Charlotte-Anne Malischewski

The Ontario College of Teachers brought allegations of professional misconduct against a teacher for incidents occurring during the 2016-2017 academic year.

The allegations included failing to accommodate a student's Individual Education Plan, inadequately supervising students, making inappropriate and religiously-themed comments to students, and failing to assess student work or follow the approved curriculum.

The Discipline Committee found that the College proved the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee concluded that the teacher committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain the standards of the profession, verbally and psychologically abusing students, failing to supervise adequately, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against a pathologist for failing to diagnose appendiceal cancer from an appendectomy specimen in 2011.

The patient was later diagnosed with stage IV cancer in 2015 and died in 2016.

The court found that the pathologist breached the standard of care, as the cancer was obvious and should have been identified.

The court also found that but for the delayed diagnosis, the patient would likely have been cured with standard treatment.

The court awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the estate and family members.

The Law Foundation of Ontario brought a motion for directions regarding its statutory authority to administer the Class Proceedings Fund during the individual issues stage of a class action.

The court held that the Law Foundation has the statutory authority to provide litigation support and adverse costs protection for individual issues trials, but is not obliged to do so even if it funded the common issues stage.

Furthermore, the court determined that the Law Foundation's statutory levy applies to all recoveries, including individual issues judgments, regardless of whether it provides funding for that specific stage.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for engaging in an inappropriate personal relationship with a vulnerable student, which included boundary violations and electronic communications of a sexual nature.

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 a joint submission on penalty and the mandatory penalty provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate and issued a reprimand.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for sexually harassing four female colleagues.

The member made inappropriate comments about their bodies and clothing, and touched them without consent.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the completion of a course on boundary violations and sexual harassment.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and/or incompetence against the member.

The College determined that proving incompetence would be difficult based on supplementary documentation and that the matter was better handled correctively.

The panel granted the motion, finding it in the public interest to withdraw the allegations in exchange for the member's Undertaking and Acknowledgement, which required her to complete additional coursework and undergo performance appraisals upon returning to teaching.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct, alleging inappropriate interactions with a student and several female colleagues.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, which included play-fighting and poking a student, and engaging in unwanted touching and inappropriate comments towards colleagues.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including physical and emotional abuse of a student, sexual misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of a member.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension of the member's certificate of qualification and registration, and the successful completion of a course on boundary violations.

The Member, an occasional teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally and psychologically abusing students.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations, which included raising a fist at a student, making inappropriate comments about suicide that distressed students, throwing a student's ruler, and denying students water after recess on a hot day.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and required the Member to complete a course on classroom management, communication, and boundary issues.

The Member, a teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct for repeatedly engaging in inappropriate electronic communications with students, altering student photos, and using a false identity on social media to contact a student regarding a school yearbook, contrary to his principal's directions.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and found the Member committed professional misconduct including verbal and emotional abuse.

A majority of the panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and completion of a course on boundaries and professional ethics.

One panel member dissented on penalty, finding a 12-month suspension was warranted given the severity of the boundary violations and the Member's prior disciplinary history.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving verbal, physical, and psychological abuse of multiple students over several years.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, admitting to incidents such as hitting a student with a workbook, grabbing students, and yelling in close proximity to them.

The Discipline Committee accepted the uncontested facts and found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the successful completion of a classroom management course before returning to teaching.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec issued a joint decision in three related class actions against the Attorney General of Canada.

Following the approval of a Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, the parties sought approval for minor typographical corrections and various translated administrative documents, including notice forms and claim forms.

The courts approved the corrections and the submitted documents, and directed the parties to submit the claims administrator's terms of appointment once finalized.

The appellant, Ahmed Bouragba, sought to transfer an appeal from a Master's order from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the appeal lay to the Court of Appeal under s. 6(1)(d) of the Courts of Justice Act as an order made under s. 137.1.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the transfer motion, holding that an order made under s. 137.1 must be made by a "judge" of the Superior Court of Justice, and a Master is not a judge.

Therefore, the appeal did not lie to the Court of Appeal, and the proper forum was the Divisional Court.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers found the member engaged in professional misconduct.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and the completion of coursework on boundaries and professional ethics.

One panel member dissented on the length of the suspension, stating a 12-month suspension would have been appropriate.

The parties in three related class actions regarding administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries sought court approval for a revised Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, notices, and forms.

The courts approved the documents but revised the proposed opt-out procedure to ensure that all putative class members detained in administrative segregation after December 12, 2016, who had not previously had an opportunity to opt out, were granted a first-time opportunity to do so.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a member for professional misconduct, alleging verbal, physical, and psychological abuse of students.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations, which included making racist, demeaning, and inappropriate comments to students, as well as inappropriate physical contact.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The member resigned from the College and undertook never to teach again.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and an 8-month suspension of the member's certificate of qualification and registration.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against the Member.

The Member did not attend but entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.

The Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct under multiple subsections of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

The penalty phase was adjourned for further submissions on how the proposed penalty meets the goals of student protection and public confidence.

The moving parties (appellants) brought a motion seeking an order for the release of transcripts from Superior Court hearings, an extension of time to perfect their appeal, and costs.

The responding parties did not oppose the release of transcripts or the extension but opposed the request for costs.

The court granted the release of the transcripts and the extension of time, directing the Superior Court to expedite its review and release.

However, the court denied the moving parties' request for costs, finding that their essential problem was with the Superior Court, not the responding parties.

The court also clarified it had no jurisdiction over the settling of the Superior Court order.

This is Part 2 of a joint decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec concerning the Brazeau, Reddock, and Gallone class actions.

The courts finalized and approved the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, which governs the distribution of the aggregate damages award and the procedures for determining individual issues.

The decision addresses submissions from the parties on a provisional draft protocol and resolves a late-arriving dispute between Class Counsel and the Law Foundation of Ontario regarding funding for the individual issues phase by deleting contentious provisions.

The member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for repeatedly failing to adequately supervise students, resulting in students going missing or being left unattended, and for making inappropriate comments about students to parents and colleagues.

The member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct for failing to supervise adequately, failing to comply with the Act and regulations, unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension of the member's certificate, and the completion of a classroom management course before returning to teaching.

The College brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations against the member set out in a Notice of Hearing.

The member did not attend the proceeding.

The panel granted the motion, accepting the College's submissions that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the matter and it would not be in the public interest to proceed.