DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Gagnon 2025 ONOCT 59

Date: 2025-09-20

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

Frédéric Gilles Joseph Gagnon, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

FRÉDÉRIC GILLES JOSEPH GAGNON (REGISTRATION #529527)

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

HEARD: September 12, 2025

Émilie Bruneau, for Ontario College of Teachers Lise Leduc, for Frédéric Gilles Joseph Gagnon 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, pursuant to Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).

2Frédéric Gilles Joseph Gagnon (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 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 July 15, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Frédéric Gilles Joseph Gagnon is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

a) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

c) 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);

d) 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);

e) 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);

f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19);

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

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

1. Frédéric Gilles Joseph Gagnon is a member of the College. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “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 Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est (the “Board”) as a teacher in the [XXX][XXX] (the “School”), in Ottawa, Ontario.

3. At all material times:

a) Student 1 was a male Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class;

b) Student 2 was a female Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class;

c) Student 3 was a female Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class;

d) Student 4 was a male Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class.

Incident on June 22, [XXX]

4. On June 22, [XXX], while a group of students was playing outside, the Member thought he heard Student 1 making inappropriate remarks to some female students. Without saying anything, the Member quickly went up to Student 1 and poked him in the chest with three fingers.

5. That evening, the Member discussed the incident with Student 1’s father. After the discussion, Student 1’s father contacted the School principal. After investigating, the principal confirmed that Student 1 had not made the remarks claimed by the Member, and that the Member’s physical intervention was not appropriate.

6. The June 22, [XXX] incident adversely affected Student 1. One of the School’s vice-principals discussed the incident with the Member. It was arranged that he would not teach Student 1 in future.

Incidents in August and September [XXX]

7. During the [XXX] academic year, the Member was teaching a Grade [XXX] class. On September 7 and 10, [XXX], the School’s principal and vice-principal received complaints about the Member’s conduct with his Grade [XXX] students. The administration interviewed five students.

8. On or about August 29, [XXX], the Member drew on Student 2’s [XXX] with a felt pen while Student 2 had [XXX] at her desk in the classroom. Before drawing on Student 2’s [XX], the Member put his finger to his lips and said “shhh” to tell the other students in the class to be silent.

9. On or about August 29, [XXX], when he was explaining the class rules to his Grade [XXX] students:

a) the Member told the students that the only three things they could do in class were work, raise their hands to speak, and breathe, or words to that effect;

b) several times, the Member rapped on the wall with a ruler he was holding while talking.

10. The Member’s words and actions on August 29, [XXX] adversely affected two students who were intimidated and became afraid of potential repercussions if they did something the Member didn’t like.

11. On or about September 7, [XXX], the Member told a student that things were going to be complicated with Student 3’s [XXX] because of the history with Student 3’s [XXX]. The student repeated the remark to Student 3. The remark was inappropriate.

12. On or about September 8, [XXX], while handing out rulers to Grade [XXX] students who had forgotten theirs, the Member had the students hold out their hands and rapped them lightly with the ruler he was about to give them. The Member’s actions were inappropriate. They adversely affected a student with [XXX] members who were [XXX], who found the action especially intimidating.

13. On or about September 11, [XXX], an empty water bottle on Student 4’s desk fell onto the floor twice. The Member kicked the bottle across the classroom. Student 4 was afraid of the Member.

14. On or about September 15, [XXX], when the Member realized that a number of students hadn’t done their homework, he lost his temper and pitched his highlighter into the garbage can. Student 4 thought the Member had thrown his highlighter in the garbage.

15. Between August 29 and September 20, [XXX] or thereabouts, the Member drove too fast through the School parking lot on more than one occasion, which was unsafe.

16. On October 13, [XXX], following the School’s investigation, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a two-day suspension without pay. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the vice-principal’s letter to the Member, dated October 13, [XXX].

17. The Member is still teaching at the School.

Prior Disciplinary Matters

18. During the [XXX]academic year, the Member moved a chair abruptly in the classroom, injuring one of the students in his Grade [XXX] class. He also carried a student out of the classroom on [XXX], and questioned a student who recorded the incident. On March 10, [XXX], the Member received a written warning from the School’s vice-principal. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the vice-principal’s letter to the Member, dated March 10, [XXX].

19. The Board also reported the incident to the College, which carried out its own investigation. On June 1, [XXX], the Investigation Committee reviewed the complaint. It did not refer the allegations to the Discipline Committee, but issued a caution to the Member.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

20. By this document, the Member acknowledges that he does not contest the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in this document, for the purposes of this proceeding only (the “Uncontested Facts”).

21. The Member agrees that the Discipline Committee may accept that the Uncontested Facts described above constitute professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the findings by the College that these facts constitute breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

22. By this document, the Member states that:

a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against him;

b) he understands that by signing this document, he consents to the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee, and agrees that the Committee can accept the facts as accurate for the purposes of this proceeding;

c) he is pleading no contest to the findings by the College that the Uncontested Facts and allegations constitute professional misconduct as described in this document, and agrees that the Discipline Committee may make this finding without a hearing;

d) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

e) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to present evidence relating to the Committee’s findings;

f) he does not intend to present evidence as to the order to be made by the Committee based on its findings and conclusions in accordance with this Statement of Uncontested Facts;

g) 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 College’s official publication;

h) he understands that any agreement between the College and himself with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;

i) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally and with the advice of legal counsel.

23. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Act, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

24. In light of the aforementioned Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 12, 2025, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 19 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member created a stressful classroom environment that was not conducive to his students’ learning. His conduct included intimidating the students and inappropriate physical contact with some students.

