DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Truelove 2025 ONOCT 55

Date: 2025-09-02

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

Stephen Charles Truelove, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

STEPHEN CHARLES TRUELOVE (REGISTRATION #146198)

PANEL: Damienne Lebrun-Reid, Chair Anthony Jeethan, OCT Sandra Pizzuti, OCT

HEARD: May 5-6, 2025

Lisa Feinberg and Sarah O’Neill, for the Ontario College of Teachers Carley Reynolds, for Stephen Charles Truelove Emily Graham, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(1), 32.1(3) and 32.1(4) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing or Student 1, who was allegedly sexually abused.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on May 5-6, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (“Rules”).

2Stephen Charles Truelove (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation.

3The College alleged that the Member contravened section 13 and subsections 14(d) and 14(f) of the regulation made under section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 495, as amended (the “TPA Regulation”) and is therefore guilty of professional misconduct by engaging in a personal and/or romantic relationship with Student 1, and/or engaging in boundary violations with Student 1; by engaging in touching of a sexual nature with Student 1, including kissing Student 1, fondling her breasts over her clothing, and engaging in sexual intercourse with Student 1.

4At the conclusion of the hearing, the Panel reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Panel does not find that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct, as alleged by the College.

A. PUBLICATION ban

5The 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.

6At the outset of the hearing, College Counsel requested, with the consent of the Member, that the Panel issue a discretionary order under subsection 32.1(1) of the Act, prohibiting the publication of any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1. College Counsel submitted that the Panel should issue the publication ban provided for in subsection 32.1(1) because the mandatory publication ban made under subsection 32.1(3) only protects the identity of persons who are witnesses or the subject of evidence in a hearing and who are under the age of 18 at the time of the hearing. While Student 1 was under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged events in question, she was not under the age of 18 at the time of the hearing. Therefore, Student 1 does not benefit from the protection of the publication ban under subsection 32.1(3). The College submitted that her identity should nonetheless be protected, given that the allegations relate to sexual abuse. College Counsel submitted that the request for the publication ban was being made by Student 1, the complainant, with the consent of the Member. The Panel granted the request to protect the identity of Student 1 and issued a publication ban under subsection 32.1(1) of the Act. The Panel is satisfied that such an order is warranted based on College Counsel’s submissions.

7Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request of Student 1, who was allegedly sexually abused. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, Student 1.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

8The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated April 9, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Stephen Charles Truelove is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section 13 of the regulation made under section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 495, as amended (the “TPA Regulation”);

(b) he failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, contrary to subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation;

(c) he failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation.

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. At all material times, Stephen Charles Truelove was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member obtained an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate on June 28, 1974 and a Certificate of Qualification and Registration on May 20, 1997. As of October 24, 2019, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is inactive/non-practising.

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

4. In or around the 1986/1987 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s [XXX] class. In or around the 1987/1988 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s [XXX] class in the [XXX] [XXX], and an [XXX] student in the teacher’s [XXX] class in the [XXX] [XXX].

5. Between on or about September 1, 1986 and on or about June 30, 1988, the Member engaged in a personal and/or romantic relationship with Student 1 and/or engaged in boundary violations with Student 1, including but not limited to:

(a) asking Student 1 to come to the School to do extra jobs for him;

(b) spending time alone with Student 1 after school hours;

(c) telling Student 1 how special she was;

(d) asking Student 1 to work for his roofing company in the summers;

(e) drinking alcohol with Student 1 in bars on one or more occasions; and/or

(f) driving alone with Student 1 in his motor vehicle.

6. Between on or about September 1, 1986 and on or about June 30, 1988, the Member engaged in physical contact and/or touching of a sexual nature with Student 1, including but not limited to:

(a) kissing Student 1 on one or more occasions; and/or

(b) fondling and/or touching Student 1’s body over her clothing on one or more occasions.

7. On one occasion in or about 1992, 1993, or 1994, when Student 1 was no longer a student at the School or a minor, the Member engaged in physical contact and/or touching of a sexual nature with Student 1, including but not limited to engaging in sexual intercourse with Student 1.

C. THE MEMBER’S PLEA

9The Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

D. THE EVIDENCE

10The parties presented oral and documentary evidence. The College called Student 1 as a witness and the Member testified in his own defense. The parties also jointly filed an Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit 2).

11The parties requested and the Panel ordered that witnesses, other than the Member, be excluded from the hearing until called to give evidence. This order was made in accordance with rule 13.12 of the Rules.

12The following is a brief summary of the parties’ evidence. Relevant portions of this evidence will be set out in greater detail, as needed, in the Panel’s reasons for decision below.

(1) College Evidence

(a) Motions

13At the outset of the hearing, College Counsel brought two motions with the consent of the Member. College Counsel brought motions for orders permitting Student 1 to testify behind a witness screen or other similar device, pursuant to rule 13.06, and to be accompanied by a support person, pursuant to rule 13.07. College Counsel noted that the request for a support person was being made as a precautionary measure and that Student 1 intended to testify without a support person.

