Danielle Miller

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who, while on paid sick leave from his school board, purchased an ownership interest in a restaurant and worked there.

The member did not inform the board of his activities and failed to attend investigative meetings.

The member pled guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension of his teaching certificate, and the completion of a professional ethics course.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member alleging professional misconduct arising from off-duty conduct.

The allegations centered on a years-long feud with a neighbour at a local dog park, which included verbal altercations, swearing, and a minor physical shove when the neighbour grabbed the member's dog.

The Discipline Committee dismissed the allegations, finding that while the member's behaviour was unsavoury, rude, and demonstrated poor management of his dog, it constituted a private dispute that did not engage the broader public interest or undermine the reputation of the teaching profession.

The member was found not guilty of professional misconduct.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a student.

The Member had previously pleaded guilty to criminal charges of sexual exploitation.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct including sexual abuse.

The Committee ordered the mandatory penalty of revocation of the Member's teaching certificate and a reprimand.

The Member, a high school teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct for showing inappropriate videos containing violence and sexual discussions, using profanity, and making sexual jokes in front of students.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a two-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the completion of a course on classroom communication and boundaries.

The Member, an occasional teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct arising from an incident where she physically intervened to break up what she believed was a fight between students.

She grabbed a student by the neck of her sweatshirt, causing the student to feel choked and frightened.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including physical abuse of a student and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and required the Member to complete a course on professional boundaries.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally and physically abusing students on multiple occasions between 2011 and 2017.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations, admitting to grabbing, pushing, and yelling at students.

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 certificate, and the completion of an anger management course.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for physically and verbally abusing an adult individual.

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, noting that the behaviour was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unbecoming of a member of the teaching profession.

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

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) requiring him to be cautioned and to participate in a behavioral program.

He argued he was denied procedural fairness because the ICRC failed to disclose 13 interview summaries, 20 internal complaints, and hospital policies considered by its medical inspector.

The Divisional Court found that while the applicant was aware of the complaints and policies, the failure to disclose the 13 interview summaries breached the duty of procedural fairness.

The application was allowed, the ICRC decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration following proper disclosure.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for obstructing a College investigation into a complaint against another physician.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked jurisdiction, erred in denying a stay of proceedings, and made an unreasonable finding of misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Executive Committee had broad statutory authority to refer the matter, the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process did not apply, and the finding that the appellant intentionally provided false information to mislead the investigation was reasonable.

The appellant physician sought a stay of the College's Discipline Committee penalty revoking his licence to practice pending his appeal.

The penalty was based on findings of historic sexual misconduct.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the appellant's practice and income, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the historic nature of the complaints and the success of interim practice restrictions.

The motion for a stay was granted on conditions.

The appellant sought leave to adduce fresh evidence on his appeal from a Discipline Committee's finding of professional misconduct.

The proposed fresh evidence was a subsequent Registration Committee decision refusing to permit him to be registered to practice due to the misconduct finding.

The Divisional Court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding the evidence was not relevant to whether the appellant's actions constituted professional misconduct and could not reasonably be expected to affect the Discipline Committee's decision.

The applicant physician brought a motion to stay the proceedings of a Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons pending the outcome of an application for judicial review.

The discipline hearing concerned allegations of sexual misconduct involving a former patient.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be determined, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in allowing the self-regulating profession to proceed with its disciplinary hearing without premature judicial intervention.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.