Ontario College of Teachers v. Truelove, 2025 ONOCT 52

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Truelove 2025 ONOCT 52

Date: 2025-09-11

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

Gregory Lyall Truelove, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

GREGORY LYALL TRUELOVE (REGISTRATION #473500)

PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT Emile Ramlochan

HEARD: March 21, 2025

Eli Mogil, for the Ontario College of Teachers Gregory Lyall Truelove, self-represented Ahmad Mozaffari, 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.

1The penalty stage of this proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on March 21, 2025. 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 September 26, 2024, the Panel found that Gregory Lyall Truelove (the “Member”) engaged in professional misconduct. The Member made derogatory and offensive remarks to and about students such as calling them “bums” and “idiots”. The Member also made inappropriate comments on Facebook that the Panel found to be sexual misconduct given the nature of the comments (i.e., derogatory, demeaning and sexualized comments about women). Finally, the Member demonstrated poor professional behaviour when he saw and interacted with students at a gas station.

3Based on this conduct, the Panel found that the Member contravened subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act.

4The Panel reconvened on March 21, 2025, to hear submissions with respect to penalty. The Member was self-represented, and he was in attendance for this phase of the hearing.

A. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

5The College submitted that the Panel ought to order a penalty that includes the following elements:

1. a reprimand;
2. a suspension in the range of five to 10 months; and
3. terms, conditions or limitations which would restrict the Member from returning to the teaching profession until he successfully completes a course regarding classroom management and appropriate communications with emphasis on student interactions and use of social media.

6College Counsel presented 10 cases to the Panel in support of its proposed penalty: Ontario College of Teachers v. Rail, 2023 ONOCT 26 (“Rail”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Doyon, 2022 ONOCT 75 (“Doyon”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Orme, 2019 ONOCT 107 (“Orme”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Green-Jonhson, 2018 ONOCT 30 (“2018 Green-Jonhson decision”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Rigby, 2021 ONOCT 91 (“Rigby”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Lister, 2020 ONOCT 225 (“Lister”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Primi, 2022 ONOCT 56 (“Primi”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Burke, 2021 ONOCT 76 (“Burke”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Baker, 2021 ONOCT 59 (“Baker”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Orton, 2017 ONOCT 100 (“Orton”). According to College Counsel, these cases provide guidance with respect to the Panel’s determination of the appropriate penalty, as they establish a range of reasonable penalties from cases involving similar acts of professional misconduct.

7College Counsel noted the aggravating and mitigating factors and submitted that the Member cannot benefit from the mitigating factor of pleading no contest. The fact that the Member contested the case is not an aggravating factor; members are entitled to contest the allegations against them. However, College Counsel submitted that the fact that the Member declined to testify, forced the College to prosecute this case and raised the risk of adverse inference, is an aggravating factor.

B. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF THE MEMBER

8The Member expressed his sincere apologies during his submissions; he stated that he deeply regretted his actions/comments and online conduct. The Member agreed that a reprimand would be an appropriate order. The Member submitted that he already completed remedial coursework on boundary issues at the Board level. However, he was not opposed to taking further coursework if the Panel believes that it would benefit him. The Member submitted that the Panel should not order any suspension because he has already served a one-day suspension at the Board level. The Member submitted that his proposed penalty meets the objectives of penalty orders.

9The Member submitted that College Counsel’s overview of the caselaw was oversimplified, particularly the Primi, Burke, Baker and Rail cases. He submitted that the extent of the behaviour in those cases was far greater than his conduct which warranted the suspensions that they received (i.e., 5 months in Primi, 6 months in Burke, 10 months in Baker, and 5 months in Rail).

