Dominic Bell

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member following three consecutive unsatisfactory Teacher Performance Appraisals (TPAs).

The Discipline Committee found that the member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, failed to comply with the Education Act, and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The member consistently failed to provide appropriate lesson plans, differentiate instruction, manage classroom behaviour, and accurately assess students.

The Committee also found the member to be incompetent, as her ongoing lack of knowledge, skill, and judgment demonstrated she was unfit to continue carrying out her professional responsibilities.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against the member for alleged professional misconduct, sexual abuse of a student, and a prohibited act involving child pornography.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the member engaged in the alleged acts.

The Committee ordered a written reprimand and the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, with written reasons to follow.

The Member, a teacher, pled guilty to and was convicted of possessing child pornography under the Criminal Code.

At a discipline hearing before the Ontario College of Teachers, the Member pled guilty to professional misconduct, including failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a written reprimand and the mandatory immediate revocation of the Member's teaching certificate pursuant to the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who had been convicted criminally of possessing child pornography in the form of written words.

The member had engaged in an online conversation seeking a sexual encounter involving a 16-year-old and sent nude photographs.

The member did not attend the hearing but submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including engaging in a prohibited act involving child pornography, failing to maintain the standards of the profession, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, the Committee ordered that the member be reprimanded and directed the Registrar to immediately revoke the member's certificate of qualification and registration.

The plaintiffs brought an action for negligent investigation and defamation against various police defendants following a search warrant execution and a press conference.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court upheld the search warrant, finding ample evidence for its issuance, thereby dismissing the negligent investigation claim.

The court also dismissed the defamation claim, concluding that the statements made at the press conference were not defamatory in context, were substantially true (justification), and were protected by qualified privilege.

A claim for negligent misstatement was also dismissed as a "dressed up" defamation claim.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder entered by a jury following a trial before Justice Bruce G. Thomas.

The appeal raised three grounds: (1) an error in jury selection involving the substitution of static triers on the second day of jury selection without statutory authority; (2) the trial judge's error in leaving section 231(6) of the Criminal Code (constructive first degree murder based on criminal harassment) as a basis for conviction when the evidence was insufficient; and (3) inadequate jury instructions on the elements of section 231(6).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while errors occurred, they caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice given the overwhelming evidence supporting a conviction for planned and deliberate first degree murder.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 19, 2018.

The appellant had been on track for a conditional discharge but experienced two significant periods of decompensation in the year preceding the Board hearing.

The Board expressed serious concerns about inadequate medical investigations, including the absence of neurological examination and CT scan, and noted the appellant's significant decline from a relatively high-functioning individual to one who was confused, amotivated, and unable to manage her own medication.

The Board refused to order a four-month review despite being specifically requested to do so.

The appellant appealed his sentence for three counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The Crown and defence had jointly submitted a non-custodial sentence with probation and community service, but the sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and imposed an intermittent sentence of 75 days' imprisonment, three years' probation, 240 hours of community service, a five-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred in rejecting the joint submission and that the sentencing process was unfair.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the rejection of the joint submission and no procedural unfairness.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained a conditional discharge while finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible of aggravated assault and related offences involving a near lethal knife attack.

He argued the Board erred in failing to grant an absolute discharge, contending the evidence demonstrated he no longer posed a significant threat and that the Board reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion fell within a range of reasonable outcomes based on positive evidence, including the appellant's insufficient concern about his threat when psychotic, initial reluctance to accept case management, and refusal to switch to long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication.