DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Yaogo 2025 ONOCT 51

Date: 2025-08-21

DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION

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

Noélie Yaogo, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

NOÉLIE YAOGO (REGISTRATION #685491)

PANEL: Alain Martel, OCT, Chair

Scott Barker, OCT

Élaine Legault

HEARD: April 5, May 9 and August 21, 2024

Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Noélie Yaogo, representing herself

Renée Kopp, 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 electronic proceeding was held before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on April 5, May 9 and August 21, 2024, pursuant to Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).

2Noélie Yaogo (the “Member”) was present at the April 5 hearing and for part of the May 9 hearing; she left during the May 9 hearing and was not present for the August 21 hearing. The Panel therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member. Furthermore, the Member was not represented by legal counsel.

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 identities of Students 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8A, 9, 10 and 11, or 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. OVERVIEW

4During the 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years, while the Member was an occasional teacher for various schools, it is alleged that she failed to adequately supervise students; did not take student attendance; did not follow lesson plans; failed to provide clear instructions to students; failed to teach a class; failed to follow the class schedule; failed to help students who required support; failed to manage the classroom properly; grabbed a student’s arm; barricaded the classroom door; and made inappropriate comments about students.

5The Panel must determine whether the allegations have been proven on a balance of probabilities and, if so, whether the Member’s conduct supports a finding of professional misconduct. For the reasons that follow, the Panel finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct. The Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

C. THE ALLEGATIONS

6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 19, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Noélie Yaogo is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

b) she abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

c) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

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

e) she failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

f) she 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);

g) she committed acts 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);

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

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Noélie Yaogo is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Ottawa Catholic School Board (the “Board”) as an occasional teacher. During the 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and/or 2021-2022 academic years, the Member was assigned to work at [XXX] School ([XXX]) in Vanier, Ontario, [XXX] School ([XXX]) in Kanata, Ontario, and [XXX] School (“[XXX]”) in Ottawa, Ontario.

3. During the 2020-2021 academic year:

a. Student 1 was a female Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

b. Student 2 was a female Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

c. Student 3 was a male Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

4. During the 2021-2022 academic year, Student 4 was a male Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

5. During the 2021-2022 academic year:

a. Student 5 was a female Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

b. Student 6 was a female Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

c. Student 7 was a male Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

d. Student 8 was a male Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

e. Student 9 was a male Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

f. Student 10 was a male Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

g. Student 11 was a female Grade [XXX] student at [XXX].

6. In or about February and March 2020, while assigned to a Grade [XXX] and a Grade [XXX] class at [XXX], the Member:

a. did not take attendance;

b. did not supervise students in the hallway while they were going outside for recess;

c. left a male educational assistant alone with the students in the classroom during the lesson while she took a student to drink from the water fountain;

d. allowed a group of five students to leave the classroom for an unsupervised break;

e. did not follow the lesson plans;

f. did not provide clear instructions to the students;

g. did not supervise the students while they were working and, as a result, students accessed YouTube during the lesson.

7. On or about March 10, 2020, while assigned to a Grade [XXX] class at [XXX], the Member:

a. did not teach a class, resulting in an educational assistant teaching the class while the Member sat at a desk;

b. did not follow the lesson plans;

c. did not adhere to the class schedule;

d. failed to manage the class effectively.

8. In or about November 2020, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member:

a. told Grade [XXX] students to “shut up” and that they were “not good children,” or words to that effect;

b. left students unsupervised in the classroom on three occasions, twice to retrieve her playground supervision vest and once to retrieve her laptop and teaching materials.

9. On or about November 25, 2020, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member:

a. stayed in a school office to use an iPad during class;

b. during a lesson given to Grade [XXX] students by another teacher, did not help students who had raised their hands to ask for support and told the teacher, “I don’t know if I’m supposed to interact with these kids”;

c. did not allow Student 1 to use the bathroom.

10. On or about November 26, 2020, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member:

a. arrived 30 minutes late for her assignment;

b. did not allow Student 1 or Student 2 to use the bathroom, which caused the students to cry.

11. On or about November 27, 2020, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member:

a. did not notice that Student 3 had disappeared from the classroom;

b. did not look for Student 3 when an educational assistant alerted her to Student 3’s absence, which resulted in Student 3 leaving the school and crossing the schoolyard and road alone to board an empty school bus.

12. On or about December 3, 2020, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member:

a. grabbed Student 3 by the arm in the schoolyard;

b. grabbed Student 3 by the arm in the classroom;

c. closed the door to her Grade [XXX] classroom and placed a desk in front of the door, inside, to prevent students, especially Student 3, from leaving.

13. On or about October 15, 2021, when assigned to a Grade [XXX] class at [XXX], the Member:

a. did not follow the lesson plan and asked students to perform a task that was beyond their abilities by asking them to write words with more than three letters, contrary to what was recommended in the lesson plan, and by taking the initiative to ask them to differentiate between consonants and vowels for each word;

b. when students said they didn’t understand the task or could not complete it, responded by saying: “Why aren’t you doing it? It’s easy,” or words to that effect, which caused some students to cry;

c. asked an educational assistant to teach a physical education class she was supposed to teach;

d. allowed students to remain in the schoolyard after recess and left an educational assistant (EA) alone with them. The EA was therefore unable to accompany Student 4, a Grade [XXX] student with special needs, into the school when he needed to use the bathroom. The student accidentally defecated in his pants and vomited in the bathroom;

e. allowed four or five boys in Grade [XXX] to leave the classroom at the same time to go to the bathroom, despite instructions in the lesson plan that students should go to the bathroom one at a time, which resulted in a disturbance in the bathroom that required other school staff members to intervene;

f. used her personal phone in class when students were present.

14. On or about October 19, 2021, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member left a class of Grade [XXX] students unattended in the schoolyard while she was inside the school.

15. On or about October 20, 2021, while on assignment at [XXX], while she was responsible for a class of Grade [XXX] students, the Member:

a. tried to leave students unsupervised in the schoolyard;

b. left students unattended in the classroom during class while she was in the staff room;

c. did not allow students to consult their notes to complete a task involving filling in a blank map of Canada, despite instructions in the lesson plan indicating that this was permitted;

d. told an ESL teacher at the school who was providing support to some students in the class, in front of the students, not to help Student 5 because it constituted “cheating”, or words to that effect, even though Student 5 was entitled to the teacher’s support.

16. On or about October 21, 2021, while on assignment at [XXX], where she was responsible for a class of Grade [XXX] students, the Member:

a. asked the students to recite the days of the week in French and when Student 6 responded by singing the days of the week in French, said to Student 6: “We only sing them in kindergarten; say them to me,” or words to that effect;

b. when Student 7, a student with [XXX] disorder¹, responded incorrectly to her request to recite the days of the week in French, said to Student 7: “Even kindergarteners can tell me the days of the week” or words to that effect;

c. repeatedly asked Student 7 to recite the days of the week in French, even though Student 7 was visibly upset and had trouble completing the task;

d. when Student 8 tried to tell her that Student 7 had an [XXX] disorder and could not respond to her request, told Student 8 to “shut up”;

e. when Student 8 raised his hand to ask if he could go to the bathroom, told Student 8 to “shut up”;

f. did not notice that Student 9 and Student 10 had left the classroom, so another teacher at the school had to intervene when Student 9 and Student 10 were sliding down a stair railing at the school;

g. refused to allow Student 11 to go to the bathroom, even though Student 11 was holding her stomach and another teacher had told her it was an emergency.

D. THE MEMBER’S PLEA

7The Member denies the allegations in the Notice of Hearing.

E. THE EVIDENCE

8The College presented oral and documentary evidence to prove the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The relevant elements of the testimony are set out in more detail below. The College’s evidence is summarized briefly below.

9As mentioned above, the Member was present for only part of the hearing and did not present any evidence in her defence.

(1) Oral Evidence

10The Order called five witnesses: 1) Stephen Anthony McCabe (“Mr. McCabe”), who was the Superintendent of Human Resources at the Board; 2) Kim Trimble (“Ms. Trimble”), who was an educational assistant at [XXX]; 3) Brenda Perrin (“Ms. Perrin”), who was an educational assistant at [XXX]; 4) Anne Chiarelli (“Ms. Chiarelli”), who was the principal at [XXX]; and 5) Joanne Wink (“Ms. Wink”), who was the principal at [XXX].

a) Mr. McCabe’s Testimony

11At the time of the alleged events, Mr. McCabe was the Board’s Superintendent of Human Resources. Mr. McCabe testified about his qualifications and experience. At the time of the hearing, Mr. McCabe had more than 37 years of experience as an educator; he taught for 14 years and worked as an administrator for 22 years. For the last eight years of his career, he was the Board’s Superintendent of Human Resources. Mr. McCabe explained the process for hiring occasional teachers and the process for filing complaints against occasional teachers. Finally, Mr. McCabe testified about the concerns he had received regarding the Member’s conduct.

i. Qualification of Mr. McCabe as a Participating Expert

12College Counsel asked the Panel to qualify Mr. McCabe as a participating expert. She stated that, according to the criteria established in Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”), Mr. McCabe meets the definition of a participating expert. A witness may give opinion evidence if it is based on his or her observation of the events in question or participation in those events, and if that opinion is based on his or her skill, training, and experience (see Westerhof, at paragraph 60).

13College Counsel argued that Mr. McCabe could be considered a participating expert in the area of the Standards of practice for the teaching profession, given his experience as a superintendent of human resources. Among his many duties, he was responsible for formulating opinions regarding member conduct and taking steps to address member conduct. He testified that he had formed opinions about the Member’s conduct and had met with the Member to express concerns. As a superintendent, he was familiar with the Ethical Standards and Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession.

14College Counsel also referenced Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 (“Novick”) and argued that expert testimony is relevant and necessary when it is alleged that a member has contravened professional standards, i.e., a breach of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).

15The Panel accepts the submissions of College Counsel and finds that Mr. McCabe meets the definition of participating expert set out in Westerhof. Mr. McCabe’s opinion as to whether the Member breached the standards of practice of the profession is based on his participation in the events in question. Although Mr. McCabe was not a first-hand witness, he received numerous complaints from various school principals and was involved in the complaint process with respect to the Member. His opinion is also based on his skills, training and experience as a human resources superintendent. Once the Panel reached its conclusion in this regard, it needed to continue its analysis to ensure that Mr. McCabe’s testimony meets the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9. In this case, Mr. McCabe’s testimony is relevant to whether the Member contravened the standards of the profession, as alleged by the College. In accordance with Novick, expert testimony is required, since the Panel must hear evidence on these standards before deciding whether they have been contravened. The Panel notes that there is no exclusionary rule that prevents Mr. McCabe’s testimony from being admitted. Therefore, the Panel qualifies Mr. McCabe as a participating expert in the field of the Standards of practice for the teaching profession.

b) Ms. Trimble’s Testimony

16Ms. Trimble was an educational assistant at [XXX] during the 2020-2021 academic year. She testified about the events that took place on or about October 15, 2021, in a Grade [XXX] classroom when the Member was on assignment as an occasional teacher. Specifically, she testified about a task that the Member assigned to the students and told them, “Why aren’t you doing it? It’s easy.” She explained that during a physical education class, the Member passed her the classroom teacher’s notes and did not teach the class. Ms. Trimble therefore had to teach the class for her. Finally, Ms. Trimble testified about numerous incidents where the Member was not present in the classroom or did not adequately supervise the class.

c) Ms. Perrin’s Testimony

17Ms. Perrin was an educational assistant at [XXX]. She testified about incidents that occurred when the Member was on assignment as an occasional teacher at that school. In particular, she testified about Student 3 who had disappeared from the Member’s class. She explained that the Member did not help to find Student 3. She also explained an incident in which the Member had barricaded the classroom door with a desk to prevent a student from leaving the classroom.

d) Ms. Chiarelli’s Testimony

18Ms. Chiarelli was the principal of [XXX] during the alleged incidents at that school. Ms. Chiarelli testified about her involvement with the Member and concerns about her conduct. She explained that the Member was an occasional teacher with a long-term contract to teach French as a Second Language. She testified about numerous incidents where the Member had failed to adequately supervise students. She also testified about concerns she had received from other staff members indicating that the Member was not following lesson plans or class schedules and was not providing support students who requested it. She explained that she met with the Member to share concerns about her conduct and testified about the steps she took to notify Mr. McCabe, the Board’s Human Resources Superintendent.

e) Ms. Wink’s Testimony

19Ms. Wink was the principal at [XXX] during the 2021-2022 academic year. She testified about her involvement with the Member, her concerns about her conduct, and the steps she took to address those concerns. She testified about several incidents in which the Member failed to adequately supervise her class. She also explained that she had received concerns from other staff members about the Member’s conduct, in particular that she did not support the students, that she told a student to shut up, and that she did not allow a student to go to the bathroom.

(2) Documentary Evidence

a) Affidavit of Paul Gautreau

20The College submitted the Affidavit of Paul Gautreau, sworn on March 20, 2024 (Exhibit 3). Paul Gautreau (“Mr. Gautreau”) was the principal of [XXX] during the 2019-2020 academic year. He states that he observed the Member’s conduct while she completed five occasional teaching assignments at [XXX] during the 2019-2020 academic year. He explained that the Member failed to adequately supervise students, did not take attendance, did not give students clear enough instructions, and did not review lesson plans before classes.

b) Affidavit of Caroline O’Connor

21The College submitted the Affidavit of Caroline O’Connor, sworn on March 20, 2024 (Exhibit 4). Caroline O’Connor (“Ms. O’Connor”) was the principal of [XXX] during the 2019-2020 and 2021-2022 academic years. She explained that the Member was there on assignment as an occasional teacher on March 10, 2020, and October 15, 2021, and that she observed aspects of the Member’s conduct that were cause for concern. She noted that the Member had difficulty following lesson plans and was not punctual. She also noted concerns she had received from other staff members, in particular that the Member left students unsupervised and gave students tasks that were beyond their capabilities.

d) Binder of Documents

22College Counsel also presented a binder of documents (Exhibit 2) which included: notes from meetings between the Member and Mr. McCabe, Ms. Chiarelli’s personal notes and Ms. Wink’s personal notes.

F. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

23College Counsel submitted that the evidence presented to the Panel proves each of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, on a balance of probabilities. However, she noted that the College did not seek to prove the allegation in paragraph 9(c) of the Notice of Hearing. She also pointed out that the Member admitted to some of the alleged facts during her meeting with Mr. McCabe on December 8, 2020, namely the allegations set out in paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the Notice of Hearing. The College argued that the Panel should accept the Member’s admissions made during her meeting with Mr. McCabe on December 8, 2020.

G. DECISION ON FINDING

(1) Onus and standard of proof

24The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R., which is proof on a balance of probabilities.

(2) Decision

25Having considered the evidence, the onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel found that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

H. REASONS FOR DECISION

26The Panel has carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented in this matter. In the reasons that follow, the Panel comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel first makes its assessments regarding the credibility of the witnesses, then sets out its factual findings, and then explains why these facts gave rise to a finding of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

(1) Credibility Assessments

27The Panel notes that Mr. McCabe did not observe the events in question. However, as the Board’s Superintendent of Human Resources, he received concerns from various school principals and participated in a meeting with the Member. He became aware of the alleged events through various recommendations, letters and emails received by the school principals. Overall, Mr. McCabe was a credible witness, his evidence as a participating expert was plausible and the facts recounted were corroborated by other witnesses.

