DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Bouchard 2025 ONOCT 40

Date: 2025-06-20

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

Kevin Hector James Bouchard, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

KEVIN HECTOR JAMES BOUCHARD (REGISTRATION #627691)

PANEL: Lois Figg, Chair

Sarah Choudhury

Adam Lee, OCT

HEARD: June 10, 2025

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Kaley Duff, for Kevin Hector James Bouchard

Rebecca Durcan, 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.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on June 10, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Kevin Hector James Bouchard (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. 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 identities 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.

4Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request of Student 1 and Student 2, who were allegedly sexually abused. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identities of, or any information that could disclose the identities of Student 1 and Student 2.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 25, 2025 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Kevin Hector James Bouchard is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

(b) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 497/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(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).

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. The Member is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. 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 by the Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as an occasional teacher.

November 2021

3. On November 5, 2021, while the Member was on assignment at [XXX] School, he showed a class of Grade [XXX] [XXX] students the Netflix movie “Noah” in its entirety, rather than using appropriate video clips for educational purposes. Due to some violent and disturbing content, the movie made some students very uncomfortable.

4. On November 11, 2021, while on assignment at [XXX] School, the Member shouted at a male student and sent him to the office for an inappropriate outburst. When the Principal went to the Member’s classroom to ask why he sent the student to the office, the Member ignored her presence at the classroom door. When the Principal tried again to communicate with the Member, he continued to ignore her and teach his lesson. Later that afternoon when the Principal questioned his professionalism regarding his rude behaviour towards her, the Member apologized and said he didn’t know who she was.

December 2021

5. On or about December 7, 2021, while on assignment as a supply teacher for a Grade [XXX] class at [XXX] School, the Member spoke to the students inquiring about who was vaccinated and who was not vaccinated. When an EA tried to stop the Member, he ignored the EA and continued inquiring about their vaccination status.

January 2022

6. On January 19, 2022, the Member was on assignment at [XXX] [XXX] a [XXX] school within the Board, supply teaching a Grade [XXX] class.

7. Students from the Member’s class had been assigned to work independently on an assignment. They reported to another teacher that the Member kept talking while they were trying to work, raising controversial topics unrelated to their course and making inappropriate and unprofessional comments in class. The teacher reported the students’ concerns to the Principal. The Principal then spoke to several Grade [XXX] students in that class, who advised that the Member’s inappropriate comments included the following:

(a) he referred to women sleeping with President Joe Biden of the United States;

(b) he referred to women sleeping with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who he also claimed has illegitimate children;

(c) he used the “f” word in class;

(d) he had a friend on Xbox who was buying guns;

(e) he said that COVID rules should not be applied in school.

Student 1

8. At all material times, Student 1 was a female student at [XXX].

9. During a Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) investigation in the spring of 2022 regarding the Member’s conduct towards another student (Student 2), information came to light about the Member’s conduct towards Student 1.

10. Student 1 advised the CAS that the Member had taught her as a supply teacher when she was in Grade [XXX]. During that time, the Member tried to add Student 1 as a Facebook friend, but Student 1 did not accept his friend request. After his attempt to add her as a Facebook friend was unsuccessful, the Member began to send Student 1 messages using Facebook Messenger instead.

11. The Member used Facebook Messenger to attempt to communicate with Student 1 into the summer of 2020, asking her what she was up to and how her summer was going. He continued to send her random messages every few weeks including, but not limited to, the following messages:

(a) “how are your holidays”;

(b) “your boyfriend is lucky to have you”;

(c) “you turned into a beautiful girl”.

12. Student 1 found the Member’s messages were “weird”. She deleted her Facebook account in order to create a new Facebook account after he sent her the message that she had “turned into a beautiful girl”.

Student 2

13. At all material times during the spring of 2022, Student 2 was a [XXX] year-old Grade [XXX] female student at [XXX].

14. On Monday, May 16, 2022, Teacher A reported to the Principal of [XXX] that Student 2 had approached her and asked to speak with her after school. Teacher A reported that she noticed Student 2 seemed “off” and quite upset. Student 2 disclosed to Teacher A that the Member, who had been her supply teacher on approximately five occasions that spring, had located her on Facebook Messenger, and had sent her inappropriate messages that she thought were “weird” and made her feel uncomfortable. Student 2 said that she did not want to cause trouble for the Member, but she wanted Teacher A to know that because of the messages, she felt uncomfortable about the Member returning to [XXX].

