Susan Chapman

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers found the member guilty of professional misconduct under multiple subsections of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration and directed that the member receive a written reprimand to be recorded on the Register.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a teacher who stored real and replica firearms, as well as live ammunition, at his school and allowed students to access them during class.

The teacher had previously pled guilty to criminal charges for possessing an unregistered firearm without a licence.

The Discipline Committee found the teacher guilty of professional misconduct, noting that his actions severely jeopardized the safety of students and staff.

Despite the teacher's subsequent health issues, the Committee ordered a 12-month suspension of his teaching certificate and directed that the decision be published with his name to serve as a general deterrent.

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

The member had signed an Undertaking and Acknowledgment in which he resigned his membership, undertook never to teach again or seek reinstatement, and agreed to a notation on the Public Register.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the allegations in exchange for the undertaking served to protect the public interest.

The applicant filed human rights applications against numerous dentists, physicians, and administrative staff, alleging discrimination based on disability and creed, as well as reprisal.

He claimed he received substandard medical and dental care because he was an ODSP recipient and because of his spiritual beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to the protected grounds under the Code.