Ontario College of Teachers v. Byam, 2025 ONOCT 24

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Byam 2025 ONOCT 24

Date: 2025-04-25

PENALTY DECISION 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

Bernadette Yolande Byam, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

BERNADETTE YOLANDE BYAM (REGISTRATION #519305)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair Jonathan Rose

HEARD: December 3, 2024

Andrew Matheson and Matthew Zaia, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Olanyi Parsons, for Bernadette Yolande Byam

Julie Maciura, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(3) and 32.1(4) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing, or the person who was allegedly sexually abused, or the subject of sexual misconduct, a prohibited act involving child pornography, or a prescribed sexual act.

By order of Justice P.A. Schreck of the Superior Court of Justice, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify the victim or a witness in this matter, pursuant to subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code.

1The penalty portion of this proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on December 3, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, this matter proceeded by way of an electronic hearing.

2On August 12, 2024, the Panel found that Bernadette Yolande Byam (the “Member”) engaged in professional misconduct. Between January and September of 2004, the Member engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Student 1. The Member provided Student 1 with her personal phone number, loaned Student 1 $3,000 to repay a gambling debt and drove Student 1 around in her car. In addition, the Member called Student 1 “bipolar” and told him that he needed help but did not report her concerns about his mental health issues to the administration. The Member also spent time alone with Student 1 in her home. The Member also had sexual intercourse with Student 1.

3Based on this conduct, the Panel found that the Member had engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7) [as in force in 2004] (abusing a student physically, and psychologically or emotionally) and 1(18) (disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct). The Panel found that the College had failed to prove the remainder of the allegations of professional misconduct that were alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

4The Panel reconvened on December 3, 2024 to hear submissions with respect to penalty. The Member was in attendance for this phase of the hearing and had legal representation.

A. PUBLICATION BAN

5The Panel ordered the mandatory publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”). 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.

6Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request of Student 1, who was allegedly sexually abused or the subject of sexual misconduct. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1.

7Additionally, the Panel received a certified copy of the transcript of the Trial Proceeding from the Member’s criminal proceeding before Justice P.A. Schreck (Exhibit 6). In the proceedings at the Superior Court of Justice, an order restricting publication was made pursuant to subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Panel is required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, any information that could identify the victim (i.e., Student 1) or a witness involved in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

B. THE EVIDENCE

(1) Victim Impact Statement of Student 1

8At the penalty stage of the hearing, the College presented the Victim Impact Statement of Student 1 (Exhibit 19) in support of its penalty submission. In his statement, Student 1 describes that he is still impacted by the events that happened despite how much time has passed and it has changed his life forever financially, personally and emotionally. He indicates that his relationships have ended badly because of this, and that he cannot have a woman speak down to him or a woman of authority question him. He has had several altercations with partners, doctors and other women because they reminded him of the Member. He has had to stay away from the area of the city in which he grew up because of this. It has affected his mindset, mental health and feelings. He also has had a problem with addictions after the events; he was abusing drugs and gambling. The Member introduced him to gambling and it has almost ruined his life several times because he has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling. He also used cocaine and smoked weed to forget about the abuse and numb the pain; he became so out of control that his own family members cut him off and did not see him for five years.

(2) The Member’s Testimony

9The Member testified during the penalty stage of the hearing. She testified that she became a born-again Christian in 2007 and that she has acknowledged the pain she has caused to Student 1, her colleagues, her family and friends and she expressed her heartfelt and sincere apology. She testified that she has taken time to reflect on her actions and that she believes in God and God’s word which has offered her better insight. She has had a difficult journey of self-awareness and empathy - one where she has had to address her own shortcomings while trying to understand all perspectives. She said that it may have appeared as if she did not care or that she took Student 1’s struggles lightly but that was never her intention, and she deeply regrets that. She also testified that both of her parents were struggling with illnesses and that she is sorry for all of the pain that she has caused.

C. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

10College Counsel submitted that the only penalty in this matter that will satisfy the relevant principles is revocation and a reprimand, and that all penalty principles point to the necessity of revocation. Compelling, concrete evidence of rehabilitation such as an independent psychiatric or psychological report would be needed to displace all of the other strong considerations that point to the Member’s unsuitability to be a teacher and educator.

11College Counsel submitted that there are serious aggravating factors in this case. The Member engaged in a pattern of conduct and Student 1 was particularly vulnerable. In addition, the Member diminished her conduct, did not show remorse, and demonstrated a lack of accountability and insight. This was apparent in her testimony during the factual finding stage of the hearing and in the audio recording of the phone call with Student 1 (Exhibit 7) wherein the Member joked with Student 1 years later about her behaviour. College Counsel submitted that there are no mitigating factors in this case.

