DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Froome 2025 ONOCT 57

Date: 2025-09-19

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

David John Froome, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

DAVID JOHN FROOME (REGISTRATION #518967)

PANEL: Yasser Leheta, OCT, Chair Michelle Pinsonneault, OCT Myrna Tulandi

HEARD: September 12, 2025

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Karen Ensslen and Jordyn Gooden, for David John Froome David Taylor, Independent Legal Counsel

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

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on September 12, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2David John Froome (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 June 6, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that David John Froome is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);¹

(b) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(c) 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);

(d) 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);

(e) 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:

1. The Member is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”). The Member taught with the Board from 2008 until 2022, including 10 years as a regular full-time teacher at the School.

Inappropriate Social Media Posts:

3. Between February 2016 and December 2021, the Member posted and reposted inappropriate tweets that were unprofessional and at times contained inappropriate sexual inuendo on his public Twitter account, including:

(a) “Being single on Valentines Day can be quite handy”;

(b) “I only give students an A, B, C, or F. I’d like to keep my job, thanks”;

(c) “Let’s be honest: there’s probably one teacher you’ll miss the most. Well, it goes vice versa”;

(d) tweeted a screenshot of a word puzzle with the letters “B-U-T-T-S-E-X” noted as the letters to choose from;

(e) “Oh teenage boys. Never change”, in reference to a photo of a scoreboard, with each team having “69” points;

(f) “Whenever a student writes demonstrating’ as demenstrating’, I always imagine some form of voodoo priestess ritualistically removing all forms of cramping and bleeding on a woman mid-cycle”;

(g) “Ever spend a long time working on a poop, toiling away, only to look down afterwards and be disappointed, thinking, “All that work, only to produce this little turd? That’s how some of your parents feel”;

(h) “What’s the greatest feeling? No idea, but based on the erection he gets every time, it might be my dog and taking a dump”;

(i) “If you’re afraid or too grossed out to pee in the shower, we can’t be friends. Sorry. My only metric”;

(j) Two side-by-side images, the first containing the text, “There is only one thing girls want, and it starts with a P and ends in a S”, and the second containing a still from the Lord of the Rings, where a character mouths the word “potatoes”;

(k) “Always consider proper inflatable placement,” along with an accompanying photo of two large Christmas inflatables that appear to be in a sexually suggestive position.

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of these exchanges.

4. The Member was aware that, at the time he posted the above tweets, approximately half of his 196 followers were former and current students.

Student 1:

5. During the [XXX] academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] female student at the School. During the second semester, Student 1 was in the Member’s [XXX] class. Student 1 graduated in June [XXX], and turned eighteen years old in July [XXX].

6. During the [XXX] academic year, Teacher A was a male teacher at the School who taught Student 1 Grade [XXX] [XXX]. Teacher A taught at the School until he retired from the Board in June 2018.

7. In the spring of [XXX], Student 1 followed the Member on Twitter, and initiated communication with the Member on that platform. The Member did not engage in any significant interaction with Student 1 until after she graduated in June [XXX]. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of their exchanges in and around April 19, [XXX].

8. Following graduation, the Member and Student 1 communicated via Twitter. Student 1 attempted to add the Member as a friend on Facebook and the Member declined. Soon after, Student 1 invited the Member to her goodbye party scheduled for August [XXX]. The Member declined the invitation and communicated that he had concerns about how attending the event might be perceived. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of their exchanges about this issue on August 8, [XXX].

9. In August [XXX], the Member continued to communicate with Student 1 on Twitter, including:

(a) on August 8, [XXX], the Member messaged Student 1, “Stay safe. Bag it up. Remember that for prom night. Wait…never mind. Heat, fatigue and alcohol are making me dumber”;

(b) on August 16 and 17, [XXX], the Member tweeted to Student 1, “Psssst…high school is over”. He made a light-hearted comment to Student 1 stating that he was “glad we’re developing a generation of kids capable of constructive criticism and slight ribbing”. Student 1 replied, “glad we’re developing a generation of teachers who think it’s appropriate to start rivalries with students on Twitter…”. The Member responded by noting that she was a “former student”, acknowledged he understood her point of view, and stated that “Rivalry is a strong word; denotes we both dislike each other, which is untrue”, followed by “Today’s mission: behave on Twitter”;

(c) on August 22, [XXX], in or around the time that Student 1 was preparing to move away for university, the Member provided her with his personal phone number, and suggested that she could reach out “if ever [she needed] real advice from a non-parental adult, or [was] feeling stressed”.

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” are copies of these exchanges.

10. In or around late August or early September [XXX], Student 1 moved to another province to attend university. Between September [XXX] and November [XXX], the Member and Student 1 exchanged numerous text messages, some of which included messages containing sexual innuendo and/ or sexual references, including the following:

(a) at the Member’s suggestion, they planned to read and discuss the book 1984, since neither of them had read it previously. On October 9, [XXX], the Member texted Student 1 that although he had not finished the book yet, he was “pretty sure” he was the main male character in the sense of having “a reserved resignation to the status quo, while internally wanting much more”. The Member also described that the book “got pretty sexy at points”, not in an erotic sense but regarding the “perceived wrongness” of the main characters’ relationship;

(b) when Student 1 texted a “thumbs up” emoji followed by an “okay” emoji after he agreed to review her university paper, the Member responded, “does that mean thumb up ass?”, and stated that it was “the natural progression of [“finger pointing right” emoji beside an “okay” emoji]”;

(c) the Member told Student 1 that he had a dream about her, and remarked that it was “probably telling [him] to stop flirting with young women, and stop having untoward thoughts”;

(d) the Member wrote, “Maybe I had a wild high school experience and got it out of my system early (Yet still give off a thirsty vibe)”;

(e) he shared that he and his wife had discussed “threesomes”, and that his wife “wasn’t down btw [sic]”;

(f) when Student 1 suggested that she wanted someone rich to whisk her away somewhere, the Member told Student 1 to “get a sugar daddy”. Student 1 responded by saying that it was “in the process”, and the Member responded, “ Well done… Hope his balls aren’t too saggy”.

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” are copies of these texts.

11. On or around October 18 and into October 19, [XXX], the Member exchanged electronic messages with Student 1 that included personal disclosures, personal questions, and sexual references, including when he:

(a) told Student 1 that his father thought he was gay until he was 18, and referenced his “V card at 17”;

(b) told Student 1 about his sexual history including as a high school student, and that he “had a blast… just didn’t blast as much as others”;

(c) asked Student 1, “so…you’re not lesbian?”;

(d) asked Student 1, “what else constitutes `lesbian vibes?’ The fact that a pretty girl doesn’t have a bf [sic], therefore she’s gay?”;

(e) in response to Student 1’s reference to the guys at university “can’t go 3 days without touching [themselves],” the Member replied, “3 days is pretty good”;

(f) in response to Student 1 writing, “Fuck social norms,” the Member replied, “Then call me Social Norm”;

(g) in response to Student 1 informing the Member she will be home at the end of December, the Member asked, “then we’re smoking pot?”.

12. During these exchanges, Student 1 questioned the Member about his comments and teased him for flirting with ex students. When the Member seemed taken aback by her comments, she stated, “C’mon you can’t say what you did and expect me not to ask questions”. In response, the Member told her that he was “…honestly floored. I thought we were at a level of honesty and condor, but I guess I’ll remain professional from here on out. Condor? Candor.”

13. During the same exchange, Student 1 disclosed that she “got dangerously close to doing something illegal with another teacher” when she was in Grade [XXX], and that everyone told her she had misinterpreted the situation. She asked the Member to “lend some perspective”, and described her interactions with Teacher A to the Member.

14. Student 1 described one occasion where she and Teacher A were in a classroom discussing a grade. She stated that, over the course of the conversation, she believed the two gradually moved closer together until their faces were an inch apart from one another. Student 1 said that Teacher A was staring at her and asked the Member “[w]hat else does it mean when somebody just stares directly at you from that distance?”.

15. In response to Student 1’s question, the Member stated that Teacher A’s conduct was “…inappropriate… I can’t excuse my colleague on that”, and asked Student 1 if she was “okay”. Student 1 then disclosed other incidents involving Teacher A that left her feeling confused, including that Teacher A had a “pet name for [her] and a thing for calling [her] special, and made a joke about dating her once”. The Member then reassured Student 1 that “I don’t think you read the situation wrong, I can’t interpret that any other way for you”. He also apologized to her for his behaviour as he recognized that speaking to her like “[he] would [his] friends” may have put her in a “weird situation”. In response, Student 1 texted, “Meh…I never got that vibe from you”.

16. Following his apology, the Member made several inappropriate jokes that were intended to lighten the mood. These responses included:

(a) “Want me to fuck him up?”;

(b) “You’re hideous with a shit personality”;

(c) “You sound in love”;

(d) “…keep having a keen interest in [XXX]…sorry…typo… `[XXX]’”, in reference to Teacher A;

(e) when Student 1 wrote that she was “still hung up on it,” the Member responded, “Well, you’re graduated now, so it’s all good… right?...???”;

(f) when Student 1 wrote that she had been “predatorized [sic],” the Member told her that he would “report it first thing tomorrow”.

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” are copies of the exchanges referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12.

17. The Member and Student 1 continued to communicate sporadically over the following years. Between January [XXX] and March [XXX], the Student referenced her previous interactions with Teacher A. In these messages, Student 1 proposed confronting Teacher A, and asked the Member a series of questions. Examples of their exchanges include:

(a) when Student 1 said, “Technically, if you believe me, what [Teacher A] did was still probably illegal”, the Member responded, “He’d get reprimanded, for sure”;

(b) in response to Student 1’s “hypothetical questions”, which appear to refer to her situation with Teacher A in Grade [XXX], the Member said, “Moral: adult always SHOULD know better…Certainly should not engage”;

(c) he offered, “Need [Teacher A’s] personal email?”;

(d) when Student 1 told the Member that she referenced “the thing about [his] dream and all that awkward stuff to prove that teachers consistently sexualize students” and “that at least [the Member had been] forward about whatever it was”, reminding him that he “actually told [her] what the dream was about”, the Member said he didn’t recall the dream, apologized if he “exacerbated how [she] felt”, and suggested that he had been “trying to add “insight when listening would have been more appropriate”. Later in the conversation, the Member apologized for not remembering the dream and stated that “dreams are weird”. Student 1 responded, “Yes, but you also didn’t need to tell me…But at least it’s not awkward now as it was”.

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” are copies of these texts.

18. The Member and Student 1 continued to exchange text messages until [XXX]. There have been no allegations of inappropriate communications subsequent to March [XXX].

Board Investigation:

19. In February 2022, Student 1 filed a complaint with the Board regarding the Member and two other teachers, including Teacher A. Student 1 provided the Board with screenshots of some of the text messages she and the Member exchanged.

20. During the Board’s investigation, the Member explained that he had maintained a relationship with Student 1 and stated that the two would discuss a variety of subjects. The Member acknowledged he made a mistake when he assumed that because Student 1 had graduated, they could be friends and the power imbalance between them no longer existed. He further acknowledged that certain conversations he had with Student 1 contained sexual innuendo which may have confused Student 1 and was not appropriate, and he acknowledged that he should have reported what Student 1 told him about Teacher A to the administration, given his responsibility to ensure and maintain student safety. The Member also stated that his relationship with Student 1 was an “anomaly” and did not represent a pattern of behaviour, a view that was consistent with the information gathered by the Board in its investigation.

21. Following its investigation, the Board terminated the Member’s employment, effective July 11, 2022. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “I” are copies of the Board’s letters dated June 30, 2022, and July 11, 2022.

GUILTY PLEA

22. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

23. 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(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19).

24. 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.

25. 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

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. College Counsel also stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw subsection 1(5) was sought as the nature of the Member’s conduct is more properly captured by subsection 1(14). The Panel granted the request.

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 12, 2025 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 21 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 demonstrate that the Member made inappropriate social media posts and made inappropriate comments to a former student, Student 1. The Admitted Facts also demonstrated that the Member failed to report Student 1’s concerns about Teacher A’s conduct towards her, which occurred while she was a student at the School, to the School’s administration.

9The Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, which are set out in section 26 of the By-laws of the Ontario College of Teachers.

10The Panel notes that the Member did not have a legal duty to report Student 1’s concerns about Teacher A’s conduct toward Student 1 as she was not under 16 years of age at the time of the disclosure. However, the Member’s failure to report her concerns to the School administration was not in accordance with the ethical standards of “Care”, “Respect”, “Trust” and “Integrity”. The Member should have dealt with Student 1’s concerns with compassion and empathy, and consideration for her dignity and well-being, in accordance with the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect”. He should have acted on the information that Student 1 shared with him and he should have acted morally, and with fairness, openness and reliability as required by the ethical standards of “Trust” and “Integrity”. The Member did not do so. Swift action was required not only to ensure Student 1’s well-being but also in consideration of the safety and well-being of other students interacting with Teacher A up until his retirement from the Board in 2018.

