Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Yaogo 2025 ONOCT 51

Date: 2025-01-06

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

Noélie Yaogo, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

NOÉLIE YAOGO (REGISTRATION #685491)

PANEL: Alain Martel, OCT, Chair

Scott Barker, OCT

Élaine Legault

HEARD: December 8, 2025

Audrey-Anne Delage, for Ontario College of Teachers

No one appearing for Noélie Yaogo

David P. Taylor, 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 electronic proceeding was held before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on December 8, 2025, in accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).

2On August 21, 2025, the Panel found that the conduct of Noélie Yaogo (“the Member”) during the 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years constituted professional misconduct. During these periods, the Member was an occasional teacher who worked a number of assignments for several schools. The Panel’s findings included that the Member had failed to adequately supervise students under her professional supervision on numerous occasions; failed to adhere to lesson plans or provide clear instructions to students; failed to manage the classroom effectively; made inappropriate remarks to students (such as telling them to shut up); did not allow some students to use the bathroom; barricaded the classroom door; and grabbed a student’s arm on two occasions.

3In view of this conduct, the Panel found that the Member had contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

4The Panel reconvened on December 8, 2025, to hear the submissions with respect to the penalty. The Member represented herself and was not present for this part of the hearing.

5College Counsel submitted documentary evidence in the form of an affidavit to show the communications they sent to the Member regarding the penalty hearing. In the Affidavit d’Annie Lacroix (Affidavit of Annie Lacroix) sworn on November 10, 2025 (Exhibit 5), the College states that it contacted the Member in late August 2025 regarding her availabilities to set a date for the penalty hearing. The Member was informed by the College that a meeting had been scheduled for October 3, 2025, to set a date for the penalty hearing, and that it would propose a hearing date of December 8, 2025. Following the meeting on October 3, 2025, Ms. Lacroix informed the Member by email that the penalty hearing had been set for December 8, 2025. College Counsel also informed the Member of the penalty sought by the College and its intention to seek a costs order in the amount of $20,000. College Counsel indicated that no response was received from the Member.

6On the basis of the affidavit, the Panel is satisfied that the Member had received sufficient notice of the date of the penalty hearing and the penalty the College would be seeking. Again, based on the affidavit, the Panel is also satisfied that the Member did not respond to any of the College’s communications. The Panel therefore proceeded with the penalty hearing in the Member’s absence.

A. SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY BY COLLEGE COUNSEL

7The College submitted that the Panel ought to impose a penalty that includes the following:

a reprimand;
an eight-month suspension;
terms, conditions or limitations that would prevent the Member from returning to the teaching profession prior to successfully completing a course of instruction on classroom management and professional responsibilities associated with supervising students.

8College Counsel presented five prior decisions by other panels in support of the proposed penalties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Kwedi, 2022 ONOCT 100 (“Kwedi”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Labbé, 2018 ONOCT 39 (“Labbé”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Lim, 2020 ONOCT 184 (“Lim”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Balan, 2023 ONOCT 23 (“Balan dated April 3, 2023”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Balan, 2023 ONOCT 80 (“Balan dated November 14, 2023”).

9According to College Counsel, these cases, which include facts similar to those in the matter before the Panel, may serve as a frame of reference to help the Panel render a decision on the appropriate penalty and establish a range of reasonable penalties. College Counsel argued that the suspensions in these cases range from five to eight months, but that the Member’s conduct includes a wider assortment of incidents and instances of professional misconduct, thereby warranting an eight-month suspension.

B. PENALTY DeCISION

10The Panel issues the following penalty order:

The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register;
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of eight months, commencing on the date of the Discipline Committee’s order;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) Prior to accepting any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall, at her own expense, register in and successfully complete a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar on classroom management and professional responsibilities associated with supervising students, that satisfies the following conditions:

(i) The Member shall provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Discipline Committee’s Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision, dated August 21, 2025, and its Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision;

(ii) Upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course provider will 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 provider shall also specify the length of such course, and the course goals.