12The Panel did not make a finding of sexual abuse within the meaning of section 1 of the Act based on the pre-membership timing of the conduct and so the mandatory revocation provisions do not apply in this case, however, this does not detract from the underlying seriousness of the facts. The Member was an educator at the time and there was an obvious and profound power imbalance between her and Student 1, especially given his vulnerability. The Member’s behaviour was exploitative, and it resulted in an egregious breach of trust by culminating in sexual intercourse, which is inherently abusive and damaging.

13College Counsel provided the Panel with several cases to support their position regarding the appropriate penalty: Ontario College of Teachers v. Fox, 2021 ONOCT 34; Ontario College of Teachers v. Foucault, 2015 ONOCT 22; Ontario College of Teachers v. Hay, 2017 ONOCT 58; Ontario College of Teachers v. Paterson, 2023 ONOCT 5; Ontario College of Teachers v. Bond, 2018 ONOCT 47; Ontario College of Teachers v. Ivankovic, 2023 ONOCT 54; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Nabben, 2020 ONOCT 166. In these cases, the Discipline Committee found that revocation was warranted even though the misconduct was less serious than the misconduct of the Member in this case. None of these cases involved sexual intercourse with a student. The College also provided the Panel with a number of other cases regarding general penalty principles in support of its position: Pharmascience Inc. v. Binet, 2006 SCC 48; Sazant v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2012 ONCA 727; Léger-Legault v. Ontario College of Teachers 2008 CanLII 54307 (ON SCDC); R. v. Audet, 1996 CanLII 198 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 171; and Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685.

D. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF MEMBER’S COUNSEL

14Member’s Counsel submitted that an appropriate penalty would be a suspension, a reprimand and the imposition of terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration such as a requirement to undergo coursework on professional ethics and professional boundaries. With respect to the length of the suspension, Member’s Counsel indicated that for some of the more serious, egregious offences the maximum suspension was 24 months. Member’s Counsel submitted that it would be up to the Panel to determine what length of suspension would be appropriate. Member’s Counsel submitted that the Panel should consider the need to rehabilitate and remediate the Member while protecting the public interest, deterring reoccurrence and keeping in mind what is proportionate in the circumstances. The penalty proposed by Member’s Counsel would acknowledge the severity of the Member’s misconduct while at the same time allowing for her rehabilitation.

15Member’s Counsel submitted that revocation is too severe a penalty in this case. The Member has been described as an exemplary educator in a number of character witnesses and witness statements (Exhibit 14) and by several witnesses in the hearing including Andrew Sterread, Gerry McCann and Stephen Fryer. The Member also has no prior record of misconduct and her behaviour in this case represents an isolated incident. Furthermore, the Member’s conduct does not attract mandatory revocation because the Member was not found guilty in the related criminal proceedings and the Panel did not find that the Member had committed sexual abuse pursuant to section 1 of the Act in this matter. If there had been a finding of guilt, then this may have demonstrated a more severe and serious penalty should be imposed. In addition, the allegations, charges and proceedings have had significant and profound effects on the Member’s career and financial situation. The Member has not taught since she lost her job as a teacher with the Toronto District School Board in 2016.

16The Member made several admissions during the hearing such as with respect to having sexual intercourse with Student 1. By acknowledging her conduct the Member is demonstrating her remorse. Additionally, the Member testified that she regretted her actions and Member’s Counsel submitted that she did show remorse. Member’s Counsel also held that it was a mitigating factor that the Member provided support to Student 1 how she felt was best, although Member’s Counsel acknowledged that the sexual intercourse was not appropriate.

17Member’s Counsel provided the Panel with several cases to support their position regarding the appropriate penalty: Ontario College of Teachers v. Grimstead, 2009 ONOCT 22; Ontario College of Teachers v. Guibord, 2009 ONOCT 25; Ontario College of Teachers v. Madden, 2009 ONOCT 36 (“Madden”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Calautti, 2010 ONOCT 5; Ontario College of Teachers v. Keyte, 2013 ONOCT 56; Ontario College of Teachers v. Lemieux, 2015 ONOCT 50; Ontario College of Teachers v. Rosewell, 2016 ONOCT 46; Ontario College of Teachers v. Buckley, 2017 ONOCT 37; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Lusk, 2017 ONOCT 77. Member’s Counsel submitted that these cases show that a penalty lesser than revocation is appropriate here, while still acknowledging the seriousness of the Member’s conduct. While revocation was ordered in Madden, the Member’s circumstances are different from those in Madden, as the Member has not been convicted of penal offences and her conduct did not involve multiple students. Furthermore, in Madden, the member continued the misconduct, even after disciplinary actions were taken by his employer which is not the case here. Member’s Counsel agreed that none of these cases involved sexual intercourse with a student.