14The Panel granted both motions and ordered that Student 1 be allowed to testify in a manner that would prevent her from seeing or hearing the Member, and, if required, to be accompanied by a support person.

15In addition to considering the Member’s consent to the College’s motions, the Panel found that the criteria for witness screens and support persons set out in rules 13.06 and 13.07 respectively were met in the circumstances. Rules 13.06 and 13.07 permit the Panel to grant accommodations for witnesses testifying about allegations of sexual abuse. Student 1 is a witness who has made a complaint of sexual abuse against the Member. Allowing Student 1 to be accompanied by a support person and to testify behind a screen or similar device would also permit Student 1 to testify without additional stressors and would not impede the Member’s right to a fair hearing. As the hearing was conducted electronically, the Panel was satisfied that it would be appropriate for the Member to turn his camera and microphone off for the duration of Student 1’s testimony. This sufficiently balanced both Student 1’s interests and the Member’s ability to make a full answer and defense. The parties would be able to see and hear Student 1, as required by rule 13.06(4), and the Member’s ability to communicate with his counsel and cross-examine Student 1 would not be unduly impaired. Student 1 ultimately did not require a support person throughout her testimony.

(b) Student 1’s Testimony

16Student 1 testified about her interactions with the Member during the 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 academic school years, as well as after graduation.

17Student 1 testified that she had the Member as an [XXX] teacher for all [XXX] years of [XXX]. She testified that the Member treated her like she was “special” and groomed her. She testified that they spent time alone together outside of school hours and the Member offered her a summer job collecting roof shingles at his informal roofing business (“roofing company”). In particular, Student 1 testified that she and the Member drank together at two local bars [XXX] when Student 1 was about [XXX] years old and under the legal drinking age. On two separate occasions (“incident 1” and “incident 2”), the Member drove Student 1 home alone from [XXX] to her parents’ residence. Student 1 testified that on both occasions, the Member kissed her on the lips (with an open mouth); and on incident 1, the Member also fondled her breasts over her clothing.

18Student 1 testified that the Member “chilled out” on her when the Member began dating a new teacher at the School, Catherine Foy.

19After Student 1 graduated from the School, the Member took her out to a restaurant in [XXX] where they had dinner and consumed alcohol together. Student 1 testified that following dinner, the Member drove her to her apartment where they consumed more alcohol together prior to having sexual intercourse without her consent.

20Student 1 testified about the negative and long-lasting impacts that the Member’s conduct has had on her life and relationships. She testified that she suffered psychologically and emotionally which led to issues of poor self-esteem and feeling useless, in addition to substance abuse. She dropped out of university and, in her original Complaint Form to the College (Exhibit 2, Appendix D), she asserted that she was unable to have a professional career like her siblings. She also testified that she experiences night terrors and has been clinically diagnosed with [XXX].

(2) Member’s Evidence

21The Member testified in his own defense.

22At the time of the hearing, the Member was retired from the teaching profession. The Member testified that he taught [XXX] at the School during all material times. In his initial response to the complaint, and during his testimony, the Member confirmed that he could not specifically recall teaching Student 1 (Exhibit 2, Appendix F), but testified that he vaguely remembers Student 1 in the classroom. During cross-examination, the Member testified that upon reflection, he does recall teaching Student 1 but was unable to confirm which Grade or year he taught her. The Member testified that he strongly doubts that he taught [XXX] to Student 1 for five consecutive academic years, as the teachers at the School would switch teaching classes every year to avoid a student having the same teacher for consecutive academic years.

23The Member denied ever-consuming alcohol with Student 1, including at [XXX], and denied ever driving Student 1 in his vehicle and touching her body. The Member denied offering Student 1 a summer job at his roofing company while she was his student, denied spending time alone with her after school hours, and also denied taking Student 1 out to a restaurant after she graduated from the School.

24The Member testified that during the period of 1985-1988, he was very busy outside of school hours and had various commitments on the weekends. During this time, the Member was taking additional education courses and master courses on the weekends in Toronto, Oshawa, and Lewiston, New York, in addition to being involved in recreational sports leagues. At the material time, the Member had shared custody of his minor children, whom he had in his care every other weekend.

25The Member also testified that he started dating Catherine Foy, a new teacher at the School, in 1987, whom he later married.

E. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

26College Counsel submitted that the evidence presented to the Panel proves each of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, on a balance of probabilities. College Counsel therefore submitted that the Panel should find that the Member engaged in professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

27With respect to particular 7 of the Notice of Hearing, College Counsel clarified that they were not asking the Panel to make a finding that the Member sexually assaulted Student 1 when she was an adult. Rather, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s physical contact with Student 1, in this instance, constitutes professional misconduct and a continuation of abuse of his position of trust.

