Ontario College of Teachers v Van Gentevoort, 2025 ONOCT 58

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Van Gentevoort 2025 ONOCT 58

Date: 2025-09-23

PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Michael William Van Gentevoort, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

MICHAEL WILLIAM VAN GENTEVOORT (REGISTRATION #441701)

PANEL: Kimberley Westfall-Connor, Chair Anne Laflamme, OCT Linda Staudt, OCT

HEARD: July 21, 2025

Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Anne Cumming, for Michael William Van Gentevoort David Taylor, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 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 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, or the identifies of Student 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 who were allegedly the subject of sexual misconduct.

1This penalty stage of the proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on July 21, 2025. In accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, this matter proceeded by way of an electronic hearing.

2On April 5, 2025, the Panel found that Michael William Van Gentevoort (the “Member”) engaged in professional misconduct. The Panel found that, during the spring semester of 2019, the Member made an inappropriate comment about surgery and requiring the use of a catheter to students. The Panel found that, in September 2019, the Member exposed students to remarks of a sexual nature by asking Student 1 “Do you want to play with my chalk?”. The Panel also found that the Member yelled at students in his [XXX] class, told them not to have hope in [XXX] and made known their performances on a [XXX] quiz publicly in class.

3Based on this conduct, the Panel found that the Member contravened subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), and 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel also found that the Member engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act. The Panel did not find that the Member contravened subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

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

A. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

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

1. an oral reprimand;

2. a suspension in the range of seven to nine months in duration; and

3. terms, conditions or limitations which would restrict the Member from returning to the teaching profession until he successfully completes a course regarding anger management, appropriate communications with students and classroom management.

6College Counsel presented six cases to the Panel in support of its proposed penalty: Ontario College of Teachers v. Sanderson, 2021 ONOCT 56 (“Sanderson”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79 (“Antonenko”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Labbé, 2018 ONOCT 39 (“Labbé”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Baker, 2021 ONOCT 59; Ontario College of Teachers v. Orton, 2017 ONOCT 100; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Boyce, 2021 ONOCT 112. College Counsel submitted that these cases provide guidance with respect to the Panel’s determination of the appropriate penalty, as they establish a range of reasonable penalties from cases involving similar acts of professional misconduct.

7College Counsel also noted the aggravating and mitigating factors in the Member’s case. College Counsel submitted only one mitigating factor which was the fact that the Member does not have any prior College discipline findings. In terms of aggravating factors, College Counsel noted three. The first is that the Member has a prior discipline history with the Board for similar conduct that was at issue in these proceedings. College Counsel presented a document brief (Exhibit 16) which contained complaints and warnings from the Member’s Board dating from 2007, 2009 and 2010. College Counsel submitted that these past warnings to the Member are relevant as it demonstrates an ongoing pattern of similar misconduct; they demonstrate that the Member received explicit warning and advice but persisted in the same conduct. College Counsel cautioned the Panel not to use this evidence to increase the penalty because of the conduct itself, but rather to consider it as an aggravating factor. The second aggravating factor submitted by College Counsel is that the Member made students in his September 2019 [XXX] class feel discouraged and hopeless when he should have provided students with additional support given that he had 19 students with Individualized Educational Plans (“IEP”) in that class. Finally, the third aggravating factor noted was that the Member’s conduct impacted several students.

B. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF THE MEMBER

8Member’s Counsel submitted that the appropriate penalty should include the following elements:

1. a written reprimand;

2. a suspension in the range of three to five months in duration; and

3. terms, conditions or limitations which would restrict the Member from returning to the teaching profession until he successfully completes a course regarding anger management and classroom management.