E. REPLY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

18College Counsel submitted that none of the cases presented by Member’s Counsel involved sexual intercourse and as such, did not support a penalty lesser than revocation. In the cases where revocation was not ordered, the College submitted that was because they involved conduct that was fundamentally of a less serious nature and gravity and/or there was true rehabilitative evidence in psychologist and/or psychiatrist reports. In addition, College Counsel asserted that cases with an agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty have less precedential value because the Panel has less discretion to reject the penalty.

19Furthermore, College Counsel asserted that the Member’s apology during the penalty submissions is incredibly late. The Member claims she had a religious conversion in 2007, but the audio recording of the Member’s phone call with Student 1 (Exhibit 7) occurred after 2007.

20College Counsel also submitted that revocation is not necessarily permanent because there is the possibility of applying for reinstatement after 1 year.¹ If revoked, the Member is entitled to obtain evidence from a psychiatrist or psychologist to demonstrate that she is no longer a threat to students.

21College Counsel also submitted that the Panel should assign no or very little weight to the Member’s character evidence and to the testimony of witnesses regarding whether the Member was a good teacher. This is because the Member’s evidence is stale-dated and because these individuals had not been informed about the Member’s conduct in this case, which was made clear when they were cross-examined. College Counsel relied on the case of Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Lee, 2010 ONCPSD 10² in support of its submission, as sexual misconduct typically occurs in private and as a result the value of character evidence as to morality is diminished.

F. ADVICE OF INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL

22Independent Legal Counsel (ILC) raised an issue for consideration by the parties in response to College Counsel’s submission that the Member could apply for reinstatement after one year. ILC asked whether subsection 33(1.1) of the Act would apply so as to preclude the Member from applying for reinstatement in the future, given that the Panel had found that the Member engaged in sexual intercourse with the student. ILC noted that generally under section 33 of the Act, a member can apply for reinstatement after one year unless the member is revoked for sexual abuse relating to behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature, in which case reinstatement is not available until after five years. Where a member is revoked for one of the “frank” acts of sexual abuse of a student (which includes sexual intercourse) as described in paragraph 1(1) (a) or (b) of the definition of sexual abuse, the member cannot ever apply for reinstatement. ILC also acknowledged that the Panel did not make a finding of sexual abuse of a student pursuant to section 1 of the Act in this case, but given the reference to sexual intercourse in the definition of sexual abuse and given that the Panel found that sexual intercourse occurred, ILC queried whether the Member’s circumstances would be captured by subsection 33(1.1).

23ILC also advised if revocation was ordered, and the Member was not precluded from applying for reinstatement under subsection 33(1.1), the onus would be on the Member to convince a future panel that she had been rehabilitated if she brought an application for reinstatement.

24The parties made written submissions regarding subsection 33(1.1) and both submitted that subsection 33(1.1) would not preclude the Member from applying for reinstatement after one year if the Panel were to order revocation.

25College Counsel was of the view that the Member would be able to apply for reinstatement beginning one year from the date of the revocation order. In College Counsel’s submission, this flows directly and unambiguously from the Panel’s finding at the liability stage that the elements of sexual abuse as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Act were not satisfied and there is no basis for any deviation from the default one-year period before which a former member can apply for reinstatement. For the purpose of the reinstatement application period, it is irrelevant that sexual intercourse occurred because the Panel found that the intercourse did not constitute sexual abuse as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Act. Absent a finding of sexual abuse under section 1, subsection 33(1.1) does not apply, and there is a right to apply for reinstatement after one year pursuant to subsection 33(1). Furthermore, neither party has requested that the Panel consider fixing a different reinstatement period pursuant to subsections 33(3) and (4) and subsection 30(7).

26Member’s Counsel agreed with College Counsel and submitted that if the Panel orders revocation, the Member is not precluded from applying for reinstatement one year after the penalty order is made given that the misconduct for which the Member is liable is not captured in subsection 33(1.1) of the Act. The Member requested that the Panel confirm in its penalty decision that the Member may apply for reinstatement one year after the penalty decision, and that the Member does not have to wait five years, or some other time period.

G. PENALTY DECISION

27On April 9, 2025 the Panel made the following order as to penalty:

1. The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers; and

2. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

H. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

28The Panel carefully considered the submissions of the parties with respect to penalty and reviewed the relevant jurisprudence provided. The Panel believes that the order set out above satisfies the penalty objectives of deterrence, rehabilitation, transparency, and protection of the public interest, and that it is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member.

(1) Victim Impact Statement of Student 1

29In arriving at its decision, the Panel has placed significant weight on the Victim Impact Statement of Student 1 (Exhibit 19). In the statement, Student 1 describes how the events changed him financially, personally and emotionally forever and how he is still impacted from the events that happened many years ago. College Counsel submitted that the Victim Impact Statement should be given significant weight. While not wanting to diminish what Student 1 has gone through, Member’s Counsel submitted that there appeared to be some element of embellishment on the part of Student 1 in his statement. It was the Member’s testimony that Student 1’s alcohol use, drug use, gang related issues and suicidal ideations pre-dated their meeting. Member’s Counsel was not sure whether the Member’s behaviour exacerbated the events or not but submitted that the way that Student 1 attributed these issues solely to the Member in his statement appears to be inaccurate. The Panel was not persuaded by Member’s Counsel’s argument. The Panel finds the Victim Impact Statement is compelling and highlighted Student 1’s vulnerability. As a result, the Panel has placed significant weight on Student 1’s statement.

(2) The Member’s Character Evidence

30The Panel gave very little weight to the character evidence of the Member. Member’s Counsel submitted that the Panel should consider that the Member has been described as an exemplary educator in a number of character witnesses and witness statements (Exhibit 14) and by several witnesses in the hearing. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s character evidence should be given no weight or very little weight because the evidence is old, because the witnesses were not aware of the conduct admitted to by the Member, and because sexual misconduct typically occurs in private and therefore the value of the character evidence as to morality is diminished. The Panel agrees with the submissions of College Counsel and has given very little weight to the character evidence in Exhibit 14 and to the testimony of Andrew Sterread, Gerry McCann and Stephen Fryer. The Member did not provide any recent character witness nor did she provide character evidence from people who were aware of the Member’s misconduct involving Student 1.

(3) Case Law

31The Panel did not find that the facts in the cases presented by the parties were analogous to the facts in this case. College Counsel presented cases that included egregious behaviour short of sexual intercourse. The cases presented by Member’s Counsel also did not involve sexual intercourse. The lack of factually analogous cases is expected, given that the Member’s sexual intercourse with Student 1 did not meet the definition of sexual abuse of a student in section 1 of the Act because of the pre-membership timing of the Member’s conduct. The Panel did not find the cases provided by Member’s Counsel to be persuasive because they did not involve sexual intercourse. The Panel also notes that many of these cases involved a joint submission on penalty. The Panel found that the principles provided in the cases by College Counsel were persuasive.

(4) Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

32There are a number of aggravating factors. First, the Member’s misconduct has had a significant long-lasting impact on Student 1 as demonstrated in his Victim Impact Statement (Exhibit 19). Second, Student 1 was in a vulnerable position and experiencing mental health issues. Third, the Member’s behaviour was not isolated but took place over a number of months. Fourth, the Member took advantage of the imbalance of power between herself and Student 1. Fifth, the Member did not fulfill her professional duties to report the issues that Student 1 was experiencing with his mental health and his debt so that he could get help. Finally, her behaviour constituted a breach of trust.

33In terms of mitigating factors, the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past and witnesses for the Member said that she was a conscientious teacher who meant well. In addition, the Member did not deny major facts in the case such as lending money to Student 1, speaking with Student 1 about his mental health, including his suicidal ideations, and having sexual intercourse with Student 1. By acknowledging her behaviour, the Member is demonstrating remorse. The Panel also found that the Member expressed sincere remorse for her conduct when she testified during the penalty stage of the hearing.

(5) Reprimand

34Both parties submitted that a reprimand was an appropriate part of a penalty order. The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate pattern of behaviour warrants a reprimand and that this is aimed at the principles of general and specific deterrence. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will have a specific deterrent effect. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession. The Panel finds that it is appropriate in the circumstances for the Member to receive a written reprimand given that the Panel is revoking the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member testified about her remorse during the penalty stage of the hearing and neither party made submissions regarding the form of reprimand.