11By communicating privately with Student 1 over social media—while she was his student—and over text message—weeks after she graduated from the School and turned 18 years old—the Member showed a lack of professional judgment and violated the trust that Student 1 and her parents had placed in him. The Member did not honour the emotional well-being of Student 1, when he put his own personal interests above the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship—which still existed during this period of time as Student 1 had just graduated. Student 1 was in a vulnerable position relative to the authority held by the Member, and it was not fair for the Member to have blurred the lines of their relationship by exchanging messages containing personal disclosures, sexual references and sexual innuendos, such as telling Student 1 that he had a dream about her, that he and his wife had discussed threesomes and that he had told her to “get a sugar daddy”.

12Moreover, the Member failed to demonstrate care and commitment to students’ well-being by tweeting and retweeting inappropriate posts, which contained sexual innuendos on his Twitter account, as he knew these posts would be read by his followers which included approximately 100 of his current and former students.

13The Member’s conduct as described above also contravenes subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among other things, as teachers are in a position of trust and authority, they are expected to set an example for students by acting as positive role models. Teachers must exemplify moral values both on and off duty. The Panel finds that the Member failed to exemplify moral virtues and act as a positive role model by inviting Student 1, a recent graduate, to contact him privately on his personal phone and engage in sexually suggestive communications with her late at night and during the early hours of the morning. When the Member used his position of trust and authority to get close to Student 1 by communicating outside of school, first while she was his student and later as a recent graduate, he fundamentally failed his duties as a teacher. Moreover, the Panel also finds that by failing to immediately report Student 1’s concerns regarding Teacher A’s conduct towards her to the School administration and by disseminating inappropriate tweets to current and former students, the Member failed to act as a positive role model.

14The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). Teachers are expected to maintain professionalism at all times. This expectation extends to their conduct outside of the classroom and to all members of the public, given the unique position of trust and authority that teachers hold in their communities. The Member demonstrated poor professional judgment by sending text messages containing sexual innuendos and sexual references to a former student. Although Student 1 had recently graduated from the School, Student 1 was still young and vulnerable, and inherent of the power imbalance between a teacher and his student, which was well established when Student 1 was in the Member’s [XXX] class in the [XXX] semester of the [XXX] academic year. The Member also demonstrated poor professional judgment by disseminating inappropriate tweets to current and former students and by failing to immediately report Student 1’s concerns about Teacher A to the School’s administration. The Member’s behaviour demonstrated significant moral and professional failings and can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

15The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s conduct, as a whole, has undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and has eroded the trust and confidence that students, parents and the public place in teachers.

F. PENALTY DECISION

16The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 12, 2025, 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 in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, or by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of twelve (12) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 120 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics and boundary violations, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the 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;

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

(i) stating 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

17The 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.² 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 the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Williams, 2023 ONOCT 2, Ontario College of Teachers v. Cha, 2023 ONOCT 79, Ontario College of Teachers v. Betz, 2023 ONOCT 1, Ontario College of Teachers v. Costigan, 2021 ONOCT 115, Ontario College of Teachers v. Primi, 2022 ONOCT 56 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Carullo, 2022 ONOCT 104.

18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the following: (1) the Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment, as he sent various inappropriate messages to Student 1 between the period of [XXX]; (2) the Member is an experienced teacher and ought to have known his ethical and moral obligations related to the duty to report; and (3) the Member ought to have known that his inappropriate tweets that contained sexual innuendos would be viewed by his followers, which included approximately 100 current and former students. The mitigating factors in the Member’s case are the following: (1) the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and sparring Student 1 from testifying about her experience with the Member; (2) the Member expressed sincere remorse, and (3) the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

19The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Teachers should always behave ethically and act as positive role models, which the Member failed to do in this case. Furthermore, members are expected to ensure students’ safety and well-being, which the Member failed to do by not immediately reporting the allegations disclosed by Student 1 to the appropriate authorities. 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.

20Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a 12-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The 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 September 27, 2025, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

21The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics and boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

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