DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Casati 2025 ONOCT 54

Date: 2025-09-15

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

Lydia Casati, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

LYDIA CASATI (REGISTRATION #458247)

PANEL: Kayla Stephenson, Chair

Rachelle Coleman

Brian Serafini, OCT

HEARD: August 18, 2025

Lisa Feinberg, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Adriel Weaver, for Lydia Casati

Rebecca Durcan, 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 18, 2025 in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Lydia Casati (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 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 March 25, 2025 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Lydia Casati is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) she 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);

(b) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), amended orally during the hearing, which provides the following:

1. At all material times, Lydia Casati was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member obtained a Certificate of Qualification and Registration on June 26, 2002. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

3. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] Elementary School (the “School”) in Hamilton, Ontario.

4. In the 2022-2023 academic year, the Member taught a split Grade 1 and Grade 2 French class at the School.

5. Students 1 and 2 were male students in Grade [XXX] at the School.

6. Between October 2022 and February 2023, the Member engaged in a personal relationship with Students 1 and 2 that crossed professional boundaries, by communicating with them via text messages about non-school related matters outside of school hours. During this time period, she also met with Student 1 outside of school property at Food Basics on one occasion, where she gave him money to buy lunch.

7. Many of these text messages that the Member exchanged with Student 1 and Student 2 involved discussions of the Member purchasing marijuana and marijuana products and paraphernalia for them. The Member repeatedly told Student 1 and Student 2 to keep the messages confidential. For example, the Member sent Student 1 and Student 2 the following text messages:

(a) “I’m going to James St to buy then meet u [sic] at Basics? Erase these messages btw [sic];

(b) “Oh u [sic] guys are very welcome. Just zip it”;

(c) “Hey... I can't help u [sic] today. Sometime this week? I have way too much work to do just let me get through this weekend”;

(d) “I got it ... Can bring at 8:45 am tomorrow or 10:30...Only Tomorrow”;

(e) “Ok I can only swing by really quick since we are expected to be contacting parents today. This has to be the last time though... u [sic] guys are draining me if [sic] money”;

(f) “I have lots of stuff coming up to pay. So I'll have to see. Next time call me when u [sic] have a question like that”;

(g) “if u [sic] need, anything, call later. Or we chat tomorrow...”;

(h) “You guys are asking for a lot though...its [sic] expensive and could cause lots of trouble...”;

(i) “Hey…just tell me what u [sic] want and I will drop it off”;

(j) “I feel like I should not be doing this. I've got a lot of shit going on here … people are watching me”;

(k) “Can't u [sic] do that again”;

(l) “Yes we are getting it”;

(m) “I can't today. Open Gym is closed. A fight broke out and I've been crying all afternoon.”

8. The text messages between the Member and Student 1 and Student 2 also included general discussions about marijuana use. For example, the Member sent Student 1 and Student 2 the following text messages:

(a) “I hope he shared??” in response to Student 1 asking if the Member purchased Student 2 “edibles”;

(b) “Wear a hoodie, I’ll give u [sic] the sunglasses”;

(c) “you were probably like (drooling emojis)…Drooling (laughing emojis),” in response to Student 1 sharing that he had gotten sick the previous night after consuming marijuana;

(d) “Bahahaha omg that’s funny!!” in response to Student 1 stating he was still high from the previous night;

(e) “Hey [Student 2] no disrespect to your bro but does he need a reminder of why not to steal….I can be at the house tomorrow by 3:40 […]” in response to Student 1 stating that Student 2 took all the “weed.”

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

9. 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 1-8 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

10. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 6-8 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 her, being more particularly:

(a) she 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);

(b) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

11. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that, by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she understands that the Discipline Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(f) she understands that any agreement with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(g) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

12. 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.

13. 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 18, 2025, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a personal relationship with Student 1 and Student 2 that crossed professional boundaries by communicating with them through text messages about non-school related matters outside of school hours.

8The Panel finds 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). Members of the teaching profession occupy a unique position of trust, authority and influence, and are required to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students. As an experienced teacher who was viewed as a role model, the Member ought to have known that meeting Student 1 off school property and giving him money to buy lunch and sending personal text messages to Student 1 and Student 2 about subjects unrelated to school were violations of those boundaries. While there is no allegation or evidence before the Panel that the Member purchased marijuana, marijuana products or paraphernalia for the students, the Panel finds that the Member’s repeated text messaging with Student 1 and Student 2 about these subjects and marijuana use generally constitutes conduct that is disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

9The Panel also finds that the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Teachers are expected to be upstanding members of the community and to model appropriate conduct. By repeatedly engaging in inappropriate text message conversations with Student 1 and Student 2, the Member demonstrated serious professional failings, undermined the reputation of the teaching profession, and breached the trust placed in teachers by students, parents, and the public.

F. PENALTY Decision

10The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on August 18, 2022, 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 electronically and the fact of the reprimand is to 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 three (3) months commencing on the 15^th^ calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register. If the Oral Decision and Order is rendered between May 1^st^ and August 1^st^, the suspension will commence on September 1^st^.

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations is to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) prior to accepting any position in Ontario that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at her own expense, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member shall provide to a 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, Reasons for Decision, and Order of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 3(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 her completion of the course outlined in paragraph 3(a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate or report from the course practitioner:

(i) 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

11The 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.¹ 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. Warland, 2021 ONOCT 77; Ontario College of Teachers v. Handscomb, 2022 ONOCT 63; Ontario College of Teachers v. Porter, 2021 ONOCT 86; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Bujacz, 2024 ONOCT 41.

12The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are 1) the sustained nature of the misconduct, which was not a one-off lapse in judgment but involved repeated text messaging with two Grade [XXX] students over a period of approximately four months; 2) the content of the text messages, which effectively normalized drug use for [XXX]; and 3) the Member attempted to conceal her conduct by instructing Student 1 and Student 2 to keep the messages private or erase them. Regarding mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and sparing Student 1 and Student 2 from having to testify in an adversarial proceeding. Although not a mitigating factor, the Panel considers the Member’s lack of a disciplinary record with the College as a neutral factor, more accurately described as the absence of an aggravating factor.

13The Panel finds that the Member’s boundary violations with students warrants a reprimand. Teachers are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students, which the Member repeatedly failed to do by engaging in personal text message communications with Student 1 and Student 2. 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.

14Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, they involve misconduct of a similar underlying nature and confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension reflects the seriousness of the misconduct, serves as a specific deterrent to the Member, and reinforces for other teachers that such behaviour is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on September 2, 2025, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

15The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework is intended to remind the Member of her professional obligations as a teacher and ensure that she will 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.

Footnotes

1. 1See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.