(b) Within 30 days of her completion of the course referred to in paragraph (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course provider stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on her progress with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

C. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

11The Panel has carefully reviewed the submissions of College Counsel regarding the penalty, as well as the case law presented. It finds that the order set out above meets the penalty objectives, namely deterrence, rehabilitation, transparency and protection of the public interest, and that it is proportionate to the Member’s professional misconduct. It found the two Balan decisions particularly helpful as a benchmark, in view of the similarities between the inappropriate behaviour and professional misconduct of Ms. Balan and the Member.

12The Panel compared the circumstances of this matter with those of the case law presented. The case at hand involves the following aggravating factors: 1) the lengthy nature of the Member’s misconduct (over a period of three academic years), which took place in several schools. Although the Member was an occasional teacher and worked multi-day assignments in the schools, the fact that her misconduct persisted for several academic years in various schools under different administrations is especially aggravating; 2) her inappropriate behaviour included several types of incidents and professional misconduct in her teaching practice; and 3) her misconduct affected a number of students. The sole mitigating factor noted by the Panel is that the Member has never appeared before a panel of the College’s Discipline Committee before.

(1) Reprimand

13The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated misconduct and the numerous issues relating to her teaching practice warrant a reprimand. The Panel finds it concerning that her misconduct involved multiple incidents and instances of professional misconduct, including poor student supervision and classroom management, inappropriate remarks made to students, unnecessary physical interventions and a lack of support for students. Several aspects of her teaching practice were cause for concern. Teachers are responsible for ensuring students’ safety and physical well-being. The Member failed to meet this expectation when she grabbed a student’s arm on two occasions and when she barricaded the classroom door, as well as through her lack of consistent supervision. Members of the teaching profession must also create a supportive learning environment and model appropriate and respectful conduct. The Member failed to meet these expectations, including by making inappropriate remarks to students and failing to support them. The reprimand will allow the Panel to address its concerns directly to the Member, which will serve as a specific deterrent to her. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register is important because it will serve as a general deterrent to the other members of the profession.

14Lastly, the Panel considers that the written reprimand is appropriate in view of the Member’s lack of cooperation or participation in this disciplinary process. Given her failure to attend this penalty hearing and her abrupt departure in the middle of the fact-finding hearing, it is unlikely that the Member will attend electronically to receive an oral reprimand. For these reasons, the Panel finds that a written reprimand is more appropriate.

(2) Suspension

15Given the number of instances and the repeated nature of the Member’s professional misconduct, the Panel finds that an eight-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. In determining the suspension length, the Panel reviewed both the case law and submissions presented by College Counsel, who proposed a suspension of eight months. The Panel focused on the two Balan decisions, whose facts presented several parallels with the matter at hand.

16With regard to the other decisions presented by College Counsel, the Panel finds that Kwedi and Lim were less relevant because they involved uncontested hearings. In fact, in Kwedi, the Member admitted his professional misconduct and pled guilty, which is a significant mitigating factor. Similarly, in Lim, the Member did not contest her professional misconduct, which is also a significant mitigating factor. Accordingly, Ms. Lim received a six-month suspension and Mr. Kwedi, a five-month suspension. Had these proceedings been contested, the suspension would probably have been longer. Since this mitigating factor is absent in the present matter, the Panel considers this distinction an important one and assigned less weight to those decisions.

17Labbé, like the case at hand, involved a contested hearing, but in the Panel’s view, Ms. Labbé’s conduct is somewhat dissimilar to the Member’s. There were no instances of physical abuse in Labbé nor a lack of consistent supervision. Ms. Labbé intimidated the students by shouting in their faces. She received a six-month suspension. When comparing Ms. Labbé’s misconduct to the Member’s, the Panel did not find the case particularly relevant in determining the length of suspension.

18As noted above, the Panel found that the two Balan decisions had more similarities to the present case and offered a good benchmark for determining an appropriate length of suspension for the Member.