9Member’s Counsel presented six cases to the Panel in support of its proposed penalty: Ontario College of Teachers v. Arsenault, 2022 ONOCT 39; Ontario College of Teachers v. Fazl, 2020 ONOCT 222 (“Fazl”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Odjig, 2018 ONOCT 27 (“Odjig”); Labbé; Ontario College of Teachers v. Ndoume Angoune, 2024 ONOCT 13 (“Ndoume Angoune”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Matar, 2024 ONOCT 16 (“Matar”). Member’s Counsel submitted that in the above-noted cases, the suspension lengths vary between three to six months, but that the Member is seeking less than six months suspension because of the length of his proceedings, which can not be attributable to the Member. The Member did not agree to any of the 14 allegations made against him, as it is his right to do so and the College bears the burden to prove those allegations, and they could not prove them all. Member’s Counsel argued that there has to be proportionality between the allegations that were proven and the penalty that is issued.

10Further, Member’s Counsel objected to the document brief (Exhibit 16) presented by College Counsel. Member’s Counsel submitted that it was unfair and a breach of natural justice to present past examples of Board discipline in order to shore up the College’s penalty case when there was no testimony given regarding these past discipline warnings and letters and they have not been proven. Member’s Counsel argued that the incidents referred to in these Board warning letters and complaints are quite dated. Member’s Counsel also argued that to use these past discipline warnings to build a penalty case is improper and submitted that the Panel should only consider their findings to determine what the appropriate penalty should be.

C. REPLY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

11College Counsel disagreed with Member’s Counsel’s objection. College Counsel presented five cases to support their position that past Board discipline is relevant evidence: Ontario College of Teachers v. Cockburn, 2021 ONOCT 45; Matar; Ontario College of Teachers v. Dimarco, 2021 ONOCT 142; Ontario College of Teachers v. Lalonde, 2021 ONOCT 78; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Boys, 2021 ONOCT 49. College Counsel presented these cases to demonstrate that past Discipline Committees have accepted evidence of prior Board discipline warnings and letters as an aggravating factor. College Counsel submitted that at the penalty stage, the Panel is not limited to only consider the conduct at issue when determining the aggravating factors and the Panel can consider a pattern of behaviour.

D. PENALTY DECISION

12The Panel makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee within 60 days of the date of the Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision, on a date to be arranged by the Member and the Tribunals’ Office, to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered electronically, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of nine months commencing on the 15^th calendar day following the date of the Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;

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

(a) Within 90 days of the date of the Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management and classroom management, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision and Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision of the Panel;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Panel’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

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

(i) stating whether the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

E. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

13The Panel carefully considered the submissions of the parties with respect to penalty and reviewed the relevant jurisprudence provided. The Panel believes that the order set out above satisfies the penalty objectives of deterrence, rehabilitation, transparency, and protection of the public interest, and that it is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member. The penalty is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous case presented by College Counsel: Sanderson.

(1) Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are three aggravating factors in the Member’s case.

15The first aggravating factor is this was not the first time that the Member had acted inappropriately and that the Member did not correct his behaviour after disciplinary intervention at the Board level. Prior to the conduct at issue in this case, the Member received warnings and discipline letters from his employer for similar conduct (Exhibit 16). Subsection 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, RSO 1990, c S.22 allows the Discipline Committee to admit as evidence at a hearing any thing or document that is relevant to the subject matter of the hearing, whether or not it has been proven or given under affirmation or oath. Given this broad authority, the Panel admitted into evidence the College’s document brief for penalty hearing which consists of prior Board warnings and letters that the Member received dating from 2007, 2009 and 2010 (Exhibit 16). The Panel finds these documents relevant to the subject matter of this hearing. The documents demonstrate that the Member received warnings and letters from his employer regarding his conduct and despite this did not change his behaviour years later. Further, as illustrated in the caselaw provided by College Counsel, Discipline Committees routinely consider prior board discipline as an aggravating factor. Therefore, the Panel finds that the prior Board warnings and letters indicate that it was not the first time the Member acted inappropriately and that the Member did not correct his behaviour after disciplinary intervention at the Board level, which is an aggravating factor.

16The second aggravating factor is the fact that the Member’s September 2019 [XXX] class had numerous students with IEPs and who required additional support. Instead, they received the opposite. The Member discouraged the students and created a negative learning environment.

17The third aggravating factor is the fact that the Member’s conduct impacted several students. The Member’s conduct occurred in three different classes; therefore, a significant number of students were impacted.

