DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Andrew Franklin Tile, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
ANDREW FRANKLIN TILE (REGISTRATION #280905)
PANEL: Yasser Leheta, OCT, Chair
Adam Dharsee, OCT
Lois Figg
HEARD: August 13, 2025
Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Austen Metcalfe and Awnonna Rashid, for Andrew Franklin Tile
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 August 13, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Andrew Franklin Tile (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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 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 April 23, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Andrew Franklin Tile is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);
(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).
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:
Andrew Franklin Tile is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.1
At all material times, the Member was employed by the York Region District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher in [XXX] School (the “School”) in Thornhill, Ontario.
The Member is a [XXX]teacher in the School’s [XXX] ([XXX]) program. The [XXX] program is designed for [XXX] school students to transition from school to adult life, including work, college vocational programs, and community participation.
During the 2020/2021 academic year, Student 1 was a [XXX] year-old Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s [XXX] program class who was on an individual education plan (“IEP”). Student 1 is [XXX] and [XXX].
Student 1 received assistance from a former teacher who had retired (the “Complainant”). The Complainant advocated on behalf of Student 1 to ensure he received the educational and community supports he needed. The Complainant ultimately submitted the complaint against the Member that was referred to the Discipline Committee.
An IEP is a written plan that describes special education programs, accommodations and services that a school board will provide for a student. An IEP is meant to be based on a thorough assessment of a student’s strengths, needs and ability to learn and demonstrate learning.
Ontario Regulation 181/98 sets out some of the legal requirements that members must comply with when completing an IEP. In the case of Student 1, these requirements included that:
(a) the IEP had to include specific educational expectations for the pupil, an outline of the special education program and services to be received by the pupil, and a statement of the methods by which the pupil’s progress will be reviewed;
(b) the IEP had to include a plan for transition to appropriate [XXX] school activities, such as work, further education, and community living; and
(c) Student 1 had to receive a copy of the completed IEP within 30 school days after his placement in the [XXX] program.
The Member failed to provide Student 1’s family with a copy of his IEP within 30 days of the start of the 2020/2021 academic year. The IEP was sent to Student 1 and his family on October 22, 2020.
In May 2021, the Member met with Student 1, his family, and the Complainant for a transition meeting. During that meeting, the Complainant repeatedly requested that a copy of Student 1’s IEP be sent to Student 1’s family with the final report card, as Student 1 would need it to apply to [XXX] school activities.
When Student 1 graduated from the [XXX] program in June 2021, he did not receive his updated IEP from the Member. Between June 2021 and August 2021, Student 1’s family repeatedly contacted the School to request a copy of Student 1’s final IEP and report card, but received no response.
In August 2021, Student 1’s family contacted the Superintendent of the Board to raise concerns regarding Student 1 not receiving his final IEP and report card. Within a few days, the Superintendent was able to obtain a copy of the IEP and send it to Student 1’s family.
The IEP that was provided to Student 1 and his family in August 2021 was deficient in several respects, including:
(a) while three report cards attached to the IEP were dated September 2021, April 2021, and June 2021, all three listed the same reporting date of April 9, 2021 and contained nearly identical comments;
(b) part of all three report cards identified a different student than Student 1 and appeared to contain comments meant for a different student;
(c) the Member had not updated the transition plan page past December 1, 2020, notwithstanding that a transition meeting was held in May 2021;
(d) the IEP consultation form was blank and there was no evidence it had ever been provided to Student 1’s family;
(e) only one entry was listed in the consultation log dated November 20, 2020, which indicated that transition meetings were held on November 20, 2020 and December 1, 2020 and that a further transition meeting was being organized, but failed to mention the transition meeting held in May 2021;
(f) the IEP was not signed by the Member or the principal;
(g) the IEP only listed one K-coded course (i.e. an alternative, non-credit course) but contained no corresponding program pages explaining the goals and learning expectations of the course or what Student 1 did during the course; and
(h) the program pages did not explain what program/learning replaced the work experience portion of the [XXX] program that was not available during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Within a few days after receiving Student 1’s IEP, the Complainant emailed the Superintendent to express concerns with the IEP. A meeting was subsequently scheduled in September 2021 to address the issues raised by the Complainant and Student 1’s family.
In September 2021, the Complainant and Student 1’s family met with the Member, the principal of the School, and the superintendent of the Board. During this meeting, the superintendent advised that the Member would create an addendum to the IEP to correct the outstanding issues.
In September 2021, the Member created a draft of the addendum and circulated it to the principal of the School and the superintendent of the Board. The principal identified several issues with the draft, including that the addendum did not provide information on Student 1’s learning goals and what he did to achieve these goals. The principal also suggested that the Member speak with a consultant discuss the requirements of the IEP. The Member suggested instead that the consultant take the draft he had written and update it. The superintendent responded that the Member must complete the addendum to the IEP, as he was the teacher who delivered the program.
The Member subsequently sent an updated draft to the principal and superintendent without speaking to the consultant. The superintendent provided the Member feedback on how to improve the IEP and additional areas that needed to be addressed. However, shortly thereafter, the Member went on sick leave and was unable to complete the addendum to the IEP. As a result, the addendum was created and finalized by the principal rather than the Member.