28College Counsel reviewed the law of evidence on how sexual assault complainants should be assessed. College Counsel reminded the Panel that they must exercise caution to ensure that they do not inadvertently allow myths or stereotypes of how sexual assault complainants should complain or act to influence their finding. College Counsel relied on R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7, at paragraphs 37 and 43, to highlight that myths and stereotypes of sexual assault complainants distort the truth and are based on false presumptions. College Counsel also highlighted that the Panel should take care to avoid relying on myths and stereotypes when assessing the credibility of witnesses and should otherwise assess Student 1’s credibility with regards to her evidence. For example, Student 1 was questioned about her delay in reporting her sexual assault. College Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court is clear that a delay in reporting cannot, on its own, lead to an adverse credibility finding against the complainant (R v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43, at para. 65 (“D.D.”)).

29Student 1 was also questioned on her reaction to being sexually assaulted and asked why she went back in the Member’s car a second time after she was previously sexually assaulted by him. College Counsel submitted that the courts are clear that there is no right way to respond to being sexually assaulted (R. v. Varghese, 2024 ONCA 555, at para. 35) and that many victims of sexual assault continue to interact with their abuser (D.D., at para. 65).

30College Counsel reviewed the relevant evidence with the Panel, relied on the factors outlined in the Re Pitts and Director of Family Benefits Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, 1985 CanLII 2053 (ON SC) (“Pitts”) case and submitted that Student 1 was a credible and reliable witness. College Counsel submitted that Student 1 had no direct interest in the outcome of the case. Student 1 was adamant that the Member sexually assaulted her while she was his student. Her evidence was internally consistent on material facts and she was largely consistent on her various accounts, during the hearing and in her Complaint Form (Exhibit 2, Appendix D), of alleged events that occurred over 30 years ago. College Counsel further submitted that Student 1’s evidence was also externally consistent and corroborative with the Member’s evidence—the Member had a roofing company (and hired an employee to pick up shingles), and he frequented [XXX] at the material time. Student 1 was also frank about details she did not remember, forthright about unfavourable facts, and did not embellish her evidence. For example, she admitted conduct that she was not proud of, such as underage drinking and getting into a car with the Member while he was intoxicated. College Counsel finally submitted that Student 1’s account of events is more possible than the Member’s because Student 1 described a compelling memory of being sexually abused by the Member. In particular, Student 1 described incidents 1 and 2.

31On the other hand, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s evidence should be rejected based on the improbability of his story, inconsistencies with his prior statements, and the fact that his testimony was embellished. College Counsel submitted that it does not make sense that the Member did not remember Student 1 when he first responded to the complaint during the College’s investigation of the allegations with respect to this matter. Further, College Counsel submitted that it does not make sense that Student 1 knew that the Member had an employee who picked up shingles for his roofing company unless the Member made that suggestion to her when he asked her to work for his roofing company. In particular, the Member admitted his roofing company was an informal business with no formal employees and later confirmed in cross-examination that he hired at least one employee on one occasion to complete work for his roofing company. College Counsel also submitted that the Member contradicted prior statements. For example, the Member did not recall teaching Student 1, but when he was testifying, he recalled teaching her. He also testified that he went to [XXX] for a drink the odd time, but contradicted his own evidence by clarifying that he went once a week during the school year and about twice in the summer. The Member also exaggerated the fact that he had commitments every weekend during the period of 1985-1990.

G. SUBMISSIONS OF THE MEMBER

32Member’s Counsel submitted that the Panel should not find that the College has met its burden of proving the allegations in the Notice of Hearing and therefore should not find that the Member engaged in professional misconduct, as alleged.

33Member’s Counsel also argued that the College does not have jurisdiction with respect to particular 7 of the Notice of Hearing, as the events of this particular occurred 5-6 years after Student 1 graduated high school. Member’s Counsel further submitted that enough time had passed for the Member and Student 1 to have ended a student-teacher relationship.

34Member’s Counsel submitted that the Panel should find the Member was both a credible and reliable witness, because he was truthful and honest in his testimony, including about the facts that he could not recall. The Member clarified facts during his testimony. For example, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member was not being inconsistent when he testified that he recalled teaching Student 1. According to Member’s Counsel, the Member did not have a specific memory at the time of the College’s investigation of teaching Student 1 and no memory of any specific interactions they had or what years he taught her. He had responded to the best of his knowledge at that time. Additionally, the Member was not being inconsistent but rather confirmed information while testifying that he did, in fact, go to [XXX] a couple of times with colleagues to see a concert during the material time. Now, having had two years to reflect, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member has clarified some additional facts, yet, his overall story has remained the same.

35In reply to College Counsel’s submission on Student 1’s evidence being corroborated by the Member’s evidence, Member’s Counsel clarified that Student 1 could otherwise have known about the Member’s roofing company, as [XXX] was a small town and it would have been common knowledge in the community that the Member and his friend worked on local residents’ homes.