19In Balan dated April 3, 2023, Ms. Balan contested the allegations against her and was found guilty of almost the same types of professional misconduct as the Member, with a few differences. For example, Ms. Balan was found guilty of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14), unlike the Member, and the Member was found guilty of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1) (physical abuse), unlike Ms. Balan. Ms. Balan received a reprimand, an eight-month suspension and terms, conditions and limitations on her certificate in the form of coursework.

20Ms. Balan’s conduct involved inadequate supervision of students and inappropriate remarks to students. It is similar to the Member’s conduct, who also failed to supervise students adequately and made inappropriate remarks to students. Ms. Balan also failed to provide adequate instruction to students. The Panel notes that this conduct resembles the Member’s in that she did not adequately review lesson plans or give students clear instructions and gave students tasks that were beyond their capabilities. Another similarity between Ms. Balan and the Member which was noted by the Panel concerns their participation in the disciplinary process. In Balan dated April 3, 2023, the Panel noted that Ms. Balan refused to cooperate in the disciplinary process. Similarly, the Member also refused to cooperate in this disciplinary process: she withdrew abruptly in the middle of the fact-finding hearing and did not respond to subsequent communications from the College regarding the penalty hearing, nor did she take part in this hearing. One significant difference between Ms. Balan’s conduct and the Member’s is that the Member had physically abused a student by grabbing his arm on two occasions. Notwithstanding this difference, Balan dated April 3, 2023, offers a good benchmark because of the similarities between the two cases and the fact that Ms. Balan’s misconduct, like the Member’s, involved many different instances of professional misconduct. The Panel therefore finds that an eight-month suspension is also appropriate in the present case.

21Balan dated November 14, 2023, a contested case, also presents similarities to the matter at hand. For example, Ms. Balan’s misconduct included showing up late and sometimes not at all for her supervisory and teaching duties; failing to provide lesson plans and rubrics to the school principal; and refusing to help a student who asked for support. This conduct resembles the Member’s in that the Member also arrived late for teaching duties; for example, when the school principal discovered her in an office using an iPad when she was supposed to be in class 30 minutes before; when she arrived 30 minutes late for an assignment; and when she left her class unattended in the schoolyard while she was inside the school. The Member also had difficulty with lesson plans, but her conduct was a little different from Ms. Balan’s, in that she did not follow the lesson plans or the class schedules. Lastly, the Member also refused to help students who asked for support, just like Ms. Balan.

22Ms. Balan received a reprimand, an eight-month suspension and terms, conditions and limitations on her certificate in the form of coursework. The Panel considers that Balan dated November 14, 2023, also offers a good benchmark for determining an appropriate length of suspension for the Member.

23The Member’s conduct included incidents of various natures involving several concerning aspects related to her teaching practice. Given the repeated nature of her misconduct, the Panel finds that an eight-month suspension is appropriate and reasonable. The eight-month suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and make it clear to her that the College does not tolerate such conduct. Recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to the other members of the profession. In addition, the suspension meets the objective of protecting the public interest.

(3) Coursework

24The Panel considers that a course on classroom management and supervisory responsibilities will assist with the Member’s rehabilitation before she returns to the classroom and will address the deficiencies in her teaching practice. The Panel noted that the Member’s misconduct included recurrent instances of inadequate student supervision, so the course will remind her of her obligations and responsibilities as a teacher and help her to make better decisions regarding classroom management and student supervision.

25The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

D. COSTS SUBMISSIONS OF College Counsel

26College Counsel sought a costs order in the amount of $20,000 to be paid to the College in accordance with subsection 30(5) of the Act. She referred to sub-rule 16.05(3) of the Rules, which states that no evidence of the costs of a day of proceedings is needed if the request is equal to or less than the amount set out in Tariff A of the Rules, which is $10,000 per day of proceedings. College Counsel argued that the amount sought of $20,000 is less than the amount that the College could seek under Tariff A; because the fact-finding hearing lasted three days, the College could have sought a costs order in the amount of $30,000. College Counsel also pointed out that the Member had been advised of the costs order and the fact that the College was seeking costs in the amount of $20,000 (Exhibit 5).