28Ms. Trimble was also a credible witness and directly observed the Member’s conduct, as she was an educational assistant present in her classroom. Her testimony was also corroborated by other witnesses.

29Ms. Perrin also directly observed some of the events involving the Member, as she was an educational assistant present in the classroom with her. Her evidence was supported by documentary evidence, including an email she sent to the principal at the time of the incidents (Exhibit 2, Tab 10). Her testimony was corroborated by other witnesses.

30Ms. Chiarelli was also deemed a credible witness who observed some of the events involving the Member. She met with the Member and took notes during the meeting that support her testimony (Exhibit 2, Tab 10). Her testimony was corroborated by other witnesses.

31Ms. Wink was a credible witness and her evidence was plausible. The facts she raised in her testimony are supported by her personal notes taken during her involvement with the Member (Exhibit 2, Tab 17). She explained that she was taking precise, detailed notes due to several concussions she had suffered. Her testimony was corroborated by other witnesses.

32Finally, the Panel finds based on the affidavits of Mr. Gautreau and Ms. O’Connor (Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4) that they were plausible and reasonable witnesses. Their affidavits were supported by documentary evidence, i.e., the documents they themselves completed and submitted to the Board’s human resources department. Their testimonies were also corroborated by other witnesses.

(2) Factual Findings

a) Allegation in paragraph 6

33The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that in or about February and March 2020, while assigned to a Grade [XXX] class and a Grade [XXX] class at [XXX] the Member failed to take student attendance (paragraph 6[a]); failed to supervise students in the hallway while they went out for recess (paragraph 6[b]); left an educational assistant alone with students in the classroom during the lesson while she took a student to drink from the water fountain (paragraph 6[c]); allowed a group of five students to leave the classroom for an unsupervised break (paragraph 6[d]); failed to adhere to lesson plans (paragraph 6[e]); failed to provide clear instructions to students (paragraph 6[f]); and failed to supervise students while they worked and, as a result, students accessed YouTube during the lesson (paragraph 6[g]), as alleged in paragraphs 6(a) to 6(g) of the Notice of Hearing.

34The Panel refers to Mr. Gautreau’s evidence (Exhibit 3) with respect to the above allegations. Mr. Gautreau explained in his affidavit that, as the principal of [XXX], he directly observed the Member’s conduct and had received certain concerns from other staff members regarding the Member. Mr. Gautreau states that on March 6, 2020, he completed an Ongoing Professional Learning Recommendation for Occasional Teachers dated March 6, 2020 (Exhibit 3, Appendix B) (the “OPL Recommendation dated March 6, 2020”) regarding the Member’s conduct over the past two months and provided a copy to the Board’s human resources department. In addition, Mr. Gautreau claimed to have received an email from Jean-François Bélanger (“Mr. Bélanger”), the Human Resources Manager, requesting more information about the OPL Recommendation dated March 6, 2020 (Exhibit 3, Appendix C). His affidavit included the email exchanges between himself and Mr. Bélanger (Exhibit 3, Appendix C). In his email exchange with Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Gautreau provided details of the concerns raised regarding the Member’s conduct. The concerns listed included that the Member did not take student attendance using “PowerTeacher”; did not supervise the students in the hallway while they went out for recess; left an educational assistant alone with students in the classroom during class while she took a student to drink from the water fountain; allowed a group of five students to take an unsupervised break; failed to adequately review lesson plans to be ready for the next lesson; did not provide clear instructions to students; and did not supervise students while they worked and, as a result, students had accessed YouTube during the lesson instead of using their Chromebooks for the lesson (Exhibit 3, Appendix C).

35The Panel notes that there are some nuances between the concerns noted by Mr. Gautreau and the language of the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. For example, according to the allegation in paragraph 6(d), the Member allowed a group of five students to leave the classroom for an unsupervised break, whereas there is no mention of leaving the classroom in Mr. Gautreau’s affidavit. In his affidavit, Mr. Gautreau only mentions that the Member allowed five students to take an unsupervised break (Exhibit 3, Appendix C). However, this difference does not affect the Panel’s conclusion, as it remains clear that these five students were under the Member’s supervision and that she allowed them to take a break without supervising them. Furthermore, according to the allegation in paragraph 6(e), the Member did not follow the lesson plans, whereas Mr. Gautreau’s affidavit makes no mention of not following lesson plans. In his email to Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Gautreau describes that the Member did not adequately review the lesson plans before teaching the lessons. The Panel does not consider this difference to be significant, since by not adequately reviewing the lesson plans, the Member did not follow them, as alleged in paragraph 6(e).

36Finally, the Panel is satisfied with the evidence presented by the College regarding the allegation set out in paragraph 6 of the Notice of Hearing. Mr. Gautreau’s affidavit is supported by documentary evidence, including the OPL Recommendation dated March 6, 2020, completed by Mr. Gautreau (Exhibit 3, Appendix B) and email exchanges between Mr. Gautreau and Mr. Bélanger (Exhibit 3, Appendix C). Given that this affidavit was sworn before a commissioner, the Panel has no reason to doubt the veracity of his evidence. Moreover, the Member presented no evidence to the contrary and chose not to cross-examine Mr. Gautreau, even though she had the opportunity to do so.

b) Allegation in paragraph 7

37The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about March 10, 2020, while assigned to a Grade [XXX] class at [XXX], the Member did not teach a class, resulting in an educational assistant having to teach the class while the Member sat at a desk (paragraph 7[a]); she did not follow the lesson plans (paragraph 7[b]); she did not adhere to the class schedule (paragraph 7[c]); and she failed to manage the class effectively (paragraph 7[d]), as alleged in paragraphs 7(a) to 7(d) of the Notice of Hearing.

38The Panel refers to the evidence of Ms. O’Connor, who explained in her affidavit that she directly observed concerning aspects of the Member’s conduct when the Member was assigned to [XXX] on or about March 10, 2020 (Exhibit 4). She also explained that she had received concerns from other staff members. Ms. O’Connor states that she completed an Ongoing Professional Learning Recommendation for Occasional Teachers dated March 10, 2020 (the “OPL Recommendation dated March 10, 2020”) and that she submitted a copy of the form to the Board’s human resources department (Exhibit 4, Appendix B). The OPL Recommendation dated March 10, 2020, describes the concerning aspects of the Member’s conduct, which include the following: she had no classroom management skills; she had trouble following the clearly established daily schedules; she was not up to date; and the educational assistant taught the class while she sat at the desk.

39The Panel notes that Ms. O’Connor’s description of the Member’s conduct in the above-mentioned form does not correspond exactly to the language of the allegations set out in paragraph 7. There are a few differences, such as: Ms. O’Connor describes in her affidavit that the Member had trouble following the clearly established daily schedules, which differs slightly from the allegation in paragraph 7(b) that the Member did not follow lesson plans. However, it can be inferred that since she had trouble following the clearly established schedule for the day, she didn’t adhere to lesson plans. Finally, Ms. O’Connor’s evidence shows that the Member was not up to date and therefore did not follow the class schedule as alleged in paragraph 7(c) and that she had no classroom management skills and thus failed to manage the class effectively, as alleged in paragraph 7(d).

