Ontario College of Teachers v. Pollock, 2025 ONOCT 65

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Pollock 2025 ONOCT 65 Date: 2025-10-15

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 Christopher Jeffrey Pollock, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

Between: Ontario College of Teachers – and – Christopher Jeffrey Pollock (Registration #439100)

Panel: Brian Serafini, OCT, Chair Victoria Romero Kayla Stephenson

Heard: October 8, 2025

Counsel: Sarah O’Neill, for the Ontario College of Teachers Christopher Jeffrey Pollock, self-represented Ahmad Mozaffari, 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.

Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on October 8, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Christopher Jeffrey Pollock (the “Member”) attended the hearing and did not have 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 February 27, 2025 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Christopher Jeffrey Pollock is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

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

(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).

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. Christopher Jeffrey Pollock 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 Waterloo Region District School Board (the “Board”) as an occasional teacher.

School 1

3. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member was on assignment as a French teacher at [XXX]Public School (“School 1”) in Kitchener, Ontario.

4. In the 2018-2019 academic year, Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, Student 5, Student 6, and Student 7 were female students in Grade [XXX] at School 1.

5. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member engaged in physical contact with Student 1 that crossed appropriate boundaries and that he ought to have known was unwelcome. On September 26, 2018, the Member inappropriately touched Student 1 during class when Student 1 was using YouTube rather than doing schoolwork. The Member rested his chin on Student 1’s shoulder and stated, “that’s not what you’re supposed to be doing.” The next day on September 27, 2018, the Member was standing close to Student 1 while reading her assignment. Student 1 moved away, but the Member moved closer. When the Member moved closer to Student 1, his stomach touched Student 1’s arm twice. This conduct by the Member made Student 1 feel distressed.

6. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member engaged in physical contact with Student 2 that crossed appropriate boundaries and that he ought to have known was unwelcome. During class, the Member stroked Student 2’s hand when he was taking a pencil from her. On another occasion during class, Student 2 answered the classroom phone. The Member then stroked Student 2’s hand while taking away the classroom phone from her. This conduct by the Member made Student 2 feel distressed.

7. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member engaged in physical contact with Student 3 that crossed appropriate boundaries and that he ought to have known was unwelcome. While in the classroom, the Member went over to Student 3 to check on her work and leaned over her with his face close to her cheek. The Member’s face was so close to Student 3 that she could feel his breath on her. On another occasion, he stood so close to Student 3 that his shoulder touched Student 3’s shoulder. On a further occasion, the Member put his hand on Student 3’s shoulder. This conduct by the Member made Student 3 feel unsafe. As a result, Student 3 stopped asking the Member for help with schoolwork and began working in the hallway because she did not want to be in the classroom with the Member.

8. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member engaged in interactions with Student 4 that crossed appropriate boundaries and that he ought to have known were unwelcome, including by touching Student 4’s arm and calling her “honey” and “sweetie”. This conduct by the Member made Student 4 feel distressed.

9. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member engaged in interactions with Student 5 that crossed appropriate boundaries and that he ought to have known were unwelcome. During class, Student 5 carried the Member’s clipboard for attendance. When Student 5 gave the clipboard back to the Member, the Member said, “thanks sweetie” and patted her shoulder and back. The Member often touched Student 5’s shoulder and back during class and regularly called her “sweetie”. This conduct by the Member made Student 5 feel distressed.

10. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member engaged in interactions with Student 6 that crossed appropriate boundaries and that he ought to have known were unwelcome, including calling Student 6 “honey” regularly in class. The Member also rubbed Student 6’s shoulder and back. This conduct by the Member made Student 6 feel unsafe.

11. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member engaged in interactions with Student 7 that crossed appropriate boundaries and that he ought to have known were unwelcome, including by standing very close to Student 7 and touching her shoulder, arm, and wrist when he was speaking to her. This conduct by the Member made Student 5 feel distressed.

12. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member made comments that crossed appropriate boundaries to multiple female Grade [XXX] students at School 1 by referring to them as “sweetie,” “sweetheart,” and “honey.”

13. The Board directed the Member to take a boundaries course as a result of his behaviour.

School 2

14. In the 2022-2023 academic year, the Member was a long-term occasional teacher at [XXX]Public School (“School 2”) in Cambridge, Ontario.

15. In the 2022-2023 academic year, Student 8, Student 10, and Student 11 were female students in Grade [XXX] at School 2.

16. In the 2022-2023 academic year, the Member engaged in multiple interactions with Student 8 that crossed appropriate boundaries and that he ought to have known were unwelcome, including the following interactions:

(a) While the Member was coaching the girls’ [XXX] team, the Member touched Student 8 on the hips while she was playing [XXX].

(b) On one occasion, Student 8 asked the Member a question and he responded by putting his arm around her and said, “it’s okay”.

(c) On another occasion, when Student 8 and her friend were giving students hugs and counting how many hugs they gave, the Member approached Student 8. The Member stated, “you are counting your hugs and this one is worth 50” and gave Student 8 a hug from the side. This conduct by the Member made Student 8 feel panicked.

