DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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 Michael Oliver, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
EDWARD MICHAEL OLIVER (REGISTRATION #406491)
PANEL: Linda Staudt, OCT, Chair Adam Dharsee, OCT Kiran Qureshi
HEARD: July 20, 2022
Ava Arbuck and Linette King, for the Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Edward Michael Oliver
Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(3) and 32.1(4) 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 or the person who was allegedly sexually abused, or the subject of sexual misconduct, a prohibited act involving child pornography, or a prescribed sexual act.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on July 20, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).
2Edward Michael Oliver (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have legal representation.
3Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Linette King (Exhibit 2) affirmed on July 19, 2022, to show that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty and costs being sought by the College. In this affidavit, Ms. King, a lawyer with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, outlined her and her firm’s communications with the Member and provided proof of service of all required documents.
4Based on this affidavit, the Panel was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and was aware of the allegations against him, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty and costs that would be sought by the College. As such, the Panel was satisfied that the hearing could proceed in the absence of the Member.
5The Notice of Hearing explicitly states that the hearing can proceed in the absence of a party. The hearing proceeded on its merits approximately 20 minutes after the scheduled start time, but the Member did not appear. The Panel therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.
A. PUBLICATION ban
6The 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.
7Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act with respect to Student 1, who was allegedly sexually abused, or the subject of sexual misconduct, a prohibited act involving child pornography or a prescribed sexual act. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1.
B. OVERVIEW
8The College alleged that, in 20[XX], the Member engaged in inappropriate behaviour and sexual abuse of a female, 17-year-old student (“Student 1”). In particular, the College alleged that the Member engaged