10The Member presented four cases: Ontario College of Teachers v. Green-Johnson, 2016 ONOCT 20 (“2016 Green-Jonhson decision”); 2018 Green-Jonhson decision; Ontario College of Teachers v. Hyde, 2009 ONOCT 34 (“2009 Hyde decision”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Hyde, 2016 ONOCT 25 (“2016 Hyde decision”). The Member presented these cases to demonstrate that even with prior discipline history before the Discipline Committee, the lengths of suspensions in those cases did not amount to what College Counsel is proposing in this instance. The Member provided a graph of his record in education (Exhibit 46) to demonstrate that from 2002 (the start of his career) to 2017-2018 (incidents of professional misconduct), he had no prior incidents and then from 2017-2018 to present day, more than seven years later, he still had no reported incidents regarding his professional conduct.

C. REPLY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

11College Counsel noted that the cases presented by the Member are outdated and less reflective of the current goals and objectives of penalty orders with respect to public protection. College Counsel submitted that their caselaw provides more guidance to the appropriate sanctions. With regard to the Member’s submission that he has had no incidents reported for the last seven years, College Counsel submitted that the Member has not provided any evidence that he was in fact teaching for the last seven years. Also, College Counsel noted that at the finding stage of this proceeding the Member was on leave and there was no evidence presented by the Member regarding the duration of his leave. College Counsel also noted that a suspension would not be punitive and that in fact the absence of a suspension would deviate from all prior cases involving acts of similar misconduct. Finally, College Counsel submitted that the Panel should give no weight to the Member’s apology (that was heard for the first time since the beginning of these proceedings). College Counsel submitted that the Member’s apology at this moment does not demonstrate that he is accepting responsibility. College Counsel encouraged the Panel to treat the Member’s apology with limited weight.

D. PENALTY DECISION

12The Panel makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee within 60 days of the date of the Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision, on a date to be arranged by the Member and the Tribunals’ Office, to receive a reprimand which will be delivered electronically, and the fact of the reprimand shall 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 five months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision 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 commencing any teaching position in Ontario, or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and appropriate communication with particular emphasis on student interactions and the use of social media, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Committee’s decision on finding dated September 26, 2024 and Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision of the Panel;

(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 which specifically addresses the Panel’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;

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

(i) stating whether 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.

E. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

13The 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. The penalty is also within a reasonable range, given the circumstances of this matter and based on the caselaw provided by College Counsel.

(1) Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are multiple aggravating factors in the Member’s case: 1) the Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment, there was a pattern of multiple incidents; 2) the Member’s conduct involved multiple students; 3) the duration of the Member’s misconduct (which occurred over an entire academic year); and 4) the scope of the impact of the Member’s conduct was broad (i.e., the conduct occurred in multiple forums in the classroom, outside the classroom and on social media).

15In terms of mitigating factors, the Member participated and was cooperative in this disciplinary process. He did not abuse, disrupt or frustrate the process.

16With respect to the Member’s apology, the Panel acknowledges his apology as it demonstrates that he is motivated to correct his behaviour. However, the Panel is not placing any significant weight on his apology, because it does not show that he is, in fact, accepting responsibility for his actions. The Panel does not find the Member’s apology at this stage of the proceeding to be a mitigating factor, as it may be considered when a member has pleaded guilty and expressed sincere remorse.

17Finally, the Panel does not consider the fact that the Member chose not to testify and raising the risk of adverse inference as an aggravating factor as suggested by College Counsel. The Panel does not find this submission relevant to the discussion on penalty; the adverse inferences were relevant at the finding stage of this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel’s adverse inferences made at the finding stage should have no consequences at the penalty stage.

(2) Reprimand

18The Panel finds that the Member’s offensive and demeaning comments in class, his remarks of a sexual nature on Facebook to which students were exposed, and his inappropriate interaction with students at a gas station warrant a reprimand. Teachers must be respectful in their interactions with students. The Member repeatedly failed to do so by making offensive and derogatory comments to students, as well as by exposing them to remarks of a sexual nature on social media. Members of the teaching profession are expected to promote safe and supportive learning environments and to model appropriate and respectful behaviour. They are also expected to behave professionally when they are off duty. The Member’s conduct fell short of meeting these expectations. 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.