Student 1 required his completed IEP to apply for a [XXX] programs for the following year. Because he did not receive his IEP in a timely manner, he had to apply to [XXX] programs using his IEP from a prior academic year at his previous school. Student 1 was not selected for a [XXX] position.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
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 1-17 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 8-17 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 failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5); and
(b) he failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);
(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).
- 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 or having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.
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.
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
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 August 13, 2025 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(10) and 1(18).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member did not contest the facts 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 him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the conduct set out in paragraphs 8 to 17 of the Uncontested Facts constitutes professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of misconduct when he failed to provide Student 1 with IEP documentation that was timely and adequate.
8The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel finds the Member breached the requirements for IEPs in Ontario Regulation 181/98 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2. First, the Member did not include any information in Student 1’s IEP that explained the goals or learning expectations of the K-coded course which is a requirement under the regulation. Second, under Ontario Regulation 181/98, the Member was required to include a plan for transition to appropriate [XXX] school activities in Student 1’s IEP. The Member did not provide an IEP to Student 1 with his final report card, so no transition plan was initially provided to the student. Then, when an IEP was provided to the student in August of 2021, the Member had not updated the transition plan to include a transition meeting that occurred in May of 2021. As a result, the Member did not meet the requirement under Ontario Regulation 181/98 with respect to a plan for transition. Third, the Member was supposed to provide Student 1 with a copy of his IEP within 30 school days after his placement in the [XXX] program under Ontario Regulation 181/98. The Member failed to meet this requirement as the IEP was sent to Student 1 and his family on October 22, 2020, which was not within 30 days of the start of the 2020/2021 academic year.
9The Member also failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10). First, the Member did not include all of the required information in Student 1’s IEP. For example, the IEP only listed one K-coded course but contained no corresponding program pages explaining the goals and learning expectations of the course or what Student 1 did during the course. Second, the Member did not update the IEP to reflect all relevant events as he did not update the transition plan page or consultation log of the IEP to reflect that a transition meeting had occurred in May of 2021. Third, the Member included incorrect information in the IEP. Three report cards were attached to Student 1’s IEP and parts of these report cards identified a student other than Student 1 and appeared to contain comments meant for a different student. Fourth, the IEP was not signed by the Member and the principal, as required.
10The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). It was unprofessional for the Member to fail to provide Student 1 with a copy of his IEP with his final report card, especially after the Member had been specifically informed that Student 1 would require his IEP to apply for [XXX] school activities. Student 1’s family was put into the position of having to repeatedly follow-up with the School and only received a copy of the IEP after contacting the Superintendent of the Board. After all of this, the IEP which Student 1 received in August of 2021 had not been completed by the Member in accordance with the requirements. Members of the profession are expected to complete IEP documentation in accordance with all requirements and it was unprofessional for the Member to fail to do so. In addition, the Member was not considerate of how his failure to provide Student 1 with a timely and adequate IEP would impact Student 1 and his family or how it could jeopardize Student 1’s [XXX] education success. Therefore, the Member’s conduct can be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
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 August 13, 2025, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty dated May 15, 2025 as amended by the parties orally on consent during the hearing and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers; and
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) within 90 days of the date of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding ethical and professional responsibilities related to students with identified needs, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall provide the 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 2(a)(i) above, the course practitioner shall provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course 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 to be undertaken by the Member and the assignments to be completed by the Member; and
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in paragraph 2(a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report from the course practitioner stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
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.2 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. Mekonnen, 2014 ONOCT 26; Ontario College of Teachers v. Crouse, 2016 ONOCT 99; Ontario College of Teachers v. Ashwin, 2021 ONOCT 13; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gow, 2014 ONOCT 44.
13The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are five aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member’s behaviour occurred over an entire school year which was a prolonged period of time. Second, the Member engaged in a pattern of misconduct and did not improve his behaviour, despite having had opportunities to do so. After the Member failed to provide Student 1 with a copy of his IEP at the beginning of the term, the Member also failed to provide Student 1 with a copy of his IEP with his final report card. Then, after repeated follow up by Student 1’s family to obtain the IEP, Student 1 was provided with an IEP that was deficient in many respects. Even when the Member had the opportunity to provide an addendum to the IEP, there were still issues with the drafts that he sent to the principal, and he did not speak to the consultant to discuss the issues with the IEP as the principal had suggested. Third, the deficiencies in Student 1’s IEP were particularly unprofessional. For example, parts of three of the report cards attached to the IEP identified another student and appeared to contain comments meant for a different student. Fourth, the Member’s misconduct harmed Student 1. As a result of the Member’s conduct, Student 1 had to use an IEP from a prior academic year at a previous school to apply for [XXX] programs. Fifth, the Member’s misconduct had a negative impact on Student 1’s family as his family had to repeatedly follow up to receive a completed IEP. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. 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 pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members of the profession are expected to provide students with timely and adequate IEP documentation. It was unacceptable for the Member to disregard his professional responsibilities and put Student 1’s academic success at risk. 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.
15The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding ethical and professional responsibilities related to students with identified needs will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
16The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: August 21, 2025
Yasser Leheta, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Adam Dharsee, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Lois Figg Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- The Panel noticed after the conclusion of the hearing that Exhibit 2 as filed was missing Appendix A. However, in the circumstances, including the remainder of the evidence as a whole and the Member’s plea of no contest, the Panel was still able to fully and fairly adjudicate this matter even without Appendix A.
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 SCR 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.