36Member’s Counsel submitted that the Panel should not find Student 1 as a credible and reliable witness. Student 1 was unable to provide details relating to the extra jobs the Member allegedly gave her and could not recall how often she would have spent time with the Member outside of school hours. Member’s Counsel also submitted that it seems unbelievable that Student 1 would regularly consume alcohol as a [XXX]-year-old at local bars. Such behaviour would have risked the bars’ losing their liquor licenses, and would have raised concern to other adults nearby, especially if Student 1 was consuming alcohol with a local teacher. With respect to incidents 1 and 2, Student 1 was unable to recall any details about the vehicle that the Member drove, and she was unable to recall any conversation they had during the car ride to her home. Member’s Counsel noted that Student 1 testified that she was intoxicated at the time, and further submitted that a significant amount of time has passed since the alleged events occurred, both of which call into question the reliability of her evidence.

H. reply submissions of college counsel

37College Counsel confirmed that the Panel has jurisdiction over the Member as he was a member of the College at the material time. With respect to the allegation in particular 7 of the Notice of Hearing, College Counsel reiterated the College’s position that they were not submitting that this alleged incident was a sexual assault, but rather a continuation of a breach of trust between the Member and Student 1. College Counsel submitted that such behaviour is professional misconduct as it re-traumatized Student 1, who was previously sexually abused by the Member.

I. DECISION ON FINDING

(1) Onus and standard of proof

38The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.

(2) Decision

39Having considered the evidence, onus, standard of proof, and the submissions of the parties, the Panel finds that the College did not meet its burden of proving that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to section 13 and subsections 14(d) and 14(f) of the TPA Regulation.

J. REASONS FOR DECISION

40The Panel has carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented in this matter. In the reasons that follow, the Panel comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel first sets out its factual findings and then explains why it found that the College did not meet its burden of proving that the Member engaged in professional misconduct, as alleged.

(1) Credibility

41In evaluating the evidence before it, the Panel recognizes that it can accept all, some, or none of any witness’ evidence. When deciding whether to accept a witness’ testimony, the Panel can consider the following credibility factors: the witness’ ability to observe and recall the events; whether the witness has an interest in the outcome of the hearing that may cloud their recollection; the plausibility or reasonability of the evidence; and the internal and external consistency (or inconsistency) of the evidence (Pitts). The Panel can also determine credibility based on logic, common sense, and its experience.

42The Panel found that both witnesses—Student 1 and the Member—were generally credible and each displayed some of the markers of credibility outlined in Pitts. They were each party to the events alleged, and the Panel is satisfied that they both recounted the events and were upfront about the details they could not recall. Both parties gave their evidence in a clear and measured manner. The Panel will deal with the differences in their versions of events in its factual findings below.

(2) Factual Findings

(a) Admitted Facts

43At the beginning of the hearing, College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit 2), signed on April 1, 2025, which provides the following:

1. Stephen Charles Truelove (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). As of October 24, 2019, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration has been Inactive/Non-Practising. A copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member is attached as Appendix “A”.

2. From 1982 to 1994, the Member was employed by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] [XXX] (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. Between 1985 and 1989, Student 1 attended the School. A copy of the Ontario Student Transcript of Student 1 is attached as Appendix “B”.

4. On January 5, 2022, the College investigator sent an email to the Member, asking to confirm his email address and that documents could be sent to that email address. On the same day, the Member responded to confirm that the email address was correct. A copy of the College investigator’s email to the Member and his response are attached as Appendix “C”.

5. On January 18, 2022, the College investigator sent an email to the Member with the College’s disclosure with respect to this matter. On the same day, the Member responded via email that he could open the disclosure. A copy of the College investigator’s email, enclosing the letter from the College Director of Investigations and Hearings and the redacted complaint, along with the Member’s email response, are attached as Appendix “D”.

6. On November 16, 2022, the College investigator sent further disclosure to the Member via email using a sharefile link. A copy of the College investigator’s email to the Member is attached as Appendix “E”.

7. On January 9, 2023, the Member’s counsel sent the Member’s response to the complaint to the College investigator. A copy of the Member’s response is attached as Appendix “F”.

(i) At all material times, the Member was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers

44Based on paragraph 1 and Appendix A of the Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit 2), the Panel finds that the College proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member was a member of the College at the material time, as alleged in particular 1 of the Notice of Hearing.

(ii) The Member obtained an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate on June 28, 1974 and a Certificate of Qualification and Registration on May 20, 1997. As of October 24, 2019, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is inactive/non-practising.

45Based on paragraph 1 and Appendix A of the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Panel finds that the College proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member obtained an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate on June 28, 1974, and a Certificate of Qualification and Registration on May 20, 1997, and that as of October 24, 2019, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration has been inactive/non-practising, as alleged in particular 2 of the Notice of Hearing.

