Kylie Sier

The member, a classroom teacher, was found guilty of professional misconduct for participating in the improper alteration of a student's midterm mark on their Ontario Universities' Application Centre (OUAC) file.

The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension commencing September 1, 2023, and the successful completion of a professional ethics course.

The Committee also ordered the member to pay $5,000 in costs to the College, applying the Hall factors and noting the member's cooperative conduct during the contested hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued supplementary reasons regarding the remedy and costs following its prior decision (2023 ONCA 139) which declared s. 37.10.1(2) of the Election Finances Act unconstitutional.

The appellants sought to invalidate additional provisions, including the definition of "political advertising" s. 37.0.1, s. 37.10.1(3)-(3.1), and s. 37.10.2.

The court declined this request, finding these provisions were not inextricably linked to the previously invalidated section and were not independently shown to infringe section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court also noted that the election period spending limits (s. 37.10.1(1)) were not challenged and remain in force.

No disposition was made as to costs, as the parties had reached an agreement.

This appeal concerned the constitutional validity of Ontario's third-party election spending limits, specifically the extension of the pre-writ restricted period from 6 to 12 months without increasing the spending cap.

The appellants argued this infringed the informational component of the right to vote under s. 3 of the Charter, which is not subject to the notwithstanding clause (s. 33).

The Court of Appeal found that while s. 33 was properly invoked, the extended spending restrictions were not "carefully tailored" and did not permit a "modest informational campaign" thereby infringing the s. 3 right to meaningful participation in the electoral process.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court declared the impugned provision invalid and suspended the declaration for 12 months.

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

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of verbally and psychologically abusing students, failing to comply with the Education Act, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

The member made racist, sexist, and homophobic comments in class, yelled at students, and created an intimidating classroom environment.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension of the member's certificate of qualification, and the completion of a course on classroom communication and cultural sensitivity.

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

The Discipline Committee accepted a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, finding the member engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension, and the completion of a course on classroom communication and cultural sensitivity.

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

The allegations included consuming alcohol on a field trip, making inappropriate comments about rape, miscarriage, and vaginal tearing to a Grade 8 class, and sending inappropriate Facebook messages to a former student.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse.

The Committee also found that the Facebook messages were of a sexual nature, constituting sexual abuse of a student under the Act.

An interim order suspending the member's certificate was issued pending the penalty phase.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for her involvement in the improper alteration of a student's mid-term mark on their Ontario Universities' Application Centre (OUAC) file.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member approached the school's Department Head of Student Services with concerns about the student's mark and its impact on university admissions.

The Member agreed to a plan where the Department Head unilaterally increased the student's mark from 80% to 91% on OUAC without the knowledge of the classroom teacher or administration.

The Committee concluded that the Member's actions breached ethical and professional standards, constituting dishonourable and unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

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

The Member pleaded no contest to allegations of engaging in intimidating, aggressive, and disrespectful behaviour towards his principal and several colleagues over a two-year period.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including failing to comply with the College's by-laws and the Education Act, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month suspension of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the successful completion of a course on conflict resolution and professional ethics before returning to teaching in Ontario.

The respondent doctor brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order granting Canadian Women in Medicine (CWIM) leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review.

The underlying judicial review concerned a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons to take no further action on a complaint alleging discriminatory hiring practices.

The Divisional Court majority granted the motion and set aside the intervention order, finding that the motion judge failed to consider whether CWIM's legal position was distinct from the applicant's and failed to recognize that the underlying matter was primarily a private administrative dispute.

A dissenting judge would have dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The Member brought a motion to adjourn the discipline hearing for medical reasons.

The College consented to the adjournment but requested conditions for any future adjournment requests, including a requirement for an independent medical evaluation.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment and imposed conditions on future requests, noting the need to prevent undue delay and manage committee resources.

The Committee ordered that if the Member seeks a future adjournment for medical reasons and the College reasonably requests an independent medical evaluation, the Member may consent to it, with any refusal to be considered by a future panel.

The applicant nurses' union sought judicial review of two directives issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health regarding COVID-19 infection control and the use of N95 respirators.

The applicants argued the directives failed to account for aerosol and asymptomatic transmission and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the directives were reasonable as they expressly incorporated the precautionary principle and permitted nurses to access N95 respirators based on their professional judgment.

The Member brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled discipline hearing dates for medical reasons.

The College did not oppose the motion but requested terms and conditions.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment to September 13, 2021, and imposed conditions on any future adjournment requests for medical reasons, including the requirement to submit to an independent medical evaluation if requested by the College.

The applicants, the Ontario Nurses' Association and others, brought an application against the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application, with reasons to follow.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondent.