Christine L. Lonsdale

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

The parties agreed to the withdrawal in exchange for the member's undertaking to resign immediately, never teach again in Ontario, and not seek reinstatement without completing specified coursework.

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

The Member was previously found guilty of professional misconduct and ordered to appear before the Discipline Committee to receive a verbal reprimand.

The Member failed to appear despite numerous warnings and efforts by the College.

The Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to comply with the previous order, demonstrating a lack of respect for the College's authority.

The Committee ordered that the Member receive a verbal reprimand prior to accepting any teaching position, suspended his Certificate of Qualification and Registration for three months, and directed publication of the decision with his name.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against the Member, an experienced teacher, alleging professional misconduct and incompetence.

The Member received three unsatisfactory performance appraisals during the 2008-2009 school year, demonstrating significant deficiencies in classroom management, planning, teaching methods, adaptive teaching for a student with special needs, and supervision.

The Member also used inappropriate disciplinary measures, such as pulling a chair out from under a student, and failed to adequately supervise students, leading to an incident where students viewed inappropriate content online.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence in his absence.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and imposed conditions requiring the Member to complete specific coursework before returning to teaching.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to permit four witnesses to testify by videoconference or Skype.

The witnesses lived in remote areas of Ontario, and one was undergoing chemotherapy.

The member did not attend the hearing and was not represented.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the witnesses' testimony was material, they were unable to attend in person due to distance and medical reasons, and the member failed to prove any undue adverse effect.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member who was convicted of trafficking marijuana to an undercover police officer.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, noting that he abused his position of trust and was motivated by greed.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a 24-month suspension of his teaching certificate, and the completion of a professional ethics course prior to returning to teaching.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for entering schools outside of work hours without permission and taking approximately $600 from a petty cash box and a pair of snowshoes.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations and admitted the facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and a three-month suspension.

The Committee also ordered the publication of the Member's name in the College's official publication, rejecting the Member's argument that publication would hinder his rehabilitation from a pathological gambling disorder.

Following a prior decision approving class counsel fees in a class proceeding settlement, class counsel sought clarification regarding the calculation of the fee award, treatment of consulting law firm fees, application of taxes, and comments regarding disclosure of a fee sharing agreement.

The court acknowledged that an arithmetic error had occurred in the original calculation and corrected the award by applying a 10% reduction to the claimed counsel fee before adding disbursements.

The court clarified that consulting law firms were to be paid from the approved counsel fee rather than treated as additional disbursements and confirmed that applicable taxes were payable in addition to the approved amount.

The court also addressed concerns about disclosure of the fee sharing agreement, reiterating that failure to fully disclose the agreement’s substance was a mistake despite counsel’s intentions.

Representative plaintiffs in a proposed national competition law class action sought court approval of partial settlement agreements with three defendants, approval of contingency fee agreements with class counsel, and approval of counsel fees and disbursements.

The court approved settlements totaling $13.63 million with Bank of America, Capital One, and Citigroup and found the agreements fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court also approved the contingency fee agreements but scrutinized a separate fee‑sharing agreement between class counsel and a rival law firm that had commenced competing class actions.

The judge held that the fee‑sharing agreement required court approval, was not fair or reasonable to class members, and may constitute champerty or maintenance.

Class counsel’s requested fee was reduced by 10%, and the court ordered that no payment be made to the rival firm under the unauthorized agreement.

Following a lengthy jury trial concerning defamation and invasion of privacy claims against media defendants, the jury accepted the defence of justification and dismissed the action.

The successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $1.6 million.

The court considered the governing principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the presumption that costs are fixed by the trial judge and the factors under Rule 57.01.

Given the jury’s findings that the impugned statements were true and the plaintiff’s unsuccessful prosecution of extensive allegations of fraud, the court held that the case justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at the defendants’ reasonable full indemnity amount due to the indemnity principle.

The College brought a discipline proceeding against a teacher who had been criminally convicted of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving several young male students.

The teacher did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found the teacher guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a student.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the teacher's Certificate of Qualification and Registration and directed that the decision be published with her names to protect the public interest and deter similar conduct.

The defendants brought a pre‑trial motion seeking permission to call several non‑party witnesses residing outside Canada to testify at trial by video conference.

The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that credibility assessment, document handling, and logistical issues required in‑person testimony.

Applying Rule 1.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles in Rule 1.04, the court held that modern video conferencing technology can permit effective credibility assessment and efficient presentation of evidence.

Given the witnesses’ overseas residence, professional obligations, and the disproportionate cost and difficulty of travel, the court granted leave for their testimony to be given by video conference subject to procedural conditions.