(3) Suspension

19Given the serious and repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a five-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. By arriving at this decision, the Panel considered the findings of professional misconduct, the parties’ submissions as well as the caselaw provided by both parties.

20The Panel understands that no two cases are alike and that the caselaw provided by College Counsel includes a variety of behaviour that is of similar nature to the Member’s misconduct. For instance, both the 2018 Green-Jonhson decision and Rail case involved inappropriate comments to students and the use of profanity. The Primi, Burke, Baker, Orton and Lister cases involved behaviour or comments of a sexual nature to which students were exposed, although Baker also included inappropriate physical contact with students. Doyon involved inappropriate comments to students and inappropriate physical contact with students. Orme involved inappropriate comments to students and assigning inappropriate journal topics to students as well as failure to adequately supervise. Finally, Rigby involved aggressive, disrespectful and insubordinate conduct. Although these cases provided by College Counsel included acts of similar misconduct to the Member’s (i.e., derogatory/demeaning comments to students, inappropriate use of social media and remarks of a sexual nature on social media), the Panel did not find them particularly helpful regarding the proposed length of suspension. Some of the cases presented are distinguishable because of the severity of the conduct. For example, in Baker the Discipline Committee found that Mr. Baker made comments with sexual undertones in class and made a finding of sexual misconduct, but also made a finding of physical abuse as they found that Mr. Baker had inappropriate physical contact with students. Ultimately he was given a ten-month suspension. In Doyon the Discipline Committee found that Mr. Doyon made several inappropriate comments to students such as threatening them with physical harm, and also found that Mr. Doyon had inappropriate physical contact with students. Although, there was no finding of sexual misconduct, Mr. Doyon received a four-month suspension. Both the Baker and Doyon cases are distinguishable from the present case in that the Panel in this matter made no finding of physical abuse against the Member and the Member did not have inappropriate physical contact with students.

21The Panel finds that a five-month suspension for the Member is fair given the circumstances of this case, such as the Panel’s findings and the duration of these proceedings. The Panel recognizes that the Member’s proceedings have been ongoing for the past four years and finds that the delay is not solely attributable to the Member. The Panel has also carefully considered the objectives of penalty orders and finds that a penalty of five months is in line with those objectives. The Panel finds that a lengthier suspension would be disproportionate.

22With regards to the Member’s caselaw, the Panel is not placing significant weight on these cases. The Panel understands that the Member presented these cases to support his position that no suspension was warranted, particularly in light of the fact that he had no prior discipline history and no issues since the incidents that gave rise to the allegations in this matter. The Member referred to the decision of Green-Johnson from 2018 as an example of a case where a member had a prior history and a shorter suspension was ordered than that the College was seeking. However, as submitted by College Counsel, the 2016 Green-Johnson matter dealt with conduct that occurred in 2011 and 2012. A finding of professional misconduct was made in 2016. In the interim, and prior to that finding, there were further allegations of professional misconduct in 2015. Ms. Green-Johnson did not have any further concerns after the 2016 decision, and the conduct predates the 2016 decision. The second decision was not based on the member not having learned from their prior discipline matter, as suggested by the Member.

23Furthermore, the 2009 Hyde and 2016 Hyde decisions referred to by the Member are dated and arguably less reflective of the objective a penalty order for this specific case should have.

24Finally, the suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and should reinforce for him that the College does not tolerate the type of conduct in which he engaged. Recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

(4) Coursework

25The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management and appropriate communication with particular emphasis on student interactions and use of social media 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 and his use of social media. The Panel does not accept the Member’s submission that he has already completed coursework to address those issues after he was suspended from the Board. First, the Member did not present any evidence that he completed said coursework; he did not provide a certificate of completion. Second, the coursework the Member refers to did not address the findings made by the Discipline Committee in this matter – the Member was required to complete the coursework by his Board, and not by the College. Therefore, ordering coursework on classroom management and appropriate communications addresses the Panel’s concerns regarding the Member’s misconduct and is in line with the goal of rehabilitation.

26The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.