Nicole Walton

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after being convicted of three counts of voyeurism under the Criminal Code.

Between 2018 and 2021, the Member surreptitiously recorded numerous women in various states of undress while working as a photographer.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member's actions constituted professional misconduct, including engaging in a prescribed sexual act.

Pursuant to a joint submission on penalty and the mandatory provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the Committee ordered that the Member be reprimanded and his teaching certificate be immediately revoked.

A discipline hearing was held regarding a teacher who pled guilty to and was criminally convicted of sexual exploitation of a student.

The member admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct, including physical, psychological, and sexual abuse of the student.

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

Pursuant to a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate, and reimbursement to the College for any funding provided under the Therapy and Counselling Program.

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

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

The Discipline Committee found that the Member engaged in professional misconduct and sexual abuse.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a written reprimand, immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and reimbursement to the College for any funding provided under the Therapy and Counselling Program.

The self-represented moving party sought orders dispensing with the requirement to file transcripts and a signed copy of the order being appealed in her motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The moving party argued that filing these documents would prejudice her by acknowledging procedural irregularities and the presence of non-parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the transcripts were not required under the rules in the first place, and that the signed order was a mandatory component of the motion record that caused no prejudice.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant doctor appealed a Superior Court decision that reversed a Consent and Capacity Board finding that the respondent was incapable of consenting to proposed psychiatric treatment.

Following the commencement of the appeal, the respondent's NCR verdict was overturned, he was discharged from the facility, and the proposed treatment was never commenced.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case as a decision would have no practical effect on the parties and the appellant's concerns regarding a prior capable wish could be addressed under section 36 of the Health Care Consent Act.