During a civil jury trial for defamation arising from a televised investigative documentary, the media defendants sought a ruling that the plaintiff’s claim for invasion of privacy should not be put to the jury.

The defendants argued that the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act constituted a complete legislative scheme precluding a common law privacy claim and that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion did not apply to journalistic publication.

The court held that PIPEDA does not oust the development of common law privacy claims and that media defendants are not categorically immune from liability for intrusion upon seclusion.

However, the scope of such claims is limited where journalistic activity engages freedom of expression and established defamation defences.

The court concluded that a properly instructed jury could potentially find an unlawful intrusion and therefore allowed the privacy claim to proceed to the jury with limiting instructions.

The plaintiff brought a motion shortly before trial seeking a determination under Rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that a televised documentary was prima facie defamatory, along with directions regarding the order of evidence and a proposed bifurcation of liability and damages.

The court held that although questions about defamatory meaning can sometimes be determined before trial, such motions must be brought promptly under Rule 21.02.

Because the action had been underway for nine years and the motion was brought only weeks before trial, the request for a Rule 21 determination was refused.

The court also declined to modify the usual order of presentation of evidence in a jury trial or to bifurcate liability and damages absent party consent.

The plaintiff was granted leave to file a DVD of the documentary as part of the record.

In a defamation trial arising from a televised investigative report, the plaintiff moved to prevent the defendants from relying on the defences of fair comment and responsible communication before the jury.

The court considered the governing principles from the Supreme Court of Canada in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson and Grant v. Torstar Corp., as well as the gatekeeping role of the trial judge when determining whether a defence should be left to the jury.

Applying the evidentiary threshold described in Boland v. The Globe and Mail, the court held that the question is whether there is any evidence upon which a jury could find the defence established.

The court found that there was ample evidence supporting both defences and that disputes about credibility and weight were matters for the jury.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s request to remove those defences from the jury’s consideration was dismissed.

During a civil jury trial, the defendants sought to read portions of the plaintiff’s examination for discovery into evidence pursuant to Rule 31.11(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that the rule in Browne v. Dunn required the defendants to first put the evidence to the plaintiff during cross‑examination at trial.

The court held that Rule 31.11 permits a party to read discovery evidence into the record as admissions provided it is not used for impeachment purposes.

Balancing fairness considerations and the trial context, including the presence of a jury, the court allowed the defendants to read in the proposed excerpts.

The court also indicated that the plaintiff could seek leave to provide reply evidence if the read‑ins raised issues that required a response.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who co-authored a published novel containing sexualized content and negative stereotypes involving fictional high-school students and teachers.

The member resigned from the College and did not attend the hearing, but signed an Agreed Statement of Facts and Plea of No Contest.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a written admonishment and recorded the member's undertaking never to teach again or seek reinstatement.

During a defamation trial arising from a documentary alleging scientific fraud, the defendants sought to introduce written interrogatories from a separate civil proceeding in Newfoundland and Labrador involving the plaintiff and a former research nurse.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that admission would violate the implied undertaking rule governing discovery materials from other litigation.

The court held that the defendants were not parties bound by the undertaking in the Newfoundland action and that, in any event, the common law general inclusionary rule favours admission of relevant evidence even if improperly obtained.

The interrogatories were found potentially relevant to credibility and to the defendants’ defences of fair comment and responsible journalism.

The court therefore admitted the interrogatories into evidence.

During a defamation trial, the plaintiff brought a motion to read into the record an affidavit sworn by a deceased witness.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the affidavit was inadmissible hearsay.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding that the affidavit met the requirement of threshold reliability.

The motion was granted, and the affidavit was admitted with a mid-trial instruction to the jury regarding its weight.

The moving defendants sought to strike a jury notice in a defamation and invasion of privacy action arising from a broadcast alleging scientific fraud and financial deception.

The court reviewed the governing principles respecting the substantive right to a civil jury trial, including complexity, expert evidence, trial length, legal difficulty, and the availability of a wait-and-see approach.

Although the action involved voluminous documents, anticipated expert scientific evidence, and complex defamation issues, the court held that cogent reasons had not yet been shown to displace the jury.

The preferable course was to permit the trial to begin and reconsider discharge of the jury only if the anticipated complexities materialized to a degree warranting intervention.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisals by the Ontario College of Teachers and one of its employees.

He subsequently sought to add his former employer, a school board, and his union as respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the request to add the school board because the applicant had signed a full and final release and the allegations were out of time.

The request to add the union was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the union's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Finally, the application against the College was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to provide evidence that the College's actions were motivated by an intent to reprise against him for claiming his rights under the Code.