(iii) At all material times, the Member was employed by Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] [XXX] (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

46Based on paragraph 2 of the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Panel finds that the College proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member was employed at the School at all the material times, as alleged in particular 3 of the Notice of Hearing.

(b) Contested Facts

(i) In or around the 1986/1987 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s [XXX] class. In or around the 1987/1988 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s [XXX] class in the [XXX] semester, and an [XXX] student in the teacher’s [XXX] class in the [XXX] semester.

47The Panel finds that the College has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that Student 1 was a student in the Member’s [XXX] classes during the 1986/1987 and 1987/1988 academic years, as alleged in particular 4 of the Notice of Hearing.

48Student 1 testified that the Member taught her [XXX] in [XXX] of high school and that the Member had a direct role in assigning her to his class. Student 1 implied that this was part of the “special treatment” the Member demonstrated towards her. Filed as evidence, Student 1’s Ontario School Transcript outlines that she was in Grade [XXX] [XXX] class during the [XXX] semester of 1986/1987 academic year, that she was in Grade [XXX] [XXX] class during the [XXX] semester of the 1987/1988 academic year, and that she was in [XXX] [XXX] class during the [XXX] semester of the 1987/1988 (Exhibit 2, Appendix B).

49The Member testified that he does recall teaching Student 1, but was unable to confirm which grade or year he would have taught her [XXX]. The Member testified that he “strongly doubts he taught [Student 1] for all five years”. He stated that it would have been unusual for a student to have the same teacher for all five years of high school as students were rotated and assigned to different [XXX] teachers’ classes each year. The Member further testified that he did not have a role in assigning students to his class in any given year. He testified that the [XXX] and the Guidance Department created class lists, not teachers, and it was not possible for teachers to change class assignments. The Panel accepts the Member’s evidence that he does not have a specific recollection of teaching Student 1 but that he does remember Student 1 generally and knows who she is.

50Based on the evidence provided, the Panel finds that Student 1 was a student in the Member’s [XXX] class for one or more courses between the period of 1986 and 1988. The Panel finds that the evidence regarding how many years the Member taught Student 1 is not directly relevant to the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel therefore placed limited weight on the conflicting evidence regarding whether the Member taught Student 1 for five years or two years when reaching its findings. The Panel finds that there was no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Member had a role in assigning Student 1 to his class in any given year or any evidence that suggests that the Member took direct steps to assign Student 1 to his class.

(ii) Between on or about September 1, 1986 and on or about June 30, 1988, the Member engaged in a personal and/or romantic relationship with Student 1 and/or engaged in boundary violations with Student 1, including but not limited to: (a) asking Student 1 to come to the School to do extra jobs for him

51The Panel does not find that the College has met its burden of proving that the Member engaged in a personal or romantic relationship with Student 1 or engaged in boundary violations with her by asking her to come to the School to do extra jobs, as alleged in particular 5(a) of the Notice of Hearing.

52Although the Panel finds Student 1 credible, the Panel finds Student 1’s evidence, and recollection of the alleged events, were inconsistent with respect to this allegation, and therefore finds Student 1’s recollection to be unreliable. While Student 1 testified that she could not recall with certainty, but she recalled the Member gave her extra jobs before school hours. Student 1 testified that she did not complete extra jobs after school hours as she often worked after school and/or hung out with friends in the hallways immediately following the end of the school day. On cross-examination, Student 1 could not recall what specific jobs she may have been asked to complete by the Member or when those jobs would have occurred, including the time of day. Student 1 testified that she does not remember, as it was so long ago.

53The Member denied ever asking Student 1 to come to the School to do extra jobs for him. The Member’s evidence countered Student 1’s evidence by testifying that he was often at the School before school hours working in his office—which was also the [XXX] Department’s office (the “Office”). The Office was attached to the Member’s classroom. The Member testified that he may have spoken to students after class time to address any questions. The Member also testified that teachers may have asked students, at times–typically at the beginning and at the end of a school term—to assist with moving textbooks between classrooms and the Office.

54The Panel finds that the Member may have asked Student 1 to assist with one or more extra jobs during the school year; however, there was insufficient evidence to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member specifically asked Student 1 to come to the School, outside of school hours, to assist him with extra jobs or that suggests this was a regular occurrence. More specifically, it is possible that the Member asked students, including Student 1, to assist with small tasks, such as moving textbooks as a general proposition. Further, the Panel finds that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Member singled Student 1 out specifically to assist him with extra jobs or treated her different from other students. In particular, Student 1 was unable to describe specific tasks that the Member asked her to perform that would indicate that his behaviour was targeted towards her.

(b) spending time alone with Student 1 after school hours

55The Panel does not find that the College has met its burden of proving that the Member spent time alone with Student 1 after school hours, as alleged in particular 5(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

56The Panel heard evidence from Student 1 that she was in the Office alone with the Member on one occasion. After incident 1, Student 1, did not attend school the following Monday. Student 1 testified that on the following Tuesday or later that week (she did not have a clear recollection of the timing), the Member called her into the Office, apologized and stated that “he had been drunk and it would not happen again”. Student 1 testified that she could not recall the time of day that this occured (either before or after school).

