A. Webb

The applicant challenged the validity of search warrants under s. 8 of the Charter at a Garofoli hearing (Step 6).

The Crown sought to defend warrants for searches at three locations based on information from confidential informants.

The court applied the "three Cs" test from R. v. Debot (compelling, credible, corroborated) to assess the reliability of the informant information.

The court found that the informant's detailed, first-hand information about the accused's drug dealing activities, combined with the informant's credibility and police corroboration, met the requisite standard for warrant issuance.

The warrants were upheld as valid.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct including failing to supervise students, looking at the cleavage of female students, and failing to intervene in dangerous student behaviour.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a student.

Pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the Committee ordered that the Member be reprimanded and his teaching certificate be revoked.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application challenging the police suspension of his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Following the execution of three search warrants at locations associated with the applicant, police arrested him and deliberately delayed his access to counsel for approximately 20 hours while executing the warrants and conducting searches.

The applicant was not permitted to speak with counsel until the following morning in bail court.

The court found that the police violated the applicant's section 10(b) rights by deliberately delaying implementation of the right to counsel without valid justification.

The court further found that the seized evidence (drugs and currency) was obtained in a manner that infringed the applicant's Charter rights and that exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) was warranted, as admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant on the grounds that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was heavily redacted and lacked sufficient grounds to justify the warrant.

The Crown applied for a telewarrant to search three locations based primarily on information from two confidential informants regarding drug trafficking.

The applicant challenged the warrant under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, arguing insufficient nexus between the alleged criminality and the locations, and lack of currency in the information.

The court found that the heavily redacted ITO, even with limited peel-backs and clarifications, did not contain sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit a justice to find reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for repeatedly accessing pornography, including 'teen' pornography, on a school board computer during work hours.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the Member guilty.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a 10-month suspension of the Member's certificate of qualification and registration, and an oral reprimand.

The Committee noted the Member had voluntarily resigned from the College with no intention to return to teaching, which addressed concerns about the lack of a rehabilitative coursework component in the penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.

The parties presented a Joint Submission on Penalty proposing a 10-month suspension and a reprimand.

The Committee expressed concerns about the lack of a rehabilitative component in the proposed penalty, given that the Member's certificate was only being suspended, not revoked.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to make further submissions regarding rehabilitation.

The Member, a retired teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for developing an inappropriate personal relationship with a student.

The Member exchanged personal electronic messages, sent pictures of himself, took the student out for meals, and made inappropriate comments about having a relationship once she was no longer his student.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a 16-month suspension, and a requirement to complete a course on professional boundaries before returning to teaching.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct, including making inappropriate comments to students, failing to supervise classes, and engaging in boundary violations.

The member pleaded guilty to the allegations and admitted to the facts, which included discussing personal issues, making insensitive remarks, and leaving students unsupervised.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse as defined by the Act.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, an eight-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the successful completion of a boundaries course.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member for professional misconduct related to two unsafe classroom demonstrations.

In one incident, the member conducted a combustion experiment without safety equipment, resulting in an explosion.

In another, the member placed a plastic bag over a student's head to demonstrate oxygen deprivation.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and requiring the member to complete a pre-approved course on classroom safety before returning to teaching.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after dropping a binder on a disruptive student's fingers to get his attention.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and found the member guilty of failing to maintain the standards of the profession, failing to comply with the Education Act, and engaging in unprofessional and unbecoming conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and requiring the member to complete a course on classroom management.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for making a series of inappropriate, culturally insensitive, and abusive comments to students over three academic years.

Despite previous discipline and suspensions by the school board, the Member continued to verbally and psychologically abuse students.

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

The Member pled guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in an inappropriate, sexualized, and psychologically abusive relationship with a student.

The Discipline Committee rejected a joint submission on penalty because it did not adequately protect the public, given the Member's prior disciplinary history for boundary violations.

Following contested penalty submissions, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a 24-month suspension, and specific coursework requiring the Member to demonstrate insight and rehabilitation before returning to teaching.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for verbally and physically abusing a special needs student and acting unprofessionally toward a colleague.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Member was found guilty of professional misconduct and ordered to receive a reprimand and complete an anger management course focused on dealing with special needs students.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct.

The member, a transportation technology teacher, accepted a donated vehicle for the school's program but subsequently traded it to a colleague without the donor's or the school's permission.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, acknowledging that his actions constituted professional misconduct, including failing to maintain professional standards and failing to keep required records.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and requiring the member to complete a course on the ethical practice of teachers.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers held a hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, the Committee found that the member committed professional misconduct.

The parties presented a Joint Submission on Penalty, which the Committee rejected.

The hearing was adjourned to a future date to hear further submissions on penalty.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing after finding the member guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a student, including electronic communication via Facebook and using inappropriate terms of endearment.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, with the addition of a one-month suspension requested by College Counsel.

The member was ordered to receive a reprimand, serve a one-month suspension, complete a course on boundary violations, and have the findings published with his name.

The applicant requested to reschedule a hearing date because her newly retained representative was unavailable due to an out-of-country family matter.

The respondent and intervenor did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments requested more than 14 days after the Confirmation of Hearing are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal held that retaining counsel who is unavailable on an already scheduled date does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.