictional class action regarding credit card merchant fees, Class Counsel entered into a Fee Sharing Agreement with a competing law firm to resolve a carriage dispute.

The agreement provided the competing firm up to $800,000 from Class Counsel's fees in exchange for staying rival actions.

On a motion to approve a partial settlement and fees, the motion judge reduced Class Counsel's requested fees by 10%, declared the Fee Sharing Agreement unenforceable, and prohibited any payments to the competing firm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the fee reduction and the prohibition on paying the competing firm from the settlement or approved fees, finding the agreement was subject to court approval under the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the Court set aside the declaration that the agreement was entirely unenforceable from any source, as the competing firm was not given notice or an opportunity to make submissions on that specific issue.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a teacher who allegedly abused at least 19 students verbally, physically, and psychologically in a single day.

The member did not attend the hearing.

Relying on the testimony of the investigating vice-principal, who was qualified as a participant expert, and one student witness, the Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee concluded that the member failed to maintain the standards of the profession and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The member was ordered to receive a reprimand, serve a six-month suspension, and complete a course in classroom management before returning to teaching.

The applicant, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers, was found to have committed professional misconduct.

After his appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed, he failed to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in time.

His motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and his subsequent motion to review that decision was dismissed by the Registrar for failure to file documents.

The applicant brought a motion to restore his review motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no prospect of success, a pattern of delay, and no merit in the underlying proposed appeal.

The moving party, Dr. Chandra, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a jury verdict dismissing his $130 million libel and invasion of privacy action against the CBC.

The jury had found that the defamatory broadcast alleging scientific fraud was true.

The Court of Appeal denied the extension, finding that the moving party failed to form a timely intention to appeal, provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court also noted the moving party's lack of candour and attempts to encumber his only Ontario asset, concluding that the justice of the case required dismissing the motion.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for verbally abusing and using profane language toward special needs students on multiple occasions.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and the completion of a course on classroom management.

The Committee also ordered that the summary of the decision be published with the Member's name, finding that the aggravating factors, including the vulnerability of the students and the repetition of the conduct after a prior warning, outweighed the mitigating factors.

The College brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member set out in the Notice of Hearing, so the matter could be dealt with by another Committee.

The member consented to the request.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion pursuant to Rule 13(13) of its Rules of Procedure, finding the withdrawal to be reasonable, appropriate, and in the public interest.