40The Panel finds that Ms. O’Connor’s affidavit substantiates the allegation set out in paragraph 7 of the Notice of Hearing. The Panel has no reason to doubt the veracity of Ms. O’Connor’s evidence, given that it is supported by external evidence, namely the OPL Recommendation dated March 10, 2020 (Exhibit 4, Appendix B), and that her affidavit was sworn before a Commissioner. The Member presented no evidence to the contrary and chose not to cross-examine Ms. O’Connor.

c) Allegation in paragraph 8

41The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that in or about November 2020, while assigned to [XXX], the Member told the Grade [XXX] students to “shut up” and that they were “not good kids” or words to that effect (paragraph 8[a]). The Panel also finds that the Member left students unsupervised in the classroom on three occasions, twice to retrieve her playground supervision vest and once to retrieve her laptop and her teaching materials (paragraph 8[a]), as alleged in paragraphs 8(a) and b(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

42The Panel refers to Ms. Chiarelli’s testimony and personal notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 10), an email from a parent (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, pages 50-51) and Ms. Chiarelli’s (diary-style) personal notes written in preparation for a meeting with the Member (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, pages 52-58).

43Ms. Chiarelli explained in her testimony that when she was principal at [XXX], she took notes of her observations and concerns relating to the Member’s conduct (Exhibit 2, Tab 10). She testified about a complaint the office had received from a parent of a student regarding the Member’s conduct, which was eventually forwarded to her. She said the parent’s email dated December 5, 2020, described how her daughter had told her that her teacher had not been polite. The Panel notes that the email describes the Member telling students to shut up and that they were not good children (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, page 51). The Panel also notes that this evidence is hearsay, but hearsay is admissible in this administrative proceeding. Furthermore, given all the evidence, including Ms. Chiarelli’s testimony that she spoke to the Member several times about her communication with students and received several complaints from parents about her communication with students, it is likely that the Member told students to shut up and that they were not good children, as alleged in paragraph 8(a) of the Notice of Hearing.

44Ms. Chiarelli also testified about incidents where the Member failed to adequately supervise the students. During her testimony, she referred to her notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 10). In Ms. Chiarelli’s notes, she describes three occasions when the Member left her classroom and left the students unsupervised, twice to retrieve her supervisor’s vest and once to retrieve her laptop (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, page 53). The Panel notes that Ms. Chiarelli referred to her notes during her testimony to discuss these three incidents, but that she recalled there being several incidents involving the Member’s lack of supervision. Ms. Chiarelli testified that her diary-style notes were taken in preparation for a meeting with the Member. Ms. Chiarelli’s notes indicate that a meeting took place on December 1. It can be inferred that the notes describe events that took place before December 1, in the month of November 2020. The Panel received no evidence to the contrary. For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied with the evidence that in or about November 2020, the Member left students unsupervised in the classroom on three occasions, as alleged in paragraphs 8(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

d) Allegation in paragraph 9

45The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about November 25, 2020, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member remained in a school office to use an iPad during class (paragraph 9[a]) and, during a lesson given by another teacher to Grade [XXX] students, she did not help students who raised their hands to ask for support and said to the teacher, “I don’t know if I’m supposed to interact with these children” (paragraph 9[b]), as alleged in paragraphs 9(a) and 9(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

46The Panel draws no factual conclusions regarding paragraph 9(c) of the Notice of Hearing, in which it was alleged that the Member did not allow Student 1 to use the bathroom. During her submissions, College Counsel told the Panel that she did not intend to prove the allegation in paragraph 9(c) of the Notice of Hearing and did not present any evidence in that regard.

47For the purposes of the allegations in paragraphs 9(a) and 9(b) of the Notice of Hearing, the Panel refers to Ms. Chiarelli’s testimony and her personal notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 10).

48Ms. Chiarelli said that she observed the Member when she was supposed to be in a classroom offering help to students, but had instead stayed in her office using her iPad. She explained that there were several occasions when the Member was not where she was supposed to be and that she always had to check the Member’s schedule. Her testimony is supported by notes taken during her observations of the Member’s behaviour. The Panel reviewed Ms. Chiarelli’s notes and found them to be detailed and accurate; for example, the notes include the date of the event, a description of the conduct, and the steps taken by Ms. Chiarelli (Exhibit 2, Tab 10). According to Ms. Chiarelli’s notes, on November 25, at 8:30 a.m., the Member was in her office using her iPad and Ms. Chiarelli reminded her that she was supposed to be in the classroom to provide support to the students and the teacher starting at 8:00 a.m. (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, page 36). The Panel is initially satisfied with Ms. Chiarelli’s evidence, as well as her notes, which corroborate her testimony.

49Ms. Chiarelli also reported a concern raised by a resource teacher who said the Member was not assisting students who were requesting support. Ms. Chiarelli explained that the resource teacher told her that when the Member was teaching, five students had raised their hands, the Member did not go to them, and when the resource teacher mentioned that there were students with their hands raised, the Member replied that she did not know whether she should interact with them or offer them support. Ms. Chiarelli’s personal notes support her testimony and indicate that this incident took place on November 25 in a Grade [XXX] classroom (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, page 44). The Panel notes that Ms. Chiarelli’s testimony on this fact constitutes hearsay, but that it is nevertheless admissible. In evaluating all the evidence and the fact that Ms. Chiarelli took detailed and accurate notes at the time of the events, the Panel is satisfied with the evidence that the Member did not help the students who raised their hands to ask for support and told the teacher “I don’t know if I’m supposed to interact with these children,” as alleged in paragraph 9(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

e) Allegation in paragraph 10

50The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about November 26, 2020, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member arrived 30 minutes late for her assignment (paragraph 10[a]); and did not allow Student 1 or Student 2 to use the bathroom, causing the students to cry (paragraph 10[b]), as alleged in paragraphs 10(a) and 10(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

51The Panel refers to Ms. Chiarelli’s testimony as well as her personal notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 10), which support her testimony. Ms. Chiarelli testified that on several occasions the Member arrived late for class. She referred to her notes to testify about a specific incident in which the Member was 30 minutes late for an assignment (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, p. 52). Ms. Chiarelli’s diary-style notes are dated December 1 and indicate in English that “On Thursday”, the Member was 30 minutes late (Exhibit 2,Tab 10, page 52). Therefore, the Panel can infer that the date on which the Member was late was November 26, 2020. In addition, Ms. Chiarelli testified that the Member often had trouble being punctual. She said it was difficult to remember all the incidents in which the Member was late, because it happened so often. The Panel has no reason to doubt the veracity of the notes taken by Ms. Chiarelli at the time of the incidents. The notes are accurate and detailed. For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied with the evidence that the Member arrived 30 minutes late for an assignment, as alleged in paragraph 10(a).

52In addition, Ms. Chiarelli testified about a complaint she received from the parent of Student 1, alleging that the Member did not allow Student 1 or Student 2 to go to the bathroom. Ms. Chiarelli pointed out that this kind of incident has happened on several occasions. Ms. Chiarelli’s notes indicate that on November 26, the parent of Student 1 was waiting for her at the school entrance and explained that Student 1 and Student 2 were not allowed to go to the bathroom and that this had happened several times (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, page 38). Ms. Chiarelli also noted that Student 1 and Student 2 were crying (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, page 38). Ms. Chiarelli testified that she tried to discuss this concern with the Member and sent her an email reminding her to let the students use the bathroom when needed. Her testimony is supported by documentary evidence, including the email sent to the Member on November 27, 2020 (Exhibit 2, tab 10, pages 40-42). Ms. Chiarelli also testified that the Member did not take any responsibility and denied having prevented students from going to the bathroom. Indeed, the Panel notes that the Member responded to Ms. Chiarelli’s email stating that she never prevented students from going to the bathroom (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, pages 42-43). The Panel gives little weight to the Member’s email and has no reason to doubt the veracity of Ms. Chiarelli’s notes and her testimony in this regard. The Panel found that Ms. Chiarelli was a credible witness and that her evidence was plausible. For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied with the evidence presented by the College that the Member did not allow Student 1 or Student 2 to use the bathroom, causing the students to cry, as alleged in paragraph 10(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

f) Allegation in paragraph 11

53The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about November 27, 2020, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member did not notice that Student 3 had disappeared from the classroom (paragraph 11[a]); and did not look for Student 3 when an educational assistant alerted her to Student 3’s absence, during which Student 3 left the school, crossed the schoolyard and the street and boarded an empty school bus (paragraph 11[b]), as alleged in paragraphs 11(a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing.

54The Panel refers to the testimony of Ms. Perrin and Ms. Chiarelli, as well as to Ms. Chiarelli’s personal notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 10).

55Ms. Perrin testified about her observations as an educational assistant in the classroom the Member was supply teaching. She testified about an incident on November 26, 2020, that took place at the end of the day, just before the students left the classroom to board their school buses. Ms. Perrin noticed that a Grade [XXX] student, Student 3, was not in the classroom, and she asked the Member where Student 3 was, but the Member looked at her without responding. She then asked the students where Student 3 was, and they did not know. After accompanying another student to his bus, she went to see the teacher who was responsible for the buses leaving and told her about the situation. The teachers later found Student 3 alone on his bus. According to Ms. Perrin, Student 3 had left class early, walked along the side street and boarded his bus on his own. Following the incident, she went to see the Member to tell her that Student 3 was on his bus and that she should discuss the situation with him the following day. She also testified about the email she sent to the principal, Ms. Chiarelli, explaining the situation and her concerns about the Member. This email is part of Ms. Chiarelli’s personal notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, page 37). Ms. Perrin also testified that this was the first time in her career she had needed to send this type of email to her principal.

56The Panel also heard evidence from Ms. Chiarelli regarding this incident. She explained that the educational assistant, Ms. Perrin, had informed her of the incident involving Student 3 by email. Ms. Perrin told her that Student 3 had disappeared from the classroom at the end of the school day, that Ms. Perrin and another teacher had found him on his bus, and that when Student 3’s disappearance was reported to the Member, she made no effort to help them find him. Ms. Chiarelli had to call Student 3’s parents to inform them of the incident. She also testified that she sent an email to the Member to express her concern about this and other incidents (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, pages 40-42).

57The Member’s email response is also included in Ms. Chiarelli’s personal notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, pages 42-43). The Member denies the incident and states that she does not know Student 3. The Panel also reviewed Ms. Chiarelli’s personal (diary style) notes discussing her meeting with the Member (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, p. 56). The Panel notes that Ms. Chiarelli’s testimony corroborates that of Ms. Perrin.

58The Panel is satisfied with the evidence presented by the College. First, Ms. Perrin, a first-hand witness, provided credible testimony. The Panel has no reason to doubt her testimony, which was supported by a contemporaneous email to Ms. Chiarelli about the incident. Moreover, Ms. Chiarelli’s testimony corroborates that of Ms. Perrin. All of the evidence established on a balance of probabilities: the Member did not notice that Student 3 had left the classroom, she did not attempt to locate Student 3 when an educational assistant alerted her to his absence, which resulted in Student 3 leaving the school and boarding an empty school bus, as alleged in paragraphs 11(a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing.

g) Allegation in paragraph 12

59The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about December 3, 2020, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member grabbed Student 3 by the arm in the schoolyard; grabbed Student 3 by the arm in the classroom; closed the door to her Grade [XXX] classroom and placed a desk in front of the door, on the inside, to prevent the students, and especially Student 3, from leaving, as alleged in paragraphs 12(a) to 12(c) of the Notice of Hearing.

60The Panel heard testimony from Ms. Chiarelli, Mr. McCabe and Ms. Perrin regarding the above allegations. The Panel also considered Ms. Chiarelli’s personal notes (Exhibit 2, tab 10), the notes taken during the December 8, 2020, meeting between the Member and Mr. McCabe (Exhibit 2, Tab 11), and, most importantly, the Member’s admissions during that meeting.

61Mr. McCabe testified about his involvement in the alleged events, in particular the fact that he received a number of reports of concern from various school principals. He also testified about his meeting with the Member on December 8, 2020, during which he discussed a number of concerns with her. He then explained that he wrote a letter to the Member (Exhibit 2, Tab 12) regarding these concerns and recommending further steps to be taken in her teaching practice. He testified that he discussed with the Member the report that she had grabbed a student, expressed his concern about this, and reminded her that there are other methods for managing student behaviour. The Panel also reviewed the notes taken during the December 8, 2020, meeting with the Member and her responses to the allegations. It should be noted that the Member admitted to grabbing a student’s arm in the schoolyard. She explained that she couldn’t run after the student without grabbing him (Exhibit 2, Tab 11, page 61). In addition, Ms. Chiarelli also testified about her participation in the December 8, 2020, meeting with the Member and Mr. McCabe. She recalls that during the meeting, the Member was asked if she had grabbed Student 3’s arm, which the Member admitted, explaining that it was to prevent him from running and that she was afraid he would knock over other students. Ms. Chiarelli’s testimony is supported by the notes from the December 8, 2020, meeting with the Member. The Panel considers the Member’s responses during that meeting to be admissions that she grabbed Student 3’s arm in the schoolyard, as alleged in paragraph 12(a).

62Ms. Chiarelli also testified about the allegation mentioned in paragraph 12(b). She testified that after the Member barricaded the classroom door with a desk and a teacher managed to enter the classroom, the students told the teacher that the Member had grabbed Student 3’s arm in class to prevent her from leaving the classroom. Ms. Chiarelli’s testimony is supported by her personal notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, pages 45-46). The Panel is satisfied that the College has successfully proven that the Member grabbed Student 3’s arm in the classroom, as alleged in paragraph 12(b).

63Finally, Ms. Perrin testified that the Member had barricaded the classroom door with a desk. She explained that she was accompanying a student on a “health break” and that upon returning to the Member’s classroom, she tried to open the door, but it was blocked by a desk. She then called another teacher, Ms. Carulli, for support. She pushed on the classroom door to open it while the Member pushed from the other side to prevent her from doing so. Once inside the classroom, she noticed that the students were barricaded inside. Ms. Perrin testified that the classroom was in chaos. Some students were acting out, while others looked upset and on the verge of tears. Ms. Chiarelli testified that Ms. Perrin told her the Member had barricaded the door to keep the students inside the classroom. Ms. Chiarelli’s personal notes support her testimony and that of Ms. Perrin (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, page 46). Mr. McCabe testified about his meeting with the Member on December 8, 2020, regarding this incident. The Panel notes that the notes from the meeting with the Member on December 8, 2020, document the Member’s admission that she had placed a desk in front of the classroom door to prevent a student from leaving, indicating that she had no other option (Exhibit 2, Tab 11, page 60). The Panel considers the Member’s response during this meeting to be an admission of the conduct alleged in paragraph 12(c).

Allegation in paragraph 13

64The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about October 15, 2021, while on an assignment in a Grade [XXX] class at [XXX], the Member did not follow the lesson plan and asked the students to complete a task that was beyond their abilities by asking them to write words with more than three letters, contrary to what was recommended in the lesson plan, and by taking the initiative to ask them to differentiate between consonants and vowels for each word (paragraph 13[a]); When the students said they did not understand the task or could not complete it, she responded, “Why aren’t you doing it? It’s easy” or words to that effect, which made some students cry (paragraph 13[b]); that the Member asked an educational assistant to teach a physical education class in her place (paragraph 13[c]); that she allowed students to remain in the schoolyard after recess and left an educational assistant alone with them, so that the latter was unable to accompany Student 4, a Grade [XXX] student with special needs, into the school when he needed to go to the bathroom, after which he accidentally defecated in his pants and vomited in the bathroom (paragraph 13[d]); that she allowed four or five Grade [XXX] boys to leave the classroom at the same time to go to the bathroom, despite instructions in the lesson plan that students should go to the bathroom one at a time, resulting in a disruption in the bathroom that required the other school staff to intervene (paragraph 13[e]), as alleged in paragraphs 13(a) to 13(e) of the Notice of Hearing.

65The Panel finds that the College failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member used her personal phone during class, as alleged in paragraph 13(f) of the Notice of Hearing.

66The Panel refers to Ms. Trimble’s testimony and to Ms. O’Connor’s evidence (Exhibit 4).

67Ms. Trimble testified about her observations of the Member’s conduct when she was an educational assistant in the class the Member was supply teaching. She testified that on October 15, 2021, the classroom teacher had left the Member very detailed notes and instructions that the students were to write three-letter words on their whiteboards. At first, the Member gave them the word “pig” to write on their board and then the words “bedroom”, “recess”, “weekend” and “snack”. The Member then asked the students to draw a line down the centre of their boards and write the consonants on the left and vowels on the right. Ms. Trimble testified that she then saw the Member walking around the classroom and when the students did not understand the task, she would say to them, “Why aren’t you doing it, it’s easy.” Ms. Trimble testified that there were a number of students who appeared stressed and either did not understand the task or were unable to complete it. In addition, Ms. Trimble testified that she sent an email to the principal, Ms. O’Connor, to express her concerns. Her email corroborates her testimony (Exhibit 2, Tab 14). Ms. O’Connor’s evidence also refers to this incident. In her affidavit, Ms. O’Connor explains that on October 15, 2021, she completed a Professional Growth Letter for Occasional Teachers (“Growth Letter”) that included a description of the events (Exhibit 4, Appendix C) and details that Ms. Trimble shared with her. Ms. Trimble’s previous statements to Ms. O’Connor are consistent with Ms. Trimble’s testimony. For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied with all of the evidence and finds that the College has successfully proven the allegations in paragraphs 13(a) and 13(b). The Panel notes that it did not hear evidence that the students were crying, as alleged in paragraph 13(b), but rather that the facts established by Ms. Trimble’s testimony were that students appeared stressed, which the Panel found sufficient to establish this allegation.

68Ms. Trimble also testified that during the physical education class on October 15, 2021, the Member had the classroom teacher’s notes, glanced at them briefly, and then gave them to herself (Ms. Trimble). Ms. Trimble testified that she therefore had to teach the physical education class to the students because the Member did not seem willing to do so. She also testified that it is not her role as an educational assistant to lead the class and that her role is to assist the three students who need support in that class. The Panel also reviewed the email Ms. Trimble sent to her principal, Ms. O’Connor, on October 22, 2021, and notes that it corroborates her testimony (Exhibit 2, Tab 14). The Panel is satisfied with Ms. Trimble’s evidence that the Member gave Ms. Trimble the class notes and that she assumed that by giving them to her, she was delegating the task of teaching the class in her place, as alleged in paragraph 13(c).

69Ms. Trimble also testified regarding another incident that took place on October 15, 2021. She explained that the classroom teacher had left notes for the Member saying that if the weather was nice, the students could stay outside for an additional 15 minutes. While the students were outside, Student 4 asked Ms. Trimble to go to the bathroom. Ms. Trimble wanted to notify the Member that she should accompany Student 4, but the Member was not outside. Ms. Trimble then had to let Student 4 go to the bathroom by himself and call another staff member to supervise the students outside. When she returned to help Student 4, he had accidentally defecated in his pants and vomited in the bathroom. Ms. Trimble testified that she noticed the Member was inside the school instead of outside with her class. She also testified that Student 4 was very upset and humiliated as a result of the incident. Ms. Trimble’s email to Ms. O’Connor corroborates her testimony (Exhibit 2, Tab 14). The Panel finds that the facts alleged in paragraph 13(d) are established.

70Finally, Ms. Trimble testified that on October 15, 2021, the classroom teacher had left notes for the occasional teacher, the Member, regarding the school rules for giving students permission to go to the bathroom, namely that only one boy and one girl could go at a time. Ms. Trimble explained that the Member allowed four or five boys to go at the same time. She also explained that other teachers and a custodian had to go to the bathroom because of the noise and behaviour of these students. Ms. Trimble’s email to Ms. O’Connor corroborates her testimony (Exhibit 2, Tab 14). For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied with the evidence and that the College has successfully proven the facts alleged in paragraph 13(e).

71The Panel is not satisfied that the College successfully proved the facts alleged in paragraph 13(f), namely that the Member used her personal phone during class time. Ms. O’Connor’s evidence, namely the Growth Letter she completed and forwarded to the Board’s human resources department (Exhibit 4, Appendix C), states that she was absent on October 15, 2021, but that she was notified by her designated person, Michelle Beard, that the Member was often on the phone. However, without further information, the Panel cannot determine whether Michelle Beard observed the Member on the phone during a lesson herself, or whether she heard this from students or from other staff members. The testimony of Ms. Trimble, who was present with the Member in class that day, did not address this point. Given that there is insufficient evidence, the Panel cannot conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member used her personal phone during class time.

Allegation in paragraph 14

72The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about October 19, 2021, while on assignment at [XXX], the Member left a class of Grade [XXX] students unattended in the schoolyard while she was inside the school, as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Notice of Hearing.

73The Panel refers to Ms. Wink’s testimony as well as her personal notes supporting her testimony (Exhibit 2, Tab 17).

74Ms. Wink testified about her first-hand observations of the Member’s conduct while she was principal at [XXX]. She explained that on October 19, 2021, she ran into the Member on the stairs at 11:55 a.m. and could see from the window next to the stairs that the Member’s students were outside unsupervised before the noon bell rang. Ms. Wink explained that the Member was responsible for supervising her students until the bell rang. She also testified that she took detailed notes of events that she personally observed or that other staff members told her they had observed regarding the Member’s conduct. The Panel notes that Ms. Wink’s personal notes support her testimony and indicate that this was the Grade [XXX] class (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 76).

75The Panel finds that the Member left a class of Grade [XXX] students unsupervised in the schoolyard while she was inside the school, as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Notice of Hearing.

Allegation in paragraph 15

76The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about October 20, 2021, while on assignment at [XXX] and responsible for a class of Grade [XXX] students, the Member attempted to leave students unsupervised in the schoolyard (paragraph 15[a]); that she left students unsupervised in the classroom during a lesson while she was in the staff room (paragraph 15[b]); that she did not allow students to consult their notes to complete a task involving filling out a blank map of Canada, despite instructions in the lesson plan indicating that this was permitted (paragraph 15[c]); and that she told an English as a Second Language teacher who was providing support to some students in the class, in front of the students, not to help Student 5 because it constituted “cheating” or words to that effect, even though Student 5 was entitled to the teacher’s support (paragraph 15[d]); as alleged in paragraphs 15(a) to 15(d) of the Notice of Hearing.

77The Panel refers to Ms. Wink’s testimony, her personal notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 17) and the Growth Letter that she completed and submitted to the Board’s human resources department (Exhibit 2, Tab 18).

78Ms. Wink testified that another staff member reported observing the Member leave her class unsupervised in the schoolyard again on October 20, 2021. She explained that this teacher had also reminded the Member that she was required to remain outside with her class. Ms. Wink’s personal notes corroborate her testimony (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 76). The Panel notes that Ms. Wink’s testimony about this incident constitutes hearsay, since she did not directly observe the incident, but the Panel accepts this evidence given Ms. Wink’s own similar observations the previous day, which make it plausible and likely that the incident occurred again. The Panel therefore finds that the facts alleged in paragraph 15(a) have been established.

