Sébastien Parent

Le comité de discipline a tenu une audience sur la sanction après avoir conclu que l'enseignant avait commis une faute professionnelle en montrant des vidéos inappropriées, en faisant des commentaires inappropriés et en manquant à son devoir de surveillance.

Le comité a ordonné une réprimande, une suspension de trois mois de son certificat de qualification et d'inscription, et l'obligation de suivre un cours sur la gestion de classe avant de pouvoir accepter un nouveau poste.

Le comité a également ordonné à l'enseignant de payer des frais de 5 000 $ à l'Ordre, en tenant compte de son manque de coopération partiel et de sa capacité de payer.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that a supply teacher committed professional misconduct during two separate assignments.

The allegations included showing inappropriate music videos to students, making inappropriate and demeaning comments, sending students outside in the rain as punishment, failing to follow lesson plans, and failing to adequately supervise students.

The Discipline Committee found that the member's conduct constituted professional misconduct, including verbal abuse, failure to supervise, and disgraceful or dishonourable conduct.

The Committee accepted hearsay evidence from students and qualified a human resources manager as a participant expert.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct relating to two incidents while acting as an occasional teacher.

The member was alleged to have shown inappropriate music videos to a Grade [XXX] class, made inappropriate comments to students, sent two students outside in the rain as a disciplinary measure, failed to follow a lesson plan, and failed to adequately supervise students.

The Discipline Committee found that the allegations were proven on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee concluded that the member's actions constituted professional misconduct, including verbal abuse, failure to supervise, and disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

A penalty hearing was to be scheduled at a later date.

This case involves a patent infringement dispute remanded from the Federal Court of Appeal concerning Canadian Patent 2,766,249 for a tilt correction system for rail seat abrasion.

The Court had to determine whether the remanded claims were obvious and invalid.

The Court found that the defendant failed to prove that the specific "tilt correction factor" in Claims 2 to 6, 8 to 10, and 13 to 17 was obvious, as there was insufficient evidence that it was disclosed in prior art.

However, applying the principle of claim differentiation, the Court held that independent Claims 1 and 12, which broadly claimed tilt correction, were obvious in light of prior art and were therefore invalid.

The counterclaim was allowed in part.