18In terms of mitigating factors, the Member does not have any prior discipline findings before the Discipline Committee. The Panel does not accept Member’s Counsel submission that the fact that not all allegations were proven is a mitigating factor. This consideration is more appropriate at the costs stage when evaluating the success of the parties and determining the appropriate costs amount.

(2) Reprimand

19The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated inappropriate behaviour warrants a reprimand. The Member demonstrated a complete lack of commitment to students and students’ learning by creating a negative learning environment. The Member yelled at students, made them feel discouraged by making students’ performances known in front of the class, and also made a sexually suggestive comment to a student in front of the class. Members of the teaching profession are expected to promote supportive learning environments and to model appropriate and respectful behaviour. The Member’s conduct fell short of meeting these expectations. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

20With respect to the form of the reprimand, College Counsel requested that it be delivered in person or electronically, whereas Member’s Counsel requested a written reprimand. The Panel finds that an oral reprimand is more appropriate. A reprimand delivered in person or electronically allows the Discipline Committee to directly face the Member, have an opportunity to speak to him and let him know why his behaviour is so concerning. The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submissions that an oral reprimand is the default form of reprimand and is more effective. The Panel reviewed the additional caselaw provided by College Counsel regarding the form of the reprimand: Ontario College of Teachers v. Saunders, 2016 ONOCT 67; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Clements, 2016 ONOCT 11. The Panel agrees with the panels in those cases that an oral reprimand is important to directly address its concerns with the Member and also ensures that a member receives the reprimand. Member’s Counsel did not provide any reasons why the reprimand should be delivered in writing versus in person or electronically and there was no indication given that the Member could not attend an oral reprimand. Given this, the Panel finds it appropriate to deliver the reprimand orally and electronically to the Member.

(3) Suspension

21Given the serious and repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a nine-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The Panel considered the caselaw provided by the parties and finds that the circumstances in Sanderson are most analogous to the Member’s case. The conduct in Sanderson is of a similar nature to the Member’s. For instance, Ms. Sanderson yelled on multiple occasions in class, discussed a student’s poor academic performance in front of other students, and made inappropriate comments to students such as commenting about a student’s “butt jiggling” and commenting “nice legs” to a student. Like the Member, Ms. Sanderson had received prior warnings from her school administration regarding her conduct. Sanderson is different from the Member’s case in that Ms. Sanderson was found to have engaged in physical abuse and there were no findings of sexual misconduct. However, Ms. Sanderson pleaded no contest, entered a joint submission on penalty and undertook to resign as a member of the College, which were considered as mitigating factors and suggests that, without those mitigating factors, the suspension period would have been longer. Ultimately, Ms. Sanderson was given an eight-month suspension. In this present case, the Member does not benefit from the same mitigating factors. The above-noted differences justify a lengthier suspension (i.e., nine months) for the Member.

22Further, some of the other cases provided by College Counsel had similar facts to the Member’s case, but are distinguishable because did not involve a finding of sexual misconduct. For example, in Antonenko the member belittled students, yelled at students and students felt discouraged in the member’s class, Ms. Antonenko had also received prior warnings from her employer. However, there was no finding of sexual misconduct, Ms. Antonenko pleaded no contest and entered a joint submission on penalty. She was ultimately given a five-month suspension. In Labbé, the member was intimidating and brusque, she yelled at students and made inappropriate comments to students. She received a six-month suspension; however, there was no finding of sexual misconduct. That is an important distinction with the Member’s case, a finding of sexual misconduct warrants a longer suspension in this instance.

23Finally, the Panel also considered the caselaw presented by Member’s Counsel, but did not find any of them particularly similar to the Member’s case. For instance, in Ndoume Angoune the member failed to manage his classroom, left his classroom unsupervised, failed to intervene when students were roughhousing and used his personal cellphone during teaching lessons. Although Mr. Ndoume Angoune yelled at students frequently and made some inappropriate comments, there was no finding of sexual misconduct. In Odjig, the member made unprofessional comments to students that made them feel uncomfortable and sexually harassed colleagues. However, there was no conduct that constituted discouraging or belittling students about their performance in class nor any finding of sexual misconduct related to students. The Fazl case is also distinguishable in that the member engaged in sexual harassment towards colleagues; there was no finding of sexual misconduct and the conduct was exclusively towards colleagues and not students.