15. Student 2 showed Teacher A screenshots she took of some of the messages the Member sent to her the previous day via Facebook Messenger. The messages included, but were not limited to the following:

(a) “Yes definitely very distracting… Your really cute!!! Im workin on stupid [XXX]”;

(b) “If u ever need any help lmk…Im a good tutor!!”;

(c) “Ok that’s good… Your short crop tops would be to distracting for me anyways…Lol!!! Im…”;

(d) “what about you? Shouldn’t your little bum be in bed!!”;

(e) “teasers get spanked. Lol!!! JK!!!”;

(f) “and you have a sexy tummy!!…”

(g) “anytime hun! I don’t mean to make you blush!! And if im inappropriate at anytime just lmk!!”;

(h) “your way too cute hun!! What a smile..And those dimples!!!”;

(i) “omg!! Did you talk to a teacher or someone and show them the convo we had????”

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of the screenshots.

Police, CAS and Board Investigations

16. Following Student 2’s disclosure, the Board contacted the police and the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma.

17. Police interviewed Student 2 on May 17, 2022. In addition to the information she provided to Teacher A, Student 2 informed the police that the Member sent her approximately 25-40 messages between Sunday, May 15, 2022 and early Monday, May 16, 2022. She said that she tried to ignore his messages, but the Member continued to try to engage in conversation with her. The police did not lay criminal charges, and closed their case knowing that the CAS and the Board were conducting their own investigations.

18. The CAS initiated a child protection investigation into the Member’s conduct with Student 2, and confirmed that Student 2’s only relationship with the Member was through his role as supply teacher at her school. Upon completion of its investigation, the CAS “verified that in his capacity as a Community Caregiver, that [the Member’s] interactions with [Student 2] resulted in a situation whereby the child was at risk of sexual harm due to [the Member] sending [Student 2] messages of a sexual nature”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the CAS letter dated July 4, 2023.

19. During the Board’s investigation, Student 2 reported that the Member had been quite chatty with her on the occasions when he taught her class, and she thought he was just being nice. A short time later, on Sunday May 15, 2022, the Member messaged her on Facebook Messenger, where he identified himself as her teacher. Student 2 thought this was odd, but she did not want to be rude to a teacher, so she responded to some of his messages. Then the Member began sending her messages she described as “weird” that made her “feel uncomfortable.” By the end of day on May 16, 2022, Student 2 had blocked the Member from contacting her on Facebook Messenger.

Board Discipline

20. The Member received a written warning on February 1, 2022 relating to his conduct from November 2021, December 2021 and January 2022. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the letter to the Member from the Manager of Human Resources of the Board.

21. At the conclusion of the Board’s investigation into the Member’s interactions with Student 2, the Board terminated the Member’s employment, effective September 13, 2023. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the termination letter.

Current Status

22. The Member is currently not teaching and has no intention of returning to the teaching profession.

GUILTY PLEA

23. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

24. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(18), and 1(19). The Member further acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute sexual abuse as defined in Section 1 of the Act.

25. By this document the Member states that:

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

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

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty 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’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;

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

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

26. In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances of the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on June 10, 2025, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(18) and 1(19). The Panel also found that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of students as defined in section 1 of the Act.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 22 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member sexually abused Student 1 and Student 2 and engaged in a pattern of grooming behaviour. The Admitted Facts also demonstrate that the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct towards colleagues and students.

9The Agreed Statement of Facts demonstrates and the Panel finds that the Member abused students psychologically and emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). The Panel finds that the Member’s Facebook messages to Student 1 and Student 2 were psychologically and emotionally abusive. As will be further discussed below, the Agreed Facts demonstrate that the Member sent the students numerous inappropriate messages of a sexual nature. It is clear that the Member’s conduct had a negative impact on these students. Both Student 1 and Student 2 found the Member’s messages were “weird”. The Panel also notes that Teacher A reported to the principal of the school that she noticed Student 2 seemed “off” and quite upset when she came to talk with her and that Student 2 said that she felt uncomfortable about the Member returning to her school because of the messages he sent her. In both instances, the students took proactive measures to cease communication with the Member—Student 1 deleted her Facebook account and Student 2 blocked the Member on Facebook. In the Panel’s view, the Member took advantage of the power imbalance between him and young female students, as demonstrated by Student 2’s report to the Board that the Member had identified himself as her teacher when he messaged her, and that she felt compelled to respond to the Member’s messages. The Panel finds by sending Student 1 and Student 2 numerous unwarranted and inappropriate messages, the Member showed complete disregard for students psychological and emotional well-being.

