Dr. Mary Louise Arnold

The appellant, a teacher, was found to have committed professional misconduct and sexual abuse by sending inappropriate Facebook messages to a former student.

Under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, this finding resulted in the mandatory revocation of his teaching certificate.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the mandatory revocation provisions unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that the Discipline Panel erred in its evidentiary rulings and by failing to conduct a Doré analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Panel's finding that the infringement of the appellant's freedom of expression was justified under s. 1 of the Charter to protect vulnerable students from sexual abuse.

The Member, a teacher whose certificate was mandatorily revoked after being found to have sexually abused a student by making remarks of a sexual nature, brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory revocation provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The Member argued the provisions violated his right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

The Discipline Committee admitted expert evidence from both parties.

Applying the Irwin Toy and Oakes tests, the Committee found that while the mandatory revocation provisions do infringe on the Member's freedom of expression, the infringement is demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The Committee held that protecting vulnerable students from the harmful effects of sexual abuse is a pressing and substantial objective, and that a bright-line rule of mandatory revocation is rationally connected and proportionate to that goal.

The constitutional motion was dismissed.

In a discipline proceeding against a teacher found to have engaged in sexual abuse, the member brought a constitutional motion challenging the mandatory revocation provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

Prior to hearing the motion, the parties sought a ruling on the admissibility of two expert reports.

The Discipline Committee ruled that the expert reports of Dr. Anthony Doob, regarding general deterrence and mandatory minimum sentences, and Dr. Mary Louise Arnold, regarding the harms of sexual abuse in teacher-student interactions, were both admissible.

Written reasons were to follow.

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

Over a two-month period, the Member exchanged 213 emails with the student containing highly personal and emotionally intense comments.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member guilty of failing to maintain professional standards, psychological or emotional abuse, and disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

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

The Member, a teacher, engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with a student that began when she was in his class and continued after she graduated, ultimately developing into a romantic and sexual relationship.

The Member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse, and failing to maintain professional standards.

The Discipline Committee accepted an expert's conclusion that the Member's actions constituted grooming behaviour.

The Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and, accepting a joint submission on penalty, ordered a reprimand and the immediate revocation of his teaching certificate.

The Member, a teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in an inappropriate personal relationship with a student, which included grooming behaviour, inappropriate electronic communications, and sexual abuse.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member guilty.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration and required the Member to appear for an oral reprimand.