27Lastly, College Counsel presented four prior decisions in support of her position regarding the costs order: Balan dated November 14, 2023; Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2019 ONOCT 20 (“Hall”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Matar, 2024 ONOCT 16; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Van Gentevoort, 2025 ONOCT 58.

E. COSTS decision

28The Panel makes the following order as to costs:

The Member is directed to pay costs in the amount of $20,000 to the College related to this proceeding within six months of the Panel’s Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision.

F. REASONS FOR COSTS dEcision

29According to paragraph 4 of subsection 30(5) of the Act, the Panel may order costs payable by a member to the College where it has found that member guilty of professional misconduct.

30The Panel carefully reviewed Hall and Balan dated November 14, 2023. It notes that Hall sets out the following factors that the Panel may consider when determining whether a costs order is appropriate:

Apportioning costs of proceeding: Costs orders are compensatory, rather than punitive, in nature. Their purpose is to apportion the financial burden of a discipline proceeding between the parties fairly. The nature or severity of a member’s misconduct is not a factor that should be considered when determining whether costs should be ordered or the quantum of any order.

Uncooperative and vexatious conduct: Uncooperative or obstructionist conduct in the course of the litigation process will be a significant factor in the costs determination. Conduct that unnecessarily lengthens the duration of the proceeding ought to be sanctioned, as should vexatious or improper conduct. Consistent with the principle of apportionment, the College and, through their licensing fees, cooperative members of the teaching profession, ought not bear fully the costs of discipline proceedings against uncooperative members.

Promotion of good conduct: Members of the profession are not required to admit all or part of their professional misconduct because the College always bears the burden of proof. However, participation in the disciplinary process, cooperation and conduct that shortens or reduces the complexity of the proceeding ought to be encouraged. Engagement in efforts to settle all or part of a proceeding should be encouraged when considering whether costs ought to be ordered. Costs orders should not be so large as to discourage members from raising reasonable defences to allegations of professional misconduct.

Success of the parties: The relative success of the parties will be relevant in determining and apportioning costs. For example, if the College is only partially successful in establishing the allegations against a member, this will be relevant in determining whether and what amount of costs should be ordered. If significant hearing time is spent receiving evidence on allegations that are ultimately not established, the member ought not be liable for those costs.

The member’s ability to pay: Evidence or submissions about the member’s ability to pay a costs order may be relevant to the Committee’s decision. This factor may also be relevant to the Committee’s decision about how much time the Member is given to pay the costs order. The impact of other penalties imposed (for example, revocation) may be relevant to this factor: Hall at pp. 12-13.

31After considering each of the factors set out above, the Panel notes that it is reasonable to apportion the costs of the proceedings fairly and that costs orders are compensatory in nature. The members should not have to bear the full financial cost of discipline proceedings. With regard to uncooperative conduct, the Panel finds that the Member was uncooperative throughout the hearings. Moreover, she attended the first day of the fact-finding hearing, but left abruptly in the middle of the second day of the hearing. This behaviour unduly lengthened the proceeding, because a break had to be called to attempt to contact the Member. The Panel notes, however, that the Member’s conduct during these proceedings was in no way vexatious. Furthermore, with regard to the promotion of good conduct, the Panel notes that members are in no way required to admit all or part of the allegations against them and they have a right to contest the allegations. In the Panel’s estimation, however, the Member could have shortened the proceedings by cooperating with the College. College Counsel was obliged to present evidence proving certain behaviours which the Member herself had admitted in a Board meeting with Mr. McCabe. As for the success of the parties, the Panel notes that the College succeeded in proving all of the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing against the Member. Lastly, the Panel notes that it has not received any evidence concerning the Member’s ability to pay, because of her lack of participation in the proceedings.

32Given the findings above relating to the factors set out in Hall, the Panel is satisfied that the costs amount of $20,000 sought by the College is appropriate and reasonable, and as such, orders the Member to pay costs in the amount of $20,000 to the College within six months of the date of the Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision.

Dated: January 6, 2026

Alain Martel, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel