Ontario College of Teachers v. Lee, 2025 ONOCT 27

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Lee 2025 ONOCT 27 Date: 2025-04-24

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 Nicola Lee, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

NICOLA LEE (REGISTRATION #200191)

PANEL: Myrna Tulandi, Chair Andrew Glenny, Natasha Teja, OCT

HEARD: April 22, 2025

COUNSEL: Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Ali Mesbahian, for Nicola Lee Emily Graham, Independent Legal Counsel

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

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on April 22, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Nicola Lee (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing, but appeared immediately after the hearing to receive her oral reprimand. She had legal representation throughout the hearing. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION BAN

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

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated October 28, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Nicola Lee is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

(b) 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);

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

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Nicola Lee is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers whose Certificate of Qualification and Registration has been suspended on an interim basis. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed as a high school [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”), an [XXX] and [XXX] school in [XXX], Ontario.

3. At all material times, Student 1 was an [XXX] year-old, male, [XXX] student in Grade [XXX] at the School. Student 1 was in the Member’s [XXX] class in the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 academic years, in addition to being supervised by her in a number of extracurricular [XXX] activities.

4. Over the course of the 2022-2023 school year, the Member and Student 1 spent an increasing amount of time together at school. Student 1’s friends began to tease him and make comments about his relationship with the Member.

5. In or about late November 2022, another teacher entered the School’s “green room”, a windowless room adjoining the theatre, and found the Member and Student 1 alone in the room with both doors closed. The Member appeared to have been crying.

6. The Member began phoning, texting and direct messaging Student 1 on Instagram to talk about [XXX], [XXX] related things, as well as to discuss personal matters. Student 1 confided in the Member about some challenges he was experiencing.

7. During these conversations, the Member also shared personal information with Student 1. She spoke to him about her marital issues and her father’s illness. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Member’s texts to Student 1 in which she makes reference to her husband returning home from a trip and the stress this will cause her.

8. One weekend in April 2023, Student 1 was staying at a friend’s house and did not have his wallet with him. He contacted the Member to ask if she would help him purchase a [XXX] and that he would pay her back. The Member agreed and they made a plan to meet at a mall.

9. Once at the mall, the Member and Student 1 had lunch together at a restaurant and then the Member drove Student 1 in her car to pick up her [XXX] who was at a nearby park. They returned to the mall and the Member helped Student 1 purchase a [XXX]. Student 1 then took a cab home.

10. Later in April 2023, the Member sent Student 1 a direct message on Instagram with a link to an article she had read about “emotional affairs”. The Member told Student 1 that she checked nine of the ten boxes on the article’s checklist.

11. Student 1 had previously considered the Member to be his “friend”, but this exchange changed how he perceived their relationship and made him feel uncomfortable.

12. The day after sending this message, the Member texted Student 1 to apologize. However, Student 1 stopped responding to her texts and tried to avoid the Member at school. This became awkward and attracted the attention of Student 1’s peers.

13. Because Student 1 was no longer responding to the Member’s attempts to communicate with him, she stepped into his [XXX] to see him and tried to say hello to him when they passed in the School hallway.

14. The Member could not accept Student 1’s refusal to engage with her and she began sending him a number of texts, which went unanswered by Student 1, indicating that she missed talking to him and asking for his forgiveness. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Member’s texts to Student 1 between April 25 and May 10, 2023.

15. On or about May 8 or 9, 2023, one of the Member’s colleagues saw the Member crying at school and when she asked her what was wrong, the Member told her that she was upset because Student 1 would not speak to her and that she “couldn’t stand it”.

16. The School commenced an investigation into the matter and ultimately terminated the Member’s employment effective June 19, 2023. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the School’s termination letter to the Member.

17. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibits “E” and “F” respectively are copies of the College’s Professional Advisories on Professional Boundaries, and Maintaining Professionalism – Use of Electronic Communication and Social media, which were in effect at the relevant time.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

18. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

19. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7.2), 1(18), and 1(19).

20. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

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

(c) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

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

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

21. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, 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.

22. In light of the Uncontested Facts and the circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on April 22, 2025 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 17 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a student.

8The Panel finds that the Member abused a student or students emotionally or psychologically, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member engaged in a personal relationship with Student 1 which included: communicating with Student 1 via text message, phone calls and social media; talking to Student 1 about her personal life and marital issues; spending time with Student 1 outside of school; and driving Student 1 in her personal vehicle. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that Student 1’s peers began teasing him and making comments about his relationship with the Member. Further, the Member sent an article link to Student 1 regarding “emotional affairs” and told him that she checked nine of the ten boxes on the article’s checklist. This made Student 1 feel uncomfortable. He had previously viewed her as a “friend”, however this exchange changed how he perceived their relationship. After that exchange, Student 1 ignored the Member’s efforts to communicate with him and avoided her at school. The Panel notes that Student 1 was particularly vulnerable, given that he was attending a [XXX] school, presumably away from home and his family, and confided in the Member regarding his personal challenges. It was emotionally abusive for the Member to allow Student 1 to develop trust in her and then violate that trust by engaging in the conduct described above.

9The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. There are no precise definitions of the terms. However, disgraceful conduct has an element of moral failing; it is conduct that questions a member’s moral fitness to discharge the obligations expected of members of the profession. Dishonorable conduct also has an element of moral failing, but it is less severe than disgraceful conduct. Whereas unprofessional conduct does not have an element of moral failing but is considered as a lack of good judgement. The Panel notes that the parties agree that the Member’s conduct can be characterized by all three terms. The Panel finds that the Member clearly acted unprofessionally and demonstrated poor judgment when she failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Student 1. She inappropriately communicated with Student 1 over text message, phone call and social media. She also spent time alone with Student 1 in a classroom with the doors closed and no windows. The Member discussed her personal life with Student 1 including her marital issues. Further, the Member persisted in attempts to communicate with Student 1 even after he stopped responding to her and tried to avoid her at School. The Member continued to message Student 1, indicating that she missed talking to him, and went to his [XXX] after he ceased responding to her attempts to communicate with him. Such conduct demonstrates significant moral failing by the Member and a concerning lack of professional judgment.

10The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s conduct demonstrates a serious boundary violation. Parents place great trust in teachers to create a safe learning environment, particularly in a [XXX] school where teachers are considered in loco parentis. The Member exploited her position of trust and in turn, undermined the public confidence in the teaching profession.

F. PENALTY DECISION

11The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on April 22, 2025, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of six (6) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;

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

(a) prior to returning to teaching, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding maintaining professional boundaries and appropriate communication with students, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

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

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

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

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

12The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.¹ The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty 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. Porter, 2021 ONOCT 86; Ontario College of Teachers v. Riley, 2019 ONOCT 61; Ontario College of Teachers v. Carullo, 2022 ONOCT 104; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Bohn, 2022 ONOCT 41.

13The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the following : 1) Student 1 was a [XXX] student and therefore particularly vulnerable; 2) the Member was aware that Student 1 was experiencing his own challenges, despite this, she discussed her own personal challenges with him; and 3) the Member did not show insight or compassion when Student 1 stopped responding to her, she continued to pursue him. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. The Panel agrees with College Counsel that a plea of no contest is not equivalent to a guilty plea, in that a plea of no contest does not demonstrate that she is taking responsibility for her actions. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

14The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated boundary violations, warrants a reprimand. Members of the profession are expected to maintain professional boundaries with students. The Member failed to do so by engaging in a personal relationship with Student 1. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

15Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on May 7, 2025, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

16The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding maintaining professional boundaries and appropriate communication with students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

17The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 SCR 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.