(6) Revocation

35The Panel finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is appropriate in this case. The Supreme Court of Canada has noted on many occasions that professional regulators play a “crucial role…in protecting the public interest”.³ Professional regulators are tasked with “the responsibility of providing adequate protection for the public” and often, the client “in the client-professional relationship” is “in a vulnerable position”.⁴ Revocation appropriately responds to the nature and gravity of the Member’s misconduct and protects the public interest. The Member’s misconduct occurred over a period of time, involved a vulnerable student, constituted an abuse of power and has caused significant and long-lasting harm to Student 1 (Exhibit 19). To have sexual intercourse with a student is one of the most egregious things that an educator can do and the Member’s conduct involved an extremely serious lapse of judgment. The Member’s failure to report the student’s debt and suicidal ideations to the school administration so that he could get proper support was also egregious. The Member did not fulfill her professional duties to seek assistance for the student who needed help.

36The Panel denounces the Member’s behaviour in the strongest possible terms. Revocation will satisfy the penalty objective of specific deterrence, as it ensures that the Member will not be able to reoffend in future because she will be removed from the classroom. Revoking the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration satisfies the principle of general deterrence as it sends a clear message to teachers and the public that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. The Member’s abhorrent conduct involving a vulnerable student has “undermined public confidence in the teaching profession”.⁵ It is a privilege to hold a Certificate of Qualification and Registration and through her conduct, the Member has “forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession of Ontario”.⁶

37Member’s Counsel submitted that a suspension would be an appropriate penalty instead of revocation because it would allow the Member to rehabilitate while taking into account the seriousness of the Member’s conduct. Member’s Counsel stated that College Counsel’s submissions had focused on specific and general deterrence without balancing the need to rehabilitate the Member. As will be set out in greater detail below, the Panel finds that the seriousness of the Member’s conduct merits an emphasis on deterrence and denunciation over that of rehabilitation in this case. As a result, suspension is not an appropriate alternative to revocation in the circumstances.

38The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

(7) Rehabilitation

39The Panel finds that there is little evidence pointing to a strong potential for rehabilitation and that due to the seriousness of the Member’s conduct, it is appropriate to focus on deterrence and denunciation rather than on rehabilitation in this case. College Counsel submitted that the onus is on the Member to provide evidence regarding rehabilitation. The College submitted that the Member has not provided compelling, specific evidence of rehabilitation such as an independent psychiatric or psychological report that would be needed to displace all of the other strong considerations that point to the Member’s unsuitability to be a teacher and educator in this case, given the Member’s egregious conduct. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s apology is incredibly late, there is no evidence regarding what the Member has been doing or how her insight developed, and the audio recording (Exhibit 7) was subsequent to her religious conversion in 2007.

40Member’s Counsel submitted that there is zero evidence that the probability of recidivism is high and that suspension is appropriate because it allows the Member to rehabilitate while at the same time taking into account the seriousness of the conduct. The Member has testified that she is turning to God, to her faith, studying theology and looking internally to take account for her actions. She has attended the hearing and while there is no agreed statement of facts in this case, indirectly the Member has acknowledged her misconduct and she provided several admissions. Member’s Counsel submitted that in determining the appropriate penalty, in addition to general and specific deterrence, the Panel should be looking at how it can provide assistance and support to the Member so that if possible, she can continue on her journey within the profession.

41The Panel finds that the Member has not provided sufficient evidence that she has the ability to rehabilitate. The Member did not provide any hard evidence from a psychologist or psychiatrist as proof that the Member has the potential to rehabilitate. The Panel was also of the view that the Member’s religious conversion in 2007 and apology to the Member at the penalty stage of the hearing was insufficient to demonstrate that she has the potential to rehabilitate. While the Panel finds that the Member’s apology is sincere, the apology was late and the audio recording (Exhibit 7) of the Member joking with Student 1 in 2016 about her misconduct occurred well after the Member indicated that she had a religious conversion in 2007. As the Panel has outlined above, the Member’s conduct was egregious. As a result, it is appropriate in the circumstances to emphasize deterrence and denunciation rather than rehabilitation in this case.

(8) Application for Reinstatement

42The Panel agreed with the submissions of College Counsel and Member’s Counsel regarding the interpretation of subsection 33(1.1) of the Act. The Panel is of the view that should the Member wish to apply for reinstatement, she may do so beginning one year from the date of the revocation order.

Footnotes

1. 1See discussion below regarding availability of reinstatement in this case.
2. 2College Counsel relied on a portion of this case that cited Rosen (Re), [1999] OCPSD No. 19 and Regina v. Profit, 1993 CanLII 78 (SCC), [1993] 3 SCR 637.
3. 3Pharmascience Inc. v. Binet, 2006 SCC 48 at para 36.
4. 4Pharmascience Inc., ibid.
5. 5Ontario College of Teachers v. Bond, 2018 ONOCT 47 at page 11.
6. 6Ontario College of Teachers v. Fox, 2021 ONOCT 34 at para 51.