Ontario College of Teachers v. Bohn, 2022 ONOCT 41

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Bohn 2022 ONOCT 41

Date: 2022-04-18

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Edward Allan Bohn, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

EDWARD ALLAN BOHN (REGISTRATION #186197)

PANEL: Kimberley Westfall-Connor, Chair Maria Lourdes Bueno-Marcial, OCT Lisa Tucker

HEARD: April 13, 2022

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Elliott Berlin, for Edward Allan Bohn Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on April 13, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Edward Allan Bohn (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated October 2, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Edward Allan Bohn is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);¹

(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);²

(d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(e) he committed conduct that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Edward Allan Bohn is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Hamilton, Ontario. The Member retired from the Board in June 2019 and retired from the College in July 2019.

3. During the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 academic years, Student 1 and Student 2 were female students in the Member’s [XXX] class. They were friends. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Student 1 and Student 2 were in Grade [XXX].

Member’s Interactions with Student 1

4. The Member had been Student 1’s [XXX] teacher since Student 1 was in Grade [XXX]. Over the years he developed a close relationship with her, and knew that she trusted him. He was aware that she was struggling with her health and well-being, and he wanted to help her.

5. In the fall of the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member introduced Student 1 to the School’s social worker for assistance. Student 1 often debriefed with the Member when she was upset after her sessions with the social worker. At some point during the year, with the Member’s encouragement and in consultation with the School’s social worker and her family, Student 1 began to seek help outside of the School from her [XXX] and from a private therapist, at which point the School’s social worker was no longer involved.

6. The Member knew that Student 1 trusted him, and although he was not qualified as a counsellor, he believed he was familiar enough with [XXX] that he could assist Student 1 with her challenges. During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member routinely met privately with Student 1 in his office at the School so that he could provide her with counselling and offer his support. The Member’s office was inside the [XXX] room, with a window into the classroom. Their meetings occurred behind closed doors approximately once a week, after School to maintain privacy, and generally lasted about 30 minutes. The Member did not advise Student 1’s parents or any school officials about their private discussions.

7. During these private meetings, the Member discussed issues associated with Student 1’s personal health and well-being, including her use of medication. For example, in the fall of 2018 when Student 1 confided in the Member that she had been [XXX] for some time, the Member, concerned, encouraged Student 1 to [XXX]. He did not inform Student 1’s parents or any school officials of his concerns, although he encouraged her to raise the issue with her therapist.

8. The Member was aware that Student 1 was a high achieving student with an [XXX] who struggled with [XXX]. During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member spoke to Student 1’s [XXX] teacher to arrange for Student 1 to write her [XXX] tests in the Member’s presence in the [XXX] room where she felt comfortable. Student 1 was often [XXX] before her tests and would engage in [XXX]. The Member would sit with her and [XXX], which Student 1 found comforting. If Student 1 experienced [XXX], the Member would permit a break and debrief with her in order for her to regain her “equilibrium”.

9. During the 2017-2018 academic year and into the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member hugged Student 1 often, approximately one to two times per week, when she was upset. The hugs would occur in his office, while they were alone, with the door closed.

10. In and around June 2018, the Member recommended to Student 1 that she see a specific therapist for private counselling. The Member was familiar with this therapist because one of his family members was seeing this therapist as well. The Member did not consult with Student 1’s parents or school administrators about this recommendation, although he advised the School’s social worker that he made this recommendation to Student 1. Student 1 began sessions with the therapist in July 2018.

11. In June 2018, the Member approached the Guidance Counsellor to request that Student 1 be placed in his [XXX] class for the 2018-2019 academic year. He explained to the Guidance Counsellor that he had been counselling Student 1, but was not making that fact known to others.

2018-2019 Academic Year

12. During September and October 2018, the Member continued to meet Student 1 privately after school in his office on a weekly basis to support her, and to counsel her regarding her health and well-being.

13. On Friday, October 12, 2018, the Member had arranged to meet Student 1 after school. Student 2 planned to work on her [XXX] in the [XXX] room while Student 1 was meeting with the Member in his office because she was going to drive Student 1 home. When Student 1 told the Member that Student 2 would drive her home after their meeting, the Member presumed that Student 1 would not express her feelings while Student 2 was waiting. Therefore, the Member asked Student 1 to tell Student 2 to leave, and offered to drive Student 1 home himself. Student 1 was apprehensive when she shared this information with Student 2. Student 2 saw that Student 1 was not comfortable with the Member’s proposal, and agreed to wait for her in her car.

14. After Student 2 left and the Member was alone with Student 1 in his office, he disclosed his personal and family struggles to Student 1 in an attempt to help her understand that she wasn’t alone in her struggles.

15. Being alone with the Member and hearing his disclosures upset Student 1 and made her feel very uncomfortable. She later described during interviews with her Principal and another teacher that she did not want him to share this information with her, and she did not know how to handle the weight of his personal struggles. She described that she felt trapped and uncomfortable alone in the room with the Member, all of which triggered memories of a traumatic incident from her childhood.