57Student 1 was unable to describe the Office, other than to describe that there may have been one or two desks located in the room. Student 1 testified that she did not recall any other students or staff in the Office but, on cross-examination, she recalled seeing Ms. Foy in the Office, on a separate occasion. Student 1 also testified that it was possible that the Member shared the Office with Ms. Foy.

58The Member testified that he did not spend time alone with Student 1 in his Office and denied that he apologized to Student 1, as she alleged. The Member testified that the only time he would have been alone in the Office would have been when he arrived at the School early in the morning to do work before school hours. The Member also testified that students were not allowed in the Office. The Office was a shared working space for him and other colleagues, and a place where staff would leave their personal belongings. If a student had a question or had missed a class, he may have asked students to speak with him in his classroom, and not in the Office.

59The Panel finds the Member’s evidence to be consistent and reliable. The Member had a clear recollection of the Office. He described that the Office had two entrances, one from his classroom and one from the hallway. The Member testified that there was a sign on the door of the entrance to the Office from the hallway indicating that it was “private” and students were not allowed in the Office. Students would knock on this entrance door of the Office and the teacher “would step into the hall” to speak with the student. Teachers would typically use the entrance door from the hallway but, on occasion, they would enter the Office through the Member’s classroom if the hallway entrance door was locked. On the other hand, Student 1 was unable to describe the Office, other than to describe that it was a private office which may have had one or two desks located in the Office. Student 1 also testified that she did not recall any other students or staff in the Office but, on cross-examination, she recalled seeing Ms. Foy in the Office. Furthermore, the Panel finds Student 1’s evidence regarding Ms. Foy’s being in the Office with the Member to be consistent with the Member’s evidence that the Office was shared with other teachers.

60Based on the evidence available to the Panel, the Panel finds that the College has not met its burden of proving that the Member engaged in a personal or romantic relationship, or in boundary violations, with Student 1 by meeting with her alone after school hours in the Office.

(c) telling Student 1 how special she was

61The Panel finds that the College has not met its burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told Student 1 how special she was, as alleged in particular 5(c) of the Notice of Hearing.

62The Panel heard evidence from the Member and Student 1 that the Member was generally friendly with students in his class and would ask students, at the beginning of class on Mondays, how their weekend was. The Member testified that he did this to engage with his students. The Member described himself as a “fun” teacher.

63There was no evidence led by the College during the hearing that the Member told Student 1 “how special she was”, as alleged. Contrary to Student 1’s original complaint to the College that the Member told Student 1 “how special [she] was, kiss me and fondle me” (Exhibit 2, Appendix D), Student 1’s evidence during the hearing was that she felt special. Indeed, Student 1 testified that the Member did not tell her that she was special but that his conduct made her feel special.

64As an example, Student 1 testified that she believed that the Member inflated her marks and that her [XXX] marks improved greatly by over 20% each year. Student 1’s evidence was successfully challenged on cross-examination. The Panel also reviewed her transcripts (Exhibit 2, Appendix B) and notes that the while Student 1’s marks in [XXX] and in the other [XXX] courses were generally higher than the marks she received in [XXX] and some other subjects (e.g.,[XXX]), her Grade [XXX] marks (83% in [XXX]) were not inflated in comparison to her marks in other subjects ([XXX] 83%, [XXX] 83% and [XXX] 81%), which were in a similar range. The Panel also finds that Student 1’s marks in [XXX] did not significantly increase between grade [XXX] (83%) and [XXX] (81%).

65While the Panel accepts that Student 1 may have felt special in the Member’s class, there was no evidence led to support a finding, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member engaged in boundary violations or in a personal and/or romantic relationship with Student 1 by telling her she was “special”, or otherwise singling her out to make her feel special.

(d) asking Student 1 to work for his roofing company in the summers

66The Panel does not find, on a balance of probabilities, that the College has proven that the Member asked Student 1 to work for his roofing company in the summers, as alleged in particular 5(d) of the Notice of Hearing.

67Student 1 testified that while she was the Member’s student, the Member offered her a summer job, at his roofing company, picking up shingles. Student 1 testified that she declined his offer and that she told the Member that she was afraid of heights. Although Student 1 could not recall which summer the Member asked her or how many times the Member offered her the job, her evidence was clear and consistent in that she never agreed to work for him at his roofing company.

68The Member denied ever asking Student 1, or any other student, to work for him at his roofing company. The Member testified that he took on roofing and decking jobs with a business partner during the summer months between 1985 and 1988. The Member testified that he hired and paid a fellow teacher on one or two occasions to help with work on one or two bigger jobs.