24Given this, the Panel determines that a nine-month suspension is appropriate. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and should reinforce for him that the College does not tolerate the type of conduct in which he engaged. Recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession and will serve and protect the public interest.

(4) Coursework

25The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding anger management and classroom management 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. The Panel agrees with Member’s Counsel submissions that the third coursework component (appropriate communications with students) sought by the College is repetitive of the classroom management component. The Panel is satisfied that the classroom management component will ultimately address appropriate communications with students.

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

F. costs submissions of college counsel

27College Counsel sought an order for costs payable by the Member to the College pursuant to subsection 30(5) of the Act. College Counsel requested a total costs order of $35,000. College Counsel submitted that the proceedings lasted nine days (including the penalty hearing) and that according to Rule 16.05(3) and Tariff A, the College would be entitled to seek $90,000 in costs for nine hearing days without evidence of the College’s costs. However, College Counsel submitted that they are seeking less than half of that amount and believes that a $35,000 costs award is a fair allocation between the parties.

28College Counsel presented three cases in support of their position regarding costs: Matar; Ontario College of Teachers v. Paterson, 2023 ONOCT 5, 2023 ONOCT 05; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Okafor, 2024 ONOCT 31. College Counsel submitted that the Panel should be guided by the factors in the Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2019 ONOCT 20 (“Hall”) decision when considering the appropriate costs amount. The College did not prove all the allegations outlined in the Notice of Hearing, and conceded that no evidence was called related to Student 6, and no time was spent trying to establish particulars 4 (b) through (f) of the Notice of Hearing. However, College Counsel submitted that there was unnecessary time wasted during these proceedings by the Member’s refusal to adopt admissions he had made during a Board disciplinary meeting. Portions of the Board meeting interview notes were admitted into evidence and the Member insisted on calling Mr. Sinclair (the Board’s general counsel) as a witness (who essentially repeated what the notes said). Finally, College Counsel submitted that the Member did not provide any evidence as to his ability to pay a costs order.

G. costs submissions of the member

29Member’s Counsel submitted that a total costs order of $5,000 payable by the Member to the College would be more appropriate. Member’s Counsel submitted that the Panel ought to consider the success of the parties. Member’s Counsel submitted the quantum of the costs order should reflect that the College was only partially successful and note that the College was unable to prove more than half of the allegations they made against the Member. Member’s Counsel argued that one of the reasons that the hearing lasted nine days in total was because of the error made on the part of the College when they provided a Notice of Hearing that was the subject of contention, and the discussions regarding the error lasted about a hearing day. Member’s Counsel also submitted that costs are subject to both evidentiary proof and submissions and therefore was providing the Panel with submissions regarding the Member’s inability to pay costs exceeding $5,000. Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member’s employment was terminated by the Board, he has not worked for the past five years, and he does not anticipate working in the near future. The Member is also grieving his termination, and the arbitration case will not be completed for another two years. Finally, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member had to obtain a second mortgage through his home to pay for the fees associated with these proceedings.

H. costs decision

30The Panel makes the following order as to costs:

1. The Member shall pay costs of this proceeding to the College, fixed in the amount of $35,000, which must be paid in equal monthly installments over 60 months (5 years) beginning 30 days after the release of the Panel’s Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision.

I. reasons for costs decision

31The Panel has the jurisdiction and authority to order costs payable by a member to the College where it has found that member guilty of professional misconduct, according to paragraph 4 of subsection 30(5) of the Act. Pursuant to Rule 16.05(3) of the Rules, the College is not required to provide evidence of the costs of a day of hearing if the amount is equal to or less than the amount set out in Tariff A.