79Ms. Wink testified about her direct observations of another incident later on October 20, 2021. She testified that at 1:10 p.m., she found the Member in the staff room when she was supposed to be in class as of 1:00 p.m. The Member then reportedly told her that another adult was with the students in the classroom and that the students had not yet finished their lunch. Ms. Wink testified that she explained to the Member that it did not matter whether the students were still eating or whether another adult was with them; as soon as the bell rang after lunch, she was responsible for her students. Ms. Wink’s notes support her testimony and describe the fact that she had received a call indicating that the Member was not in her classroom and that Ms. Wink found her in the staff room (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 76). The Panel notes that the allegation in paragraph 15(b) alleges that the Member left students unsupervised during a lesson while she was in the staff room, which differs slightly from the facts testified to by Ms. Wink. Ms. Wink mentioned that the Member told her another adult was with the students in the classroom, even though she was responsible for her students as soon as lunch was over. The Panel accepts Ms. Wink’s testimony that the Member was responsible for her students from the start of the class and that by not being in the classroom, she left the students unsupervised. The Panel therefore accepts that the facts alleged in paragraph 15(b) have been established.

80Ms. Wink testified about an email received from another teacher at the school, English as a Second Language teacher Rema Fernandes (“Ms. Fernandes”), expressing two concerns about the Member’s conduct. First, Ms. Fernandes indicated that the students did not understand the task they were supposed to perform. The Member would not allow the students to use certain tools to complete their task (a blank map of Canada) even though they did not have the information necessary to complete the assigned task. Second, when Ms. Fernandes decided to give the students support tools to help them complete their work, the Member told her, in front of the students, that she was cheating. The content of Ms. Fernandes’ email can be found in Ms. Wink’s personal notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 77). The Panel notes that Ms. Fernandes’ email describes the same incident, but in greater detail. Ms. Fernandes explains in her email that she suggested to the Member that she write the names of the provinces and territories on the board and let the students write them in the maps in the correct places. Ms. Fernandes’ email goes on to say that the Member then confronted Ms. Fernandes in front of the students, repeatedly telling her that the classroom teacher had indicated that the students should not receive any support and that they were expected to have memorized the names (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 77). Ms. Fernandes’ email also states that according to the classroom teacher’s notes, the students were permitted to consult their notes to complete this task (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 77). The Panel notes that Ms. Wink’s testimony regarding this incident constitutes hearsay; however, her testimony is supported by external documentary evidence, including Ms. Fernandes. email describing the incident. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the College has successfully proven the allegations in paragraphs 15(c) and 15(d).

Allegation in paragraph 16

81The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about October 21, 2021, while assigned to [XXX] and responsible for a class of Grade [XXX] students, the Member asked the students to recite the days of the week in French and when Student 6 responded by singing the days of the week in French, said to Student 6: “We only sing them in kindergarten, say them to me” or words to that effect (paragraph 16[a]); that when Student 7, a student with [XXX], responded incorrectly to her request to recite the days of the week in French, she said to Student 7: “Even kindergarteners can tell me the days of the week” or words to that effect (paragraph 16[b]); that the Member repeatedly asked Student 7 to recite the days of the week in French, even though Student 7 was visibly upset and had difficulty accomplishing this task (paragraph 16[c]); that when Student 8 tried to tell her that Student 7 had [XXX] and could not respond to her request, the Member told Student 8 to “shut up” (paragraph 16[d]); that when Student 8 raised his hand to ask if he could go to the bathroom, she told him to “shut up” (paragraph 16[e]); that she did not notice that Student 9 and Student 10 had left the classroom, and another teacher at the school had to intervene when Student 9 and Student 10 were sliding down a staircase railing at the school (paragraph 16[f]); and that she refused to allow Student 11 to go to the bathroom, even though Student 11 was holding her stomach and another teacher told her it was an emergency (paragraph 16[g]), as alleged in paragraphs 16(a) to 16(g) of the Notice of Hearing.

82The Panel refers to Ms. Wink’s testimony and personal notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 17).

83Ms. Wink testified that on October 21, 2021, she received an email from Ms. Fernandes, an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher, informing her of an incident in which a student, Student 6, had recited the days of the week in French by singing them. Then, when the Member asked another student, Student 7, to recite the days of the week in French, and he was unable to answer, he became upset. Student 8 then tried to help by explaining to the Member that Student 7 has [XXX], but the Member told him to shut up. The Panel reviewed the content of Ms. Fernandes’ email to Ms. Wink (included in Ms. Wink’s personal notes) that described the same incident mentioned above. Ms. Fernandes’ email includes several details. Furthermore, Ms. Fernandes’ email indicates that when she was present in the Member’s class to support an ESL student, the Member asked the students if they knew the days of the week in French, and when Student 6 raised his hand and began to sing the days of the week, the Member replied with something like: We only sing them in kindergarten, say them to me (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 78). Ms. Fernandes then describes in her email that the Member asked Student 7 to recite the days of the week in French, and when he gave the wrong answer, the Member replied with something like: You weren’t listening, I just said it, and even kindergarteners can tell me the days of the week (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 78). She describes in her email that Student 7 was uncomfortable and began waving his hands in the air. She explains that another student, Student 8, then intervened and said loudly that Student 7 has [XXX]. Since the Member continued to demand that Student 7 answer her question, Student 8 tried to get her attention by waving his hand. The Member then told Student 8 to “shut up” (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 78).

84Ms. Wink also testified that she interviewed some of the students in that class and took into account, word for word, what the students told her. Student 8 said he raised his hand to ask to go to the bathroom, but that the Member told him to shut up. Student 8 also shared that he tried to tell the Member that Student 7 had [XXX], but that the Member again told him to shut up (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 77). The Panel notes that Ms. Wink’s testimony regarding these incidents constitutes hearsay, as the Panel did not directly hear the evidence from Ms. Fernandes or Student 8. However, Ms. Wink explained in her testimony that she took detailed notes of what the students shared with her. In addition, the notes she took from Student 8 corroborate the email she received from Ms. Fernandes and the facts it contained (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 77). The Panel finds the evidence to be reliable and consistent overall, and gives it considerable weight, even if it constitutes hearsay. For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied with the evidence presented and that the College has successfully proven the allegations in paragraphs 16(a) to 16(e).

85With respect to the allegations in paragraphs 16(f) and (g) of the Notice of Hearing, the Panel also refers to Ms. Wink’s testimony, her personal notes, and Ms. Fernandes’ email to Ms. Wink (Exhibit 2, Tab 17). Ms. Wink testified about the email dated October 21, 2021, which described how the Member refused to allow Student 11 to go to the bathroom when she urgently needed to, and the fact that Ms. Fernandes had to intervene with the Member to tell her to let Student 11 go to the bathroom or else she would have an accident (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 79). Ms. Fernandes’ email also refers to an incident where she realized that two students, Student 9 and Student 10, were no longer in the classroom. The Member did not seem to notice. Ms. Fernandes went out to look in the hallway, where she found the two students being escorted back to class by another teacher who said she had found them sliding down the stair railing (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 79). As mentioned above, Ms. Wink interviewed some students, including Student 8A, whose interview is noted in Ms. Wink’s personal notes, and who told her that Student 9 “was going to the bathroom, then a teacher saw him sliding down the railing” (Exhibit 2, Tab 17, page 77). The Panel notes that Ms. Wink did not testify to these events first-hand and that her evidence in this regard constitutes hearsay. However, Ms. Wink’s oral testimony is supported by Ms. Fernandes’ email and by the notes from interviews with students, which are consistent with the events described in Ms. Fernandes’ email. The Panel is of the opinion that this evidence is therefore reliable.