69The Panel finds that the College has not met its burden of proving that the Member asked Student 1 to work for his roofing company in the summers. The Panel finds that the Member’s evidence is more reliable and plausible. In particular, the Panel finds that the Member’s evidence is more plausible in that he did not hire students, or ask Student 1 to work for him at his roofing company. The Panel does not find it probable that the Member asked Student 1 to pick up shingles for him. The Panel also finds that it is reasonable and plausible, based on the Member’s evidence, that Student 1 was aware that the Member took on roofing jobs in the summer through word of mouth and/or common knowledge as they lived in a small town. More specifically, the Panel finds that this common knowledge explains why Student 1 would be aware of the Member’s roofing jobs and recall the Member engaged in these jobs despite the Panel’s finding that the Member’s evidence—that he never asked Student 1 to work for him or pick up shingles is more probable than Student 1’s evidence to the contrary.

(e) drinking alcohol with Student 1 in bars on one or more occasions

70The Panel finds that the College did not meet its burden of proving that the Member drank alcohol with Student 1 in bars on one or more occasions, as alleged in particular 5(e) of the Notice of Hearing.

71Student 1 testified that she saw the Member at [XXX] at the material time. Student 1 testified that she was about [XXX] years old at this time and testified that she consumed alcohol at both [XXX].

72With respect to [XXX], Student 1 testified that she saw the Member there two or three times. She also recalled that on one of these occasions at [XXX], she talked and joked with the Member while he held a drink in his hand. Student 1 testified that she saw the Member at [XXX] but did not recall interacting with him there.

73The Member denied ever-consuming alcohol with Student 1 at [XXX] at the material time. The Member acknowledged that he drank at [XXX] on more than one occasion during the material time. The evidence led during the hearing suggests that the Member and Student 1 arrived separately at [XXX] with different groups of people and they consumed alcohol separately. The evidence also establishes that the Member and Student 1 did not exchange or purchase alcoholic drinks for each other. Specifically, the Member testified that he went to [XXX] on two occasions. Both times were to see a concert with colleagues including Ms. Foy after they began dating (i.e., after 1987). The Member also denied talking and joking around with Student 1 at [XXX] or at any other bar. In fact, he testified that he never saw Student 1 at [XXX].

74The Panel notes that in his initial response to the complaint, the Member acknowledged attending [XXX] bar but stated that he “did not attend the [XXX]” (Exhibit 2, Appendix F). The Member subsequently testified being at [XXX] as set out above. The Panel finds that despite this inconsistency, the Member’s explanation and recollection of the evidence before the Panel—both during his direct testimony and under cross-examination—to be clear and consistent, and therefore credible.

75Having considered the evidence, the Panel is satisfied that Student 1 and the Member had both gone to [XXX] during the material time. However, there was no evidence that they arrived at the bar together. The evidence established that they arrived separately with different groups of people. Further, the Panel is not satisfied that the Member and Student 1 drank together. Rather, the evidence supports the conclusion that the Member and Student 1 consumed alcohol separately. The evidence did not prove that they bought each other drinks or that they even spoke to each other at the bar.

76For these reasons, the Panel does not find that College Counsel proved, on a balance of probabilities, that Student 1 and the Member drank alcohol together at [XXX], as alleged.

(f) driving alone with Student 1 in his motor vehicle

77The Panel does not find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member drove alone with Student 1 in his motor vehicle, as alleged in particular 5(f) of the Notice of Hearing.

78Student 1 testified that the Member drove her home from [XXX] on two occasions. Student 1 testified that the first time (incident 1) occurred during the school year when she was [XXX] years old. Student 1 testified that she “feels like” the Member drove her home in his friend’s car, but she was not certain of this and could not recall any specific details about the car. Student 1 testified that she got in the Member’s car after midnight, but before her 1:30 a.m. curfew. She stated that she was alone in the car with the Member and he drove her home directly from [XXX]. When they arrived at her family’s residence, the Member parked the car on her parent’s driveway and kissed her with an open mouth on the lips. Student 1 testified that when the Member kissed her, she pulled away. The Member also touched her breasts on the outside of her shirt by cupping her breasts with his hands and fondling them. Student 1 testified that she then got out of the car and went inside her parent’s home where she cried. Student 1 testified that she remembers feeling scared, upset, “grossed out” and “creeped out”.

79Student 1 testified that the Member drove her alone in his vehicle from [XXX] to her family residence a second time (incident 2) during the same year as incident 1. Student 1 could not recall if incident 2 occurred during the summer or the school year or what type of vehicle the Member drove her home in, but confirmed that she would have been [XXX] years old at the time. On this occasion, the Member told Student 1 that he had feelings for her and the Member tried to kiss her “but [she] got out of the car quicker that time”. Student 1 described the kiss as being the “same messy kiss” which was “open mouth”, “slobbery”, and “a sexual kiss”. The Panel notes that Student 1’s evidence regarding the kiss was somewhat inconsistent. During direct testimony, Student 1 initially stated the Member “tried to kiss me” but later described being kissed in specific detail.