8The Member abused students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1). The Uncontested Facts show that in June [XXX], the Member made inappropriate physical contact with Student 1 while they were outside with a group of students, when he poked Student 1 in the chest with three fingers. Furthermore, during the [XXX] academic year, the Member drew on Student 2’s [XXX] with a felt pen while Student 2 had [XXX] at her desk in the classroom. Teachers are responsible for students’ physical welfare and safety, and must never make unnecessary physical contact with them. The Member’s intimidating and disparaging actions constitute physical abuse.

9The Panel finds that the Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). He repeatedly intimidated his students, creating a stressful classroom environment. For example, he told students who had forgotten their rulers to hold out their hands, and rapped them lightly with the ruler he was about to give them. The Member’s actions adversely affected a student with [XXX] members who were [XXX] [XXX], and for whom the action was especially intimidating. The Member also poked Student 1 in the chest, which adversely affected him. After this unnecessary physical contact, the School principal arranged that the Member would never teach Student 1 in future. In addition, the Member’s actions in class were often intimidating, such as rapping the wall with a ruler, pitching his highlighter into the garbage can and kicking a student’s water bottle. He also made intimidating remarks to his students, telling them that the only three things they could do in class were “work, raise their hands to speak, and breathe…”. As a result, his words and actions made some students feel afraid of him and fearful of potential repercussions. Especially given the power imbalance between teachers and students, a teacher like the Member whose conduct is repeatedly intimidating and inappropriate and who creates a toxic learning environment in which students are fearful and afraid of potential repercussions is abusing them psychologically or emotionally.

10The Member failed to comply with section 26 of the by-laws, which sets out the ethical standards for the teaching profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). The ethical standards for the teaching profession are Care, Respect, Trust and Integrity. The Care standard requires members to “express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice.” The Respect standard requires members to “honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development.” Losing one’s temper in the classroom, engaging in intimidating conduct and making disparaging remarks to students, such as telling them all they could do in class was “work, raise their hands to speak, and breathe…”, contravenes these ethical standards. This conduct did not create a positive influence in the class and in no way encouraged students’ learning. Furthermore, the Member was disrespectful when he made physical contact with Student 1, by poking him in the chest with his fingers, and with Student 2, when he drew on her [XXX] with a felt pen when she had [XXX] at her desk in the classroom. Members’ duties include expressing their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence and professional judgment. They must also honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. The Member’s conduct thus contravened the standards for the teaching profession.

11The Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15), by failing to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Clause 264(1)(c) of that Act is generally interpreted to mean that teachers are expected to act as positive role models. By intimidating students, making physical contact with them and making disparaging remarks to them, the Member failed to act as a positive role model. In addition, he failed to set an example when he told one student that “things were going to be complicated with Student 3’s [XXX] because of the history with Student 3’s [XXX],” namely because the student repeated the remark to Student 3. It was inappropriate of the Member to share this confidential information with a student who was not involved in Student 3’s [XXX] matters. Through these actions, the Member set a poor example for his students, thereby failing in his duties as a teacher.

12The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). The Member’s conduct as a whole supports the finding of misconduct. Members are expected to use appropriate disciplinary methods with students and must not resort to unnecessary physical contact in their interactions with students. The Member’s aggressive and intimidating conduct demonstrates a serious lack of moral and professional judgment on his part and may therefore be described as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

13Lastly, the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Parents and the public expect members of the teaching profession to ensure students’ physical and emotional well-being and their safety at all times. Parents also expect teachers to employ professional classroom management methods that are respectful of their children. The Member’s intimidating and aggressive conduct created a stressful classroom environment for the students, which undermines the public’s trust in teachers. The Member’s actions have tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession.

F. PENALTY DEcision

14The parties presented a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3) 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 Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the College, at 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register;

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of three months, as of the 15^th calendar day following the decision and order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the decision and order is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will begin on September 1;

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 this order, 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 appropriate disciplinary measures, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member shall provide to the course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

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

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 that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to the outlined goals of the course.

15The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. It recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.¹ The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither too harsh nor too lenient such that it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Landry, 2023 ONOCT 68, Ontario College of Teachers v. Zutt, 2023 ONOCT 24 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gravel, 2023 ONOCT 39.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in this case. Firstly, the Member repeatedly engaged in misconduct. Secondly, the Member’s intimidating and aggressive conduct adversely affected a number of students. Thirdly, the Member had received a written warning from the School principal and a caution issued by the College regarding his conduct during the [XXX] academic year, yet his conduct failed to improve. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his professional misconduct, saving the time and resources of a contested hearing and sparing students from having to testify. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated intimidating and inappropriate conduct, which he continued to engage in despite warnings from the School principal and the College, warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to provide students with a safe and positive school environment, which the Member failed to do when he repeatedly engaged in aggressive and intimidating conduct towards the students. 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 is important because it will serve as a general deterrent to the other members of the profession.

18In view of the seriousness of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the prior cases presented are factually distinct in some ways from this matter, the underlying nature of the professional misconduct is similar and confirms that a suspension of the certificate is warranted. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, sending a clear message that this type of professional misconduct is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the suspension of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration will commence on September 27, 2025; that is, 15 days after the decision and order of the Discipline Committee.

19The Panel finds that a course on anger management and appropriate disciplinary measures will assist with the Member’s rehabilitation. It will remind him of his obligations as a teacher and help him to make better decisions in his interactions with students.

20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

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