16. On Monday October 15, 2018, Student 1 told the Member that she was uncomfortable being alone with him after school in his office for after-school meetings, and the Member agreed it would not happen again. Student 1 also spoke to a teacher and the Principal about feeling uncomfortable with the Member the previous Friday after school. She did not want to get the Member into trouble, and she did not want her mother to know that she had been alone with the Member after school.

17. On October 16, 2018, the Member, aware that Student 1 had spoken to the teacher and the Principal, attempted to speak with them independently. In the course of explaining how he helped Student 1 and that he was the “only person” Student 1 was able to talk to, he disclosed Student 1’s health-related issues to them. He also acknowledged to his Principal that “boundaries were being passed” in his attempt to help Student 1.

Student 2

18. The Member often hugged his students, including Student 1 and Student 2, especially when they were stressed or upset. The hugs took place in the Member’s office behind closed doors, for example when students had mini private lessons with the Member, [XXX] tests for the Member, or came to the Member with their personal problems. Between Student 2’s Grade [XXX] and Grade [XXX] school years, the Member hugged Student 2 on several occasions.

19. Regarding Friday October 12, 2018, the fact that the Member wanted Student 2 to leave so he could speak privately with Student 1, and the fact that when Student 1 emerged from the School she was clearly upset and troubled by the Member’s disclosures about his personal struggles, upset Student 2 and made her feel uncomfortable.

20. At the time, the Member was not aware that the special attention he paid to Student 1, or the fact that he upset Student 1 on that occasion, made Student 2 feel uncomfortable. Student 2 loved [XXX] and the Member’s [XXX] class, but described feeling angry towards the Member and uncomfortable attending his class after the events of October 12, 2018. She added that if she attended his class, the Member would see she was uncomfortable and want to hug her, and she no longer wanted to give him a hug.

Conduct upon reassignment home

21. On October 23, 2018, the Board reassigned the Member home pending investigation, and directed the Member not to contact staff, parents or students within the school community in the interim. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s Letter to the Member dated October 23, 2018.

22. Student 1 was upset that the Member had been reassigned home and, with the assistance of her therapist acting as an intermediary, reached out to the Member by letter. Despite his Board’s direction to have no contact with students, the Member communicated with Student 1 through her therapist by email dated November 26, 2018, attempting to reassure Student 1 that he held “no negative thoughts or feelings towards [her]” regarding his current situation. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Member’s email to Student 1 and her therapist, dated November 26, 2018.

23. Student 1’s therapist was involved in the creation of a documentary film during 2018. Student 1’s therapist invited the Member and his wife to attend the premiere event on January 17, 2019, knowing that Student 1 would be in attendance. The Member’s wife was involved in the event. She attended the premiere and gave Student 1 a note and a CD from the Member. The Member was not in attendance.

24. After Student 1 [XXX] in 2019, the Member contacted Student 1’s therapist to ask her to facilitate a meeting with Student 1 and to give Student 1 an email from him. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the email the Member wrote to Student 1, which her therapist provided to her. Although Student 1 initially agreed to meet with the Member, she decided not to meet him because she became uncomfortable with the idea.

CAS Investigation

25. On or about October 18, 2018 at the outset of the Board’s investigation, the Board contacted the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) to report concerns about the Member’s conduct. By letter dated January 28, 2019, the CAS advised that concerns that Student 1 was likely to be sexually harmed by the Member when he arranged to meet with her privately after school hours had not been verified. The CAS concluded: “While Mr. Bohn’s behaviour is concerning, especially given his position of trust and authority, and given some of the students he works with are already struggling with their own issues, there is no evidence to suggest his behaviour was sexual in nature. Having said this, the Society is concerned that his behaviour, hugging students has been allowed to continue for so long to the point where many in the school feel this type of interaction is completely acceptable”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the CAS Letter to the Board dated January 28, 2019.

Current Status

26. The Member retired from the Board effective June 30, 2019.

27. The Member is not teaching and not living in the province of Ontario.

GUILTY PLEA

28. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

29. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).

30. By this document the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

31. In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. The Panel granted the request.

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on April 13, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 27 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that, on multiple occasions, the Member violated professional boundaries with students, including meeting with students in private, hugging students and counselling Student 1 despite not being qualified to do so.

9The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused students contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member’s conduct caused Student 1 and Student 2 psychological or emotional harm. While the Member’s intentions may have been to help Student 1, she became apprehensive in October 2018 when the Member asked her to tell Student 2 (who was waiting for Student 1 to finish her meeting with the Member) to go home and offered to drive Student 1 home himself. Furthermore, despite being fully aware that Student 1 was struggling with her health and well-being, the Member disclosed his personal and family struggles to Student 1 while he was alone with her in his office. The Member’s conduct was upsetting to Student 1. Being alone with the Member made Student 1 feel trapped and uncomfortable, which triggered memories of a traumatic incident from her childhood. Student 1 disclosed to the Principal that she did not want the Member to share this information with her as she did not know how to handle the weight of his personal struggles. Moreover, on another occasion, Student 1 disclosed to the Member that she was uncomfortable being alone with the Member after school. In addition, the Member’s inappropriate conduct towards Student 1 also made Student 2 uncomfortable. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct, as described above, amounts to psychological or emotional abuse of students.