10Additionally, the Panel finds that it was psychologically and emotionally abusive to show a movie with violent and disturbing content to a class of students making some of them “very uncomfortable”. Members are required to ensure the well-being of students in their class. The Panel therefore finds the Member’s conduct was psychologically and emotionally abusive.

11The Agreed Facts demonstrate that the Member abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act. The definition of sexual abuse under section 1 of the Act includes “behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by a member towards a student”, including remarks made by electronic communications. In coming to this finding, the Panel also places weight on the fact that the Member has pleaded guilty to the allegation of sexual abuse under this head of misconduct.

12The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of Student 1 and Student 2, by sending them numerous inappropriate messages of a sexual nature on Facebook outside of school hours. In the Panel’s view, the Member’s pursuit of Student 1 and Student 2 was a pattern of grooming behaviour: he found and initiated contact with them on Facebook or using Facebook Messenger after meeting them as their supply teacher, then sent them messages of a personal nature which quickly developed into messages of a sexual nature.

13During the summer of 2020, the Member attempted to communicate with Student 1 by asking her what she was up to and how her summer was, then sent messages to Student 1 that were indicative of a sexual interest in her: “your boyfriend is lucky to have you” and “you turned into a beautiful girl”. Between Sunday, May 15, 2022, and Monday, May 16, 2022, the Member sent Student 2 approximately 25-40 messages, the content of which included compliments about her appearance: “Your [sic] really cute!!!”and “your way too cute hun!! What a smile…And those dimples!!!”. Other comments made by the Member indicated a more explicit sexual interest in her: “Your short crop tops would be to [sic] distracting for me”; ”you have a sexy tummy!!”. The Member also referred to Student 2 as “hun” and made other inappropriate comments such as: “Shouldn’t your little bum be in bed!!”; “I don’t mean to make you blush!!; “teasers get spanked. Lol!!! JK!!!” and “if im inappropriate at anytime just lmk!!”. The Panel also acknowledges the CAS report in evidence (Exhibit 2 at Exhibit C), and its findings that the Member put Student 2 at risk of sexual harm. The Panel finds that the Member’s behaviour towards Student 1 and Student 2 included remarks of a sexual nature and therefore constitutes sexual abuse of a student.

14The 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). Disgraceful conduct casts serious doubt on a member’s moral fitness to perform their professional duties and on their ability to be a member of the profession. Like disgraceful conduct, dishonourable conduct has an element of moral failing, but it need not be as severe. Dishonourable conduct often involves, but is not limited to, acts of dishonesty, deceit, fraud and theft. Unprofessional conduct does not require a moral element but involves acts demonstrating persistently poor professional judgment.

15The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct can reasonably be characterized by all three terms. It is completely inappropriate for a teacher to abuse their position of trust and authority to engage in sexual abuse of students by grooming them and sending them messages of a sexual nature to them. Such actions cast serious doubt on the Member’s moral and professional judgment. The Panel notes that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of Student 2 within three months after being warned by his Board to refrain from engaging in inappropriate conduct (Exhibit 2 at Exhibit D). The Panel particularly finds that the Member’s Facebook message to Student 2 that said, “omg!! Did you talk to a teacher or someone and show them the convo we had????” (Exhibit 2, at page 6) is indicative of the Member’s awareness that his conduct towards Student 2 was wrong. Additionally, the Member demonstrated a lack of professional judgment by showing a movie with violent and disturbing content to students, by raising controversial topics to students in class, and by ignoring and being dismissive of a principal and an EA while teaching. Members of the teaching profession are expected to safeguard students’ well-being, be role models in the community and to always act professionally in and out of the classroom. The Panel therefore finds the entirety of the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

16The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). The Member’s repugnant conduct to numerous students and colleagues at several schools undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and the trust placed in him by students, parents and the school community.

F. PENALTY DECISION

17The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on June 10, 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 in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.

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

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

18The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included the sexual abuse of a student, as described in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. Given this finding, section 30.2(1) of the Act provides that the Panel must make an order: (1) requiring that the Member be reprimanded by the Panel; and (2) directing the Registrar to revoke the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration. The Panel makes both of these orders and notes that it has no discretion in this regard.

19The Panel recognizes that it may make other orders in accordance with subsections 30(4) and 30(5) of the Act but notes that the parties are jointly asking it to confine its order to the mandatory ones. The Panel finds it reasonable not to make these additional orders in light of the Member’s guilty plea and joint submission on penalty, particularly given the high threshold that must be met before rejecting a joint submission on penalty.

20The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.