(3) Legal Conclusions

The Member is guilty of professional misconduct

86The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct set out above gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5); she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7); she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1); she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2); she failed to adequately supervise a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11); she 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); she committed acts 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); and she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

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

87The Panel considers that the Member violated the standards of the profession, namely “Commitment to Students and Student Learning.” In reaching this conclusion, the Panel relied on the evidence of Mr. McCabe, who was designated as a participating expert. According to the standard “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” members:mr

are dedicated in their care and commitment to learners. They treat students equitably and with respect and are sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning. Members facilitate the development of students as contributing citizens of Canadian society.

88It is well established by the evidence that the Member grabbed Student 3’s arm twice, in the classroom and in the schoolyard, and that the Member even admitted to grabbing Student 3’s arm in the schoolyard during her meeting with Mr. McCabe on December 8, 2020. She also barricaded the classroom door. According to Mr. McCabe’s expert testimony, the Member failed in her duty to treat students equitably and with respect. He explained that grabbing a student is clearly inappropriate conduct that is counterproductive to student learning and that there are other methods for managing student behaviour. He also stated that members who have trouble managing behaviours are expected to ask for support. Mr. McCabe also testified that barricading the classroom door to prevent students from leaving is highly dangerous and inappropriate conduct and constitutes a significant breach of commitment to students and student learning.

b) The Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7)

89The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused several students. It has been established that the Member communicated inappropriately with students several times. For example, on a few occasions, the Member told students to shut up. Indeed, the Panel found that the Member told Student 8 to shut up on twice. It is completely inappropriate for a teacher to tell her students to shut up. The Member also told a student that the students were not good kids, which constitutes verbal abuse. Teachers must always show respect in their interactions with students and use appropriate language. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the following comments made by the Member also constitute verbal abuse: telling students who did not understand a task something to the effect of: Why aren’t you doing it? It’s easy; telling Student 6 who answered a question by singing the days of the week in French something to the effect of: We only sing them in kindergarten, say them to me; and telling Student 7 something to the effect of: Even kindergarteners can tell me the days of the week. The Panel considers these comments to be demeaning and disparaging, and finds that the above-mentioned conduct constitutes verbal abuse.

c) The Member abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1)

90The Panel finds that the Member physically abused Student 3 when she grabbed Student 3’s arm on two occasions, once in the schoolyard and again in the classroom. Although the Member explained that the reason for grabbing the student by the arm was to prevent him from running, the Panel notes that it is never appropriate to grab a student by the arm, even when a teacher is having trouble managing their behaviour. Teachers’ training provides them with a range of resources and methods, other than the use of physical force, for managing student behaviour. Teachers are expected to refrain from using physical force unnecessarily, particularly in situations where the student’s behaviour poses no danger to the student or to others. The Member’s use of physical force in the circumstances of this case constitutes physical abuse.

d) The Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2)

91The Panel finds that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally. The Panel notes that the students involved did not testify at the hearing, but the Panel heard evidence from other witnesses who were present during the incidents and who were able to observe the behaviour of both the students and the Member. The Panel accepts Ms. Trimble’s evidence that Student 4 was humiliated and upset after accidentally defecating in his pants and vomiting in the bathroom when she was unable to accompany him to the bathroom because she had to supervise the Member’s class in the schoolyard while the Member was inside the school.

92The Panel also finds that barricading the door to the Grade [XXX] classroom and placing a desk in front of the door to prevent students from leaving constitutes psychological or emotional abuse. The Panel accepts Mr. McCabe’s opinion that it was inappropriate to barricade the students inside the classroom, both because of the danger this could pose and because of the traumatic psychological effect that being barricaded inside the classroom by their teacher could have on them. The Panel also accepts Ms. Perrin’s evidence that when she managed to open the classroom door, the class was in a state of chaos, some students were acting up and others looked upset and on the verge of tears.

93In addition, the Panel finds that repeatedly telling students to shut up and telling Grade [XXX] students that they were not good children could reasonably have a psychological effect on the students, as these are disparaging and derogatory comments. Also, telling students who did not understand a task or couldn’t do it something to the effect of: “Why aren’t you doing it? It’s easy,” is a disparaging comment. The Panel accepts Ms. Trimble’s evidence that the students appeared distressed by these comments.

94Finally, the Member psychologically and emotionally abused Student 7, student with [XXX], when she repeatedly asked him to recite the days of the week in French, even though he was visibly upset and had difficulty accomplishing the task. Ms. Fernandes’ email describes Student 7 as anxious, looking around and waving both hands in the air.

e) The Member failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11)

95The Panel finds that the Member failed to adequately supervise students under her professional supervision. The evidence establishes that the Member often arrived late and left her students unsupervised. The Panel accepted the testimony of Ms. Chiarelli, Ms. Perrin, Ms. Trimble and Ms. Wink, as well as Mr. Gautreau’s evidence in this regard. Ms. Chiarelli testified from her own observations that the Member arrived late to school and left her classroom, leaving the students unsupervised. Ms. Perrin testified about the incident where Student 3 disappeared from the Member’s classroom and was found alone on a bus. The Member did not know where Student 3 was and did not help Ms. Perrin find Student 3. Ms. Trimble testified about the incident with Student 4, whom she was unable to accompany to the bathroom because the Member had left her students outside unsupervised while she went back inside the school. Ms. Wink testified to her own observations where the Member had left students unattended in the schoolyard before lunch and left students unattended in the classroom while she stayed in the staff room. Finally, Mr. Gautreau testified that the Member had failed to supervise students in the hallway, had left an educational assistant alone in the classroom with the students, and had allowed a group of students to go to the bathroom unattended. Teachers are responsible for ensuring the physical safety and well-being of students. Teachers fail in their duty to adequately supervise the students they are responsible for when they arrive late to their assignment, neglect to supervise students in the classroom, allow them to leave the classroom unsupervised, or do not supervise them closely enough to notice when a student has left the classroom without permission, as demonstrated by the Member’s misconduct.

f) The Member 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)

96The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of members of the profession. Paragraph 264(1)(c) of the Education Act provides that it is the duty of a teacher to “inculcate by precept and example […]” In other words, members of the profession are expected to act as positive role models for students. Through her misconduct, the Member failed to act as a positive role model for her students. Several of the established facts support the breach of subsection 1(15). Moreover, arriving late to class sets a poor example for students and demonstrates a lack of concern for students’ well-being and safety. All derogatory comments, such as telling students to shut up, “Why aren’t you doing it? It’s easy” and “Even kindergarteners can do it” are examples of the Member not acting as a positive role model in front of her students. Barricading the classroom door to prevent students from leaving and grabbing Student 3’s arm are examples of conduct that took place in front of the students and certainly did not set a good example.

g) The Member committed acts 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)

97The Panel is of the view that the Member’s conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Member’s conduct in barricading the classroom door and grabbing Student 3’s arm on two occasions casts serious doubt on the Member’s moral and professional fitness to perform her duties as a teacher and ensure the well-being of students. The Panel also considers that preventing students from going to the bathroom and failing to supervise students on several occasions constitutes disgraceful and dishonourable conduct. Arriving late for class and failing to follow lesson plans constitutes unprofessional conduct.

h) The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)

98The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. By grabbing Student 3’s arm, barricading the classroom door to prevent students from leaving, and failing to adequately supervise the students, the Member undermined public confidence. Parents and the public expect teachers to ensure the physical well-being and safety of students at all times. Through her misconduct, the Member has damaged the reputation of the teaching profession.

I. PENALTY

99The Panel will schedule a subsequent date on which it will hear the parties’ submissions with respect to penalty.

Date: August 21, 2025

Alain Martel, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

Scott Barker, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1The Panel will use “student with [XXX]” in its Decision on Findings and Reasons for Decision.