Ontario College of Teachers v. Dublin, 2025 ONOCT 23

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Dublin 2025 ONOCT 23

Date: 2025-04-09

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

Ivan Evaton Dublin, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

IVAN EVATON DUBLIN (REGISTRATION #448623)

PANEL: Damienne Lebrun-Reid, Chair Scott Barker, OCT Andrea Murik, OCT

HEARD: March 31, 2025

Lisa Feinberg, for the Ontario College of Teachers No one appearing for Ivan Evaton Dublin Ahmad Mozaffari, 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 March 31, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Ivan Evaton Dublin (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have legal representation.

3College Counsel submitted a series of affidavits sworn by their law clerk to show that the Member was duly served with all appropriate documents and that the College informed the Member of the allegations against him, and of the time and date of the hearing (Affidavit of Service Amanda Fernandez affirmed on November 20, 2024 (Exhibit 4); Affidavit of Service of Amanda Fernandez affirmed on December 4, 2024 (Exhibit 3); and Affidavit of Service of Amanda Fernandez affirmed on March 27, 2025 (Exhibit 2)). Based on these affidavits, the Panel was satisfied that the Member has been properly served with the Amended Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) and all disclosure documents and was made aware of the time and date of the hearing. The Panel also notes that the Member advised the College, on February 4, 2025, that he would not be attending the hearing (Exhibit 2, Exhibit A). The Panel therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

4The 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

5The 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

6The allegations against the Member in the Amended Notice of Hearing dated December 2, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Ivan Evaton Dublin is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

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

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

(d) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;²

(e) he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;³

(f) he 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);

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

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

7College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 5), which provides the following:

1. At all material times, Ivan Evaton Dublin was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member obtained an Interim Certificate of Qualification and Registration on November 23, 2001 and a Certificate of Qualification and Registration on July 29, 2004. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

3. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] Senior Public School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.

Inappropriate Comments to Students

4. In the 2021-2022 academic year, the Member taught a class to students in Grades [XXX] and [XXX] at the School.

5. On March 3, 2022, the Member made comments of an inappropriate and sexist nature to the class, including:

(a) “I don’t want these kids in my class”;

(b) “girls belong in the kitchen”; and

(c) “a man should not be defeated by a girl”.

6. Students experienced adverse emotional and psychological effects as a result of the Member’s conduct described in paragraph 5.

Prior History

7. On August 14, 2019, in response to a report about the Member’s 2018 conduct towards students, a panel of the Investigation Committee of the College issued advice to the Member “to ensure that all student interactions are appropriate and not subject to misinterpretation.”

8. On April 30, 2020, in response to a report about the Member’s “numerous inappropriate, disparaging and demeaning comments” towards students in 2019, a panel of the Investigation Committee of the College issued a caution to the Member, reminding him “to ensure that [his] conduct and comments are at all times appropriate, respectful and consistent with the standards of the teaching profession.”

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

9. By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-8 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

10. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 5-6 of the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

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

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

(c) he 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);

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

11. By this document the Member states that:

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

(b) he understands that he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that, by pleading no contest 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 can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) 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;

(f) he understands that any agreement with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

12. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

13. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

8Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of the Amended Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7.1) and 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and that the Member engaged in sexual abuse and sexual misconduct as respectively defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. College Counsel submitted that the Panel’s permission to withdraw these allegations was being sought as there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of professional misconduct under these subsections. The Panel granted this request.

9Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on March 31, 2025, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

10The Member did not contest the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts outlined in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. In particular, the Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member made comments of an inappropriate and sexist nature towards students.

11The Panel finds that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7). The Panel notes that the Member did not contest that his behaviour, as described in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, constitutes verbal abuse. The Panel finds that the Member made inappropriate and sexist comments to the class, specifically that: “girls belong in the kitchen” and a “man should not be defeated by a girl”. Teachers hold a position of trust and authority and are expected to model respectful behaviour. It is verbally abusive for members to make sexist comments to a class. The Panel finds that the Member’s remarks were sexist, and inappropriate and amount to verbal abuse.

12The Panel finds that the Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). The Panel notes that the Member did not contest that his behaviour constitutes psychological or emotional abuse. Further, the Uncontested Facts evidence that students experienced adverse emotional and psychological effects as a result of the Member’s inappropriate and sexist comments.

13The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(18) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel notes that the Member did not contest that his conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. Members of the teaching profession are expected to safeguard students’ well-being and to always act professionally. The Member failed to meet these expectations when he made inappropriate and sexist comments to his class.

14The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct as described above, is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel relies on the fact that the Member did not contest that he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member. The Panel notes that the public’s trust in the teaching profession is undermined when members of the profession engage in such inappropriate behaviour.

F. UNDERTAKING, AGREEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT

15On January 28, 2025, the Member entered into an Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgment (Exhibit 7) with the College in which he agreed to the following terms:

1. I hereby resign as a member of the Ontario College of Teachers with immediate effect.

2. I undertake that I will never seek reinstatement of my Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

3. I undertake that following my resignation, I will never teach again in any public or private school in Ontario or work in any position that requires membership in the College.

4. I acknowledge that I will not be entitled in the future to seek membership in the College after having resigned permanently from membership in the College and having irrevocably surrendered my Certificate of Qualification and Registration pursuant to this Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement [sic].

5. I acknowledge that the College will be entitled to rely on this Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement [sic] to deny any application I make to the College for registration, membership, or similar status with the College.

6. I acknowledge that my status on the Public Register of the Ontario College of Teachers will be “Cancelled - Resigned”, and the notation will read as follows:

“On January 28, 2025, the member resigned his membership with the Ontario College of Teachers and has undertaken never to teach again in any public or private school in Ontario or to work in any position that requires membership in the Ontario College of Teachers. The member has also undertaken never to seek reinstatement of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. The member resigned his membership while a disciplinary proceeding was pending.”

7. I acknowledge that the College is authorized to provide information regarding this Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement [sic] in response to any inquiries it receives from any authority that regulates the practice of teaching in any other jurisdiction.

8. I acknowledge and understand that the decision and reasons of the Discipline Committee in this matter will be available on the College’s website.

9. I understand and agree that this Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement [sic] is legally binding on me and that the College may take any legal action against me to enforce it that the College deems appropriate.

10. I fully understand the terms of this Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement [sic].

11. I confirm that I am entering into this Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement [sic] voluntarily and without compulsion or duress, and that I have been advised by the College of my right to obtain independent legal advice on this Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement [sic] and its contents. I have had ample opportunity to consult with legal counsel regarding the terms of this Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement [sic] and any other related legal issues.

G. PENALTY DECISION

16The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 6), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on March 31, 2025, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to receive a reprimand, in writing, and that the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.

H. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

17The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties and notes that the Member has resigned as a member of the College and undertaken never to seek reinstatement and to never again work in any teaching position in a public or private school in Ontario or in any other position that would require a Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

18The 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.⁴ The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty, in light of the Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgment, is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Campbell, 2022 ONOCT 6, 2022 ONOCT 06; Ontario College of Teachers v. Gacich, 2021 ONOCT 16; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Fisher, 2018 ONOCT 11.

19The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and sparing witnesses from having to testify at a contested hearing. The Panel does not find any aggravating factors in this case. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed, in conjunction with the Member’s Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgment, would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

20The Panel finds that the reprimand, together with the terms set out in the Member’s Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgment, will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and make clear to other members that the profession will not tolerate the kind of misconduct exhibited by the Member. Teachers must demonstrate respectful conduct and a commitment to student well-being. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

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 the request of College Counsel.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
3. 3Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
4. 4See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.