80The Member’s evidence was consistent on direct examination and on cross-examination. The Member denied that Student 1 was ever in any vehicle with him and also denied ever driving her home. The Member was able to provide specific details regarding the make and model of the car he drove at the material time.

81In considering the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that the College has not proven on a balance of probabilities, that the Member drove alone with Student 1 his vehicle, as alleged, for the several reasons:

a) The allegations with respect to incident 1 are predicated on the assertion that incident 1 occurred when Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class. Based on Student 1’s evidence, incident 1 must have occurred prior to October 15, 1986, given Student 1’s date of birth (i.e.[XXX]). However, the evidence before the Panel is that Student 1 took Grade [XXX] [XXX] between February and June of 1987, when she was [XXX] years old. The evidence before the Panel regarding the timing of incident 1 calls the reliability of Student 1’s testimony into question;

b) The Member testified that he was at [XXX] for a concert with other teachers and with Ms. Foy. The Panel finds it less plausible that the Member offered to drive a student home alone from [XXX] when he was there on a date with Ms. Foy and with a group of teachers;

c) The evidence provided to the Panel demonstrates an inconsistent timeline. Student 1’s evidence is that there was a change in the Member’s conduct once he began dating Ms. Foy in 1987 because the Member “chilled out” on Student 1 after he began dating Ms. Foy. Based on the timeline provided, Student 1 saw the Member at [XXX] after he started dating Ms. Foy;

d) Student 1 was unable to recall any details about the vehicle that the Member used to drive her home, including confirmation of whether the car was the Member’s car or his friend’s car. Student 1 was also unable to confirm or recall the timing of incident 1 and incident 2—whether it occurred in the school year or the summer—or any surrounding details of the incidents (aside from the assault itself). The Panel finds the inconsistencies in Student 1’s timelines makes her evidence less reliable than the Member’s evidence;

e) The Panel finds it less plausible and less reasonable that the Member would have taken his friend’s car to drive his student, Student 1, home alone thus leaving his friend behind at the bar; and

f) The Member’s evidence that he actively avoided circumstances that could diminish or harm his professional reputation given that he was a well-known member of the community is plausible and reasonable. The Panel finds it plausible and believable that the Member would not have risked his professional career and reputation by driving Student 1 alone in his car or his friend’s car, given his professional goal of moving into an administrative role at the School.

82For all of these reasons, the Panel finds that the College has not proven particular 5(f) on a balance of probabilities.

(iii) Between on or about September 1, 1986 and on or about June 30, 1988, the Member engaged in physical contact and/or touching of a sexual nature with Student 1, including but not limited to: (a) kissing Student 1 on one or more occasions; and/or fondling and/or touching Student 1’s body over her clothing on one or more occasions.

83Based on the evidence, the Panel finds that the College has provided insufficient evidence to prove, on a balance of probabilities that on one or more occasions, the Member kissed, or that he fondled and/or touched Student 1’s body over her clothing, as alleged in particular 6 of the Notice of Hearing.

84In coming to this conclusion, the Panel notes that the College’s evidence with respect to this allegation was limited to incidents 1 and 2 described in particular 5(f). There was no evidence before the Panel that the Member had kissed or fondled and/or touched Student 1’s body over her clothing on other occasions between the relevant time period.

85In this circumstance, having found that the College has not proven particular 5(f), and the Panel also finds that the College has not proven particular 6. In reaching this finding, the Panel acknowledges Student 1’s evidence about the trauma she has experienced in her life. However, the Panel is unable to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the incidents, as alleged by the College, occurred.

(iv) On one occasion in or about 1992, 1993, or 1994, when Student 1 was no longer a student at the School or a minor, the Member engaged in physical contact and/or touching of a sexual nature with Student 1, including but not limited to engaging in sexual intercourse with Student 1.

86As previously summarized in this decision, College Counsel submitted that the allegation outlined in paragraph 7 of the Notice of Hearing demonstrates a continued breach of trust and re-traumatization of Student 1 by the Member. College Counsel clarified that there was no allegation before the Panel that this subsequent incident constituted sexual assault, but submitted that this subsequent alleged incident constitutes professional misconduct by the Member.

87Based on College Counsel’s submissions and given the Panel’s finding that the College did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Notice of Hearing, there is no basis for the Panel to consider or find a continued breach of trust or a re-traumatization by the Member. In other words, the allegation of particular 7 of the Notice of Hearing falls away given College Counsel's submission and the Panel’s earlier findings.

(3) Legal Conclusions

88Having concluded that the factual allegations made against the Member outlined in particulars 5, 6, 7 of the Notice of Hearing have not been proven, the Panel finds that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Member engaged in professional misconduct by contravening section 13, or either of subsections 14(d) and 14(f) of the regulation made under the TPA Regulation.