(d) During the winter of the 2022-2023 academic year, Student 8 approached the Member to ask a question. The Member then poked Student 8 in the stomach while she was wearing a “crop-top” with her stomach showing and commented that his daughter wore similar shirts.

(e) On a separate occasion, the Member made a condescending comment towards Student 8. During class, Student 8 asked the Member if she could go look for her laptop. After finding the laptop in another classroom, Student 8 returned to the Member’s classroom. The Member then asked her if she had found the laptop. When Student 8 responded that she had found the laptop, the Member said to her, “you are so pretty”. Student 8 later learned that the comment was a reference to the television show Friends and was meant as a joke that Student 8 was “dumb”. However, when the Member made the comment, Student 8 felt that he was commenting on her appearance because he had said the comment in a genuine tone and had previously complimented her appearance, stating “your hair looks nice today.”

17. The Member’s conduct towards Student 8 described in paragraph 16 made her feel distressed.

18. In the 2022-2023 academic year, the Member engaged in physical contact with Student 10 that crossed appropriate boundaries and that he ought to have known was unwelcome. On more than one occasion while the Member was coaching [XXX] and in school afterwards, the Member grabbed Student 10 by her waist. This conduct by the Member made Student 10 feel distressed.

19. During the [XXX] season in the 2022-2023 academic year, the Member engaged in physical contact with Student 11 that crossed appropriate boundaries and that he ought to have known was unwelcome, including by placing his hand on Student 11’s shoulder and patting her back. This conduct by the Member made Student 11 feel distressed.

20. In the 2022-2023 academic year, the Member made comments that crossed appropriate boundaries to female Grade [XXX] students at School 2 by referring to them as “sweetie,” “honey,” and “kid.”

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

21. By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1 to 20 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

22. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 5 to 12 and 16 to 20 of the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

(a) he abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

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

(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).

23. By this document the Member states that:

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

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

(c) he understands that, by pleading no contest 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 can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) 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;

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

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or the opportunity to have obtained the advice of legal counsel.

24. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

25. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. Decision

6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 8, 2025 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), and 1(18).

E. Reasons for Decision

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 20 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the conduct set out in paragraphs 5 to 12 and 16 to 20 of the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that, on multiple occasions, the Member crossed professional boundaries with students by engaging in inappropriate physical contact with them and making demeaning comments towards them.

8The Panel finds that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member made multiple demeaning and inappropriate comments to female students by referring them as “sweetie”, “sweetheart”, “honey”, and “kid”. The Member also made an objectifying and belittling comment to Student 8 by saying “your so pretty” which was meant to say that Student 8 was dumb. These comments crossed appropriate professional boundaries and by using demeaning words towards students, the Member abused them verbally.

9The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member abused students physically, contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. On multiple occasions, the Member engaged in unwelcome and inappropriate physical contact with students. For instance, the Member touched, patted and rubbed multiple female students’ shoulders, arms and backs. On one occasion, the Member touched Student 8’s hips, gave her a hug from the side and poked her stomach while she was wearing a “crop-top”. Teachers must always maintain appropriate physical boundaries with students. By making unnecessary and unwanted physical contact with students, the Member violated students’ bodily integrity and therefore engaged in physical abuse of his students.

10The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with students, engaging in repeated unwelcome physical contact with students and by making demeaning comments towards them, the Member abused students psychologically and emotionally. As a result of the Member’s conduct, the students expressed feeling distressed, unsafe and panicked. One of the students altered her behaviour in class by no longer asking the Member for help with schoolwork and working in the hallway because of the Member’s conduct. Members of the profession must ensure students physical and emotional well-being and create a safe supporting classroom environment. The Member failed to do so by engaging in unwanted touching of students and by referring to them in a demeaning way.

11Finally, the Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonorable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By engaging in inappropriate physical contact with multiple students and using inappropriate language towards them, the Member’s conduct demonstrates a significant moral and professional failing. The Member was warned about his behaviour during the 2018-2019 academic year and was directed by his Board to complete a boundaries course, yet he engaged in similar conduct at another school. Such conduct can be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

F. Penalty Decision

12The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 8, 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 of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 6 months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and the 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 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member shall provide 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 3(a)(i) above, the course practitioner shall provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee's concerns regarding the Member's professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member and the assignments to be completed by the Member; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in paragraph 3(a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report from the course practitioner 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

13The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.¹ The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Rogers, 2022 ONOCT 74; Ontario College of Teachers v. Dalamba, 2024 ONOCT 1; Ontario College of Teachers v. Bohn, 2022 ONOCT 41; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Mammarella, 2022 ONOCT 111.

14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the following: 1) this was not a one-time incident, the Member engaged in repeated misconduct; 2) the Member’s misconduct involved multiple students at two different schools; and 3) the Member was previously warned by the Board yet he engaged in similar conduct at a second school. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest their misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and 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.

15The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. The Member failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with students by engaging in inappropriate physical contact with them and making demeaning comments to them. He failed to ensure the students emotional and physical well-being. 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.

16Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a six-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 October 23, 2025, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

17The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional boundaries 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.

18The 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 SCR 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.```