Jane Alexandra Langford

The member, who had never been employed as a teacher, was convicted of five counts of assault, two counts of sexual assault against an adult female, and two counts of assault against a male child.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, noting that the violent behaviour strongly impacted his suitability to be a teacher.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's certificate of qualification and registration, with conditions for any future application for reinstatement.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding a member who failed to maintain professional standards and was charged criminally with uttering threats against school staff.

The member had a history of poor performance appraisals, inappropriate classroom behaviour, and unauthorized absences.

After uttering threats to kill a colleague and his family, the member was arrested and subsequently dismissed from his employment.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the immediate revocation of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

Following the release of reasons disposing of the appeals regarding an Indigenous land claim, the Court of Appeal determined the costs of the proceedings.

The court ordered the appellant to pay 50% of the federal and provincial crowns' costs of the appeals on a party and party basis, noting the federal crown's unsuccessful arguments regarding the validity of the land surrender.

The class representatives, including the railway company, were awarded 100% of their costs for both the summary judgment motions and the appeals on a party and party basis.

The court directed that all costs be assessed rather than fixed.

The appellant appealed an assessment of a party-and-party bill of costs for a motion for leave to appeal and a one-day appeal.

The Assessment Officer had assessed the successful respondent's counsel fee at $35,000.

The Court of Appeal found the assessed counsel fee to be unreasonably high, noting that the appeal involved a single question of law on uncontested facts that had already been argued in the Divisional Court.

The appeal was allowed and the counsel fee was reduced to $17,500.

An Indigenous band appealed from a summary judgment disposition concerning reserve lands sold in the 19th century without a lawful formal surrender.

The Court of Appeal held that there had been no surrender and that the claim was not barred by statutory limitation periods, but concluded that declaratory and possessory relief should nevertheless be refused.

The court applied public law discretion and equitable doctrines, emphasizing the band's historical acquiescence, the extraordinary delay in asserting the land claim, and the reliance of innocent third-party landowners who had held and developed the properties for generations.

The band was left to pursue its damages claims against the Crown.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a school principal, alleging professional misconduct and incompetence for failing to adequately respond to a student's escalating aggressive and sexually inappropriate behaviour.

The student's classroom teacher and parents had reported numerous incidents to the school's vice-principal and social worker.

The majority of the Discipline Committee dismissed the charges, finding that the principal met the minimum standard of performance and was not informed of the full extent of the problem until late in the school year, at which point he took immediate action.

A dissenting member would have found the principal guilty of professional misconduct for failing to proactively supervise his inexperienced vice-principal and failing to act in a timely manner.

The applicant coalition sought judicial review of a coroner's decision denying them standing at an inquest into the death of a psychiatric patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the coroner made no serious error in principle in applying the tests for direct interest and public interest standing.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that they were denied procedural fairness by not receiving the coroner's full brief prior to the standing hearing.