10The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws, which set out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the ethical standards of “Care” and “Trust”. Members are required to demonstrate a commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment, and empathy in practice. Moreover, members’ professional relationships with students, parents and colleagues are based on trust. The Member routinely met with Student 1 privately and counselled Student 1 about her health issues, including the use of medication, when he was not qualified to do so. By engaging in such conduct, which could have put Student 1’s health at risk and indeed, triggered atraumatic incident form her past, the Member demonstrated a lack of commitment to Student 1’s well-being. Furthermore, the Member did not raise his concerns about Student 1 [XXX] medication with Student 1’s parents and school officials. He also recommended to Student 1 that she see a specific therapist without consulting Student 1’s parents or the school administrators. Additionally, the Member communicated with Student 1 through her therapist and the Member’s wife, in blatant disregard of the Board’s direction to not contact staff, parents or students within the school community while he was reassigned home pending the Board’s investigation. By doing so, the Member eroded the trust and confidence which Student 1’s parents and his administrators had placed in him. The Member’s conduct therefore fell below the ethical standards of the profession.

11The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Section 264(1)(b) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. The Member’s actions of October 12, 2018 made Student 2 uncomfortable and further discouraged Student 2 from attending his class. The Agreed Facts indicate that Student 2 felt that if she attended the Member’s class, the Member would see that she was uncomfortable and would want to hug her, which she no longer wanted to do. Section 264(1)(c) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to uphold a number of moral virtues including truth, humanity, and purity, and it is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models. The Member’s conduct was contrary to these principles. Student 1 was vulnerable and struggling with her health and well-being. It was incumbent on the Member to uphold and model appropriate boundaries with her and to inform Student 1’s parents and school administrators of his concerns regarding Student 1’s health. Instead, the Member fostered an inappropriately personal relationship with Student 1, which included closed-door meetings, hugging the student, and burdening the student with his personal struggles.. In these ways the Member failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.

12The Member committed acts which would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Teachers, as trusted members of the community, are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries at all times with students and to prioritize their safety and well-being. By having private meetings with students behind closed doors, hugging students, and counselling Student 1, a vulnerable student, about her health when he was not qualified to do so, the Member violated professional boundaries and failed to prioritize Student 1’s well-being. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Member failed to demonstrate the good judgment and responsibility expected of a teacher. This is evident by the emotional harm that the Member caused to Student 1. Furthermore, the Member’s blatant disregard for the Board’s directions to not communicate with Student 1 during its investigation demonstrated a profound lack of professional judgment. The Member’s behaviour demonstrates serious moral and professional failings, such that it calls into question the Member’s ability to practise the profession in the best interests of his students. The Member’s conduct can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

13Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s repeated failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students have undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and eroded the trust and confidence that the public places in teachers.

F. PENALTY DECISION

14The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on April 13, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”).

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of six months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) prior to resuming or commencing a position in which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundaries and boundary violation issues, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

15The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.³ The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Avison, 2018 ONOCT 71, Ontario College of Teachers v. Riley, 2019 ONOCT 61, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Byers, 2021 ONOCT 90.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. Firstly, the Member’s boundary violations with Student 1 persisted for a prolonged period of time, spanning two academic years (2017-2018 and 2018-2019). Secondly, the Member’s conduct caused significant emotional harm to students and more particularly to Student 1. Thirdly, the Member’s unsolicited disclosures about his struggles triggered atraumatic incident from Student 1’s childhood. Fourthly, as an experienced teacher, the Member’s conduct demonstrated a significant lack of professional judgment. Fifthly, the Member counselled Student 1 in relation to health issues when he was not qualified to do so. Finally, despite acknowledging that “boundaries were being passed”, the Member continued to contact Student 1 in blatant disregard of the Board’s directions.

17In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and sparing witnesses, especially vulnerable ones, from having to testify at a contested hearing. Additionally, he has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

18The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Teachers are required to maintain professional boundaries with students. The Member failed to do so by hugging students, having closed-door and personal meetings with them, counselling Student 1 despite not being qualified to do so, and disclosing his personal struggles to Student 1. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

19Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on April 28, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundaries and boundary violation issues will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, prior to any return to a teaching position. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher. It will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students and it will also serve to protect students. The coursework should provide the Member with a clear understanding of how to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students.

21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
2. 2As of January 20, 2022, section 32 of the by-laws has been renumbered to section 26.
3. 3See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.