32The Panel considered the Hall factors carefully. The factors are as follows:

Apportioning costs of proceeding: Costs orders are compensatory, rather than punitive, in nature. Their purpose is to apportion the financial burden of a discipline proceeding between the parties fairly. The nature or severity of a member’s misconduct is not a factor that should be considered when determining whether costs should be ordered or the quantum of any order.

Uncooperative and vexatious conduct: Uncooperative or obstructionist conduct in the course of the litigation process will be a significant factor in the costs determination. Conduct that unnecessarily lengthens the duration of the proceeding ought to be sanctioned, as should vexatious or improper conduct. Consistent with the principle of apportionment, the College and, through their licensing fees, cooperative members of the teaching profession, ought not bear fully the costs of discipline proceedings against uncooperative members.

Promotion of good conduct: Members of the profession are not required to admit all or part of their professional misconduct because the College always bears the burden of proof. However, participation in the disciplinary process, cooperation and conduct that shortens or reduces the complexity of the proceeding ought to be encouraged. Engagement in efforts to settle all or part of a proceeding should be encouraged when considering whether costs ought to be ordered. Costs orders should not be so large as to discourage members from raising reasonable defences to allegations of professional misconduct.

Success of the parties: The relative success of the parties will be relevant in determining and apportioning costs. For example, if the College is only partially successful in establishing the allegations against a member, this will be relevant in determining whether and what amount of costs should be ordered. If significant hearing time is spent receiving evidence on allegations that are ultimately not established, the member ought not be liable for those costs.

The member’s ability to pay: Evidence or submissions about the member’s ability to pay a costs order may be relevant to the Committee’s decision. This factor may also be relevant to the Committee’s decision about how much time the Member is given to pay the costs order. The impact of other penalties imposed (for example, revocation) may be relevant to this factor: Hall at pp. 12-13.

33The Panel finds that ordering costs in the amount of $35,000 is fair and appropriate in these circumstances and meets the compensatory goal of costs order. The Panel acknowledges that a costs order is not meant to be punitive but compensatory; members of the profession should not bear the financial burden for disciplining non-compliant members. The Panel also acknowledges that according to Rule 16.05(3) and Tarrif A, the College could have sought a $90,000 costs order given that the hearing lasted nine days in total. A $35,000 costs order is considerably less than what the College could have sought for these proceedings but appropriate considering the Hall factors outlined above.

34The Panel notes that the Member was cooperative throughout the disciplinary proceedings and was not vexatious in any way.

35When considering the promotion of good conduct factor, there were times where the Member could have helped reduce the number of hearing days. The College had to call as a witness, Mr. Sinclair, the general counsel for the Board, to testify regarding Board interview meeting notes because the Member refused to admit to certain admissions made during his Board meeting. Although the Member has a right to defend, some concessions could have been made to shorten the length of the hearing.

36When considering the success of the parties, the Panel disagrees with Member’s Counsel submissions that the College was unable to prove more than half of the allegations. In a Notice of Hearing, the College will set out certain factual particulars and will also make allegations that a member has engaged in certain heads of misconduct based on those factual particulars. This distinction is important, because while not all particulars were proven, all the allegations of misconduct in this case were in fact proven by the College (except for subsection 1(19), regarding which the College was not seeking a finding). Further, the Panel notes that only two of the particulars outlined in the Notice of Hearing (particulars 6 (b) and (f)) were not successfully proven by the College. The College made it clear at the outset of the finding stage that they were not presenting evidence nor seeking a finding for particulars 4 (b) through (f).

37Finally, with respect to the Member’s ability to pay, the Panel notes that submissions were provided by Member’s Counsel regarding the Member’s ability to pay; however, no supporting evidence was provided. The Panel understands that the Member’s employment was terminated by the Board and that he his currently grieving his termination. In consideration of the submissions provided regarding his financial situation, the Panel finds that ordering monthly equal installments and sufficient time to pay the costs order is fair and reasonable.

38Given the circumstances of this case and its consideration of the Hall factors, the Panel is satisfied that an order of $35,000 in costs payable by the Member to the College in equal monthly installments over a period of 60 months, is just and appropriate and represents a fair allocation of the costs of the hearing.