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
Bradley James Ziegler, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
BRADLEY JAMES ZIEGLER (REGISTRATION #283152)
PANEL: Yasser Leheta, OCT, Chair Adam Dharsee, OCT Lois Figg
HEARD: August 13, 2025
Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Bradley James Ziegler
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.
2Bradley James Ziegler (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have 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 26, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Bradley James Ziegler is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(b) he contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);
(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
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Bradley James Ziegler is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers in the Inactive/Non-Practising category. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the District School Board of Niagara (the “Board”) as a secondary school teacher at [XXX] School in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Person A was an adult female with whom the Member had a personal relationship.
On or about October 21, 2020, the Member and Person A were involved in a physical altercation at the Member’s home. During the altercation, the Member:
(a) grabbed Person A and pulled her off a couch;
(b) pushed Person A;
(c) caused Person A to sustain scratches and marks to her arm;
(d) caused Person A to bump her head.
On March 10, 2023, in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Member entered a guilty plea to the offence of assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code (Canada) with respect to the October 21, 2020 incident involving Person A,. The Member received a suspended sentence with probation for a period of 12 months, and two ancillary orders. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the certified court information. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” are copies of the Probation and Ancillary Orders. Attached and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the transcript of the Guilty Plea Proceedings and the Reasons for Sentence in the Ontario Court of Justice before the Honourable Justice A. Brown, dated March 10, 2023.
The Board had terminated the Member’s employment for cause, effective January 12, 2021. The Member grieved the termination, and on April 17, 2024, the Board and the Member entered into confidential Minutes of Settlement. Ultimately, the Member’s employment was not reinstated and the grievance was withdrawn.
As part of his probation order, the Member attended the Partner Assault Response Program, a 12-week education/ counselling program, which he completed on September 7, 2023.
The Member is currently not teaching and has no intention of returning to a teaching position.
Prior Discipline
- On October 18, 2021, the College’s Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct for conduct that occurred in 2018, while he was teaching at [XXX] School in [XXX], Ontario. A student and four colleagues complained of inappropriate touching and boundary violations. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Discipline Committee’s decision dated October 28, 2021.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
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(15), 1(16), 1(18), and 1(19).
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.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and 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
6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, 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(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 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 and the exhibits to the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in a physical altercation with Person A on or about October 21, 2020 and that on March 10, 2023 the Member pleaded guilty to the offence of assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code (Canada) with respect to the October 21, 2020 incident involving Person A. The Admitted Facts also demonstrate that although the Member did not have a criminal record at the time of his March 10, 2023 plea, on July 17, 2020, approximately three months prior to the assault on Person A, the Member had entered into a court ordered common law peace bond to resolve another domestic incident involving a different woman (Exhibit D of Exhibit 2). Under the terms of that peace bond, the Member had pledged to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 12 months (Exhibit D of Exhibit 2). The Member violated the terms of this peace bond when he assaulted Person A (Exhibit D of Exhibit 2).
8The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 (“Education Act”), contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act requires teachers to act as positive role models and exemplify a number of moral virtues. Members of the profession are expected to show good judgement, be trustworthy and maintain professionalism. The Member failed to act as a positive role model and exemplify the moral virtues expected of him as a teacher when he assaulted and injured Person A and violated the terms of his July 17, 2020 peace bond.
9The Member contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to subsection 1(16) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. On March 10, 2023, the Member pleaded guilty to the offence of simple assault on Person A under section 266 of the Criminal Code (Canada). The Member’s assault on Person A caused her to sustain scratches and marks to her arm and bump her head. Members who engage in criminal behaviour such as assault call into question their suitability to hold a teaching certificate. Teachers must be trusted to behave professionally, exercise sound judgement, be in control of their emotions and their behaviour, and to act as upstanding members in the school community to be entrusted with the safety of students.
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). The terms disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional are not legislatively defined, but are understood to be disjunctive and in a decreasing level of seriousness. In this instance, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was of a very serious nature that rose to the level of not only dishonourable conduct but also disgraceful conduct. Members of the profession are supposed to act as leaders and role models in their school communities. It is unacceptable for members of the profession to engage in criminal behaviour, including assault. The Member’s assault on Person A casts serious doubt on the Member’s moral fitness and ability to discharge his professional obligations as expected by the public and involved a significant moral failing such that it was both dishonourable and disgraceful. In addition, the Member’s threatening behaviour towards Person A can also be characterized as disgraceful. After the Member’s assault on Person A, Person A attempted to contact the Member by telephone several times (Exhibit D of Exhibit 2). When the Member eventually contacted Person A and had a conversation about what had occurred, the Member told Person A “that if she contacted police he would call Family and Child Services to have her children taken away” (Exhibit D of Exhibit 2). The Member had had time to calm down and reflect on what had happened. Instead of using this as an opportunity to apologize or take responsibility for his actions, he engaged in further abusive behaviour towards Person A. His conduct demonstrated that he recognized his actions were wrong and likely criminal. Furthermore, the Panel finds it unprofessional that the Member did not abide by the terms of the peace bond agreement that he had entered into only three months earlier, which demonstrated the Member’s failure to learn from his actions. Therefore, the Member’s misconduct is properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.
11The Member’s conduct was unbecoming of a member of the College, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust and confidence in the teaching profession as a whole is eroded when members engage in criminal behaviour like assault. Teachers are held to a high standard of behaviour. The Member physically harmed and threatened Person A, and he violated the terms of his peace bond. The Member’s behaviour, taken cumulatively, reveals a significant lack of judgement and undermines the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. PENALTY DECISION
12The 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 and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”).
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;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management. The Committee acknowledges that the Member has fulfilled this requirement as of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee;
(b) the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that the Member has successfully completed the course. The Committee acknowledges that the Member has fulfilled this requirement as of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
13The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. Once the Panel ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order on penalty jointly requested by the parties, 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: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 SCR 204 (“Anthony-Cook”) and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (“Bradley”). While the Panel believes that the proposed penalty in its totality is lenient given the Member’s cumulative pattern of behaviour, the Panel has accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty because the Panel does not find that its concerns regarding the penalty’s leniency meet the high bar for rejecting a joint submission on penalty. 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.
14The Panel has considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. There are six aggravating factors. First, the Member has a previous disciplinary history with the College. In October of 2021, the Discipline Committee found that between 2016 and 2018 the Member had made inappropriate comments to several female colleagues, engaged in unwanted and inappropriate touching of female colleagues, and engaged in inappropriate conduct with one female student: Ontario College of Teachers v. Ziegler, 2021 ONOCT 119 (“Ziegler”).1 Second, the Member’s conduct was an abuse of trust expected by a partner in an intimate relationship. Third, the Member’s assault on Person A was unprovoked. Fourth, the Member’s conduct caused physical injuries to Person A. Fifth, the Member issued a serious threat to Person A that he would contact Family and Child Services to have her children taken away from her if she reported his conduct to the police. This is particularly aggravating given that he made this threat after he had time to reflect and regain control of his emotions. Sixth, the Member has demonstrated a lack of awareness regarding the seriousness of his behaviour by engaging in repeated problematic conduct. For instance, the Member violated a peace bond when he assaulted and threatened Person A.
15College Counsel submitted that there are four mitigating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member participated in the discipline process, and the Member admitted his misconduct thereby demonstrating remorse. Second, there is no evidence that the Member engaged in violent behaviour towards any students or anybody else at any time with respect to this matter. Third, the Member agreed to resolve this matter with the College saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Fourth, the Member does not intend to return to teaching. The Panel finds that this fourth mitigating factor regarding the Member’s intention to return to teaching should be afforded little weight. While the Member does not currently intend to return to teaching, the Member could change his mind in the future. However, the Panel accepts the remaining three mitigating factors set out by College Counsel. The Panel also finds that it is mitigating that the Member completed all court mandated coursework and all of the coursework he was ordered to complete as a result of his previous disciplinary matter.
16College Counsel provided three cases in support of the proposed penalty: Ontario College of Teachers v. Donald Joseph Yeoman, 2022 ONOCT 54; Ontario College of Teachers v. Maridul Bhalla, 2020 ONOCT 206; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Doug James Luymes, 2016 ONOCT 34 and submitted that a six month suspension, which is higher than the three-to-five-month range ordered in these cases with somewhat similar conduct, is appropriate due to the aggravating factors present in the Member’s case.
17The Panel has accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty but wishes to note that it believes this is a lenient penalty in this case given the Member’s cumulative pattern of behaviour, including his previous discipline history2, his violation of the terms of his peace bond, and his threatening behaviour toward Person A after the assault. The Member’s cumulative pattern of behaviour raises concerns with the Member’s ability to comply with authority, control his anger and learn from his past actions. But for the parties’ joint submission on penalty, the Panel would have been of the view that a more severe penalty than the one proposed by the parties would have been warranted.
18However, the Panel is mindful that it is not up to the Panel to substitute the parties’ proposed penalty with the penalty that this Panel would have ordered instead. Taking into account that the six-month suspension is longer than the range ordered in the cases provided to the Panel, and the circumstances of the Member’s case, the Panel finds that a reasonable person fully informed of the circumstances of this case would not think that the proposed penalty is “so “unhinged” from the circumstances of the case” that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. In other words, the Panel finds that the proposed penalty does not meet the high bar needed for the Panel to reject the joint submission: Bradley at para 14; Anthony-Cook at para 34.
19The Panel finds that the Member’s aggressive and criminal conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models for students, which the Member failed to do by engaging in an assault on Person A and threatening Person A. 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.
20The Member’s 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 August 28, 2025, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
21With respect to coursework, the Panel agrees with the joint submission of the parties that it is appropriate for the Panel to order that the Member complete a course of instruction in anger management, but to also note in the order that the Member’s requirement to complete this course is fulfilled as of the date of the Panel’s Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order. The Panel accepts the submission of College Counsel that the Member has already completed coursework regarding anger management through the Partner Assault Response Program, a twelve-week education and counselling program. Though this coursework has already been completed, it is appropriate to include this requirement in the order to serve as a general deterrent so that members of the profession are aware that rehabilitative education will be required when a member engages in misconduct of this nature.
22The Panel is satisfied that it is appropriate for the Panel to accept the Joint Submission on Penalty in the circumstances.
Date: September 4, 2025
Yasser Leheta, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Adam Dharsee, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Lois Figg Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- In this case, the Member was ordered to receive a reprimand, a four-month suspension and to enroll in coursework relating to boundary violations: Ziegler.
- The Panel notes that the Member assaulted Person A before the panel in the previous disciplinary matter had released its Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order in October 2021. However, the Member would have known at the time of the assault on Person A that he was facing disciplinary proceedings with respect to his conduct in 2016-2018. The Notice of Hearing for the Member’s previous disciplinary matter was dated June 12, 2019, which pre-dated his assault on Person A: Ziegler at para 5.