Ontario College of Teachers v. Bond, 2025 ONOCT 69

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Bond 2025 ONOCT 69

Date: 2025-11-07

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

Kathryn Elizabeth Bond, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

KATHRYN ELIZABETH BOND (REGISTRATION #680961)

PANEL: Alain Martel, OCT, Chair Andrew Glenny Sandra Pizzuti, OCT

HEARD: October 29, 2025

Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Parmbir Gill, for Kathryn Elizabeth Bond 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.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on October 29, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Kathryn Elizabeth Bond (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and had legal representation. The Member attended immediately after the hearing for the delivery of her reprimand, as agreed to by the parties.

3The 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

4The 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

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 24, 2025 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Kathryn Elizabeth Bond is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) she failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

(b) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsections 264(1)(d) and (e) thereof or the Regulations made under the Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(c) she 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. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Kathryn Bond is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers in Good Standing. 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 [XXX]teacher at [XXX] Institute (the “School”) in Ottawa, Ontario. The Member also coached the junior and senior boys’ [XXX]teams.

The Member’s Boundary Violations

3. At the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year, the School’s Athletic Director met with staff, including the Member, to review policies, procedures and expectations, one of which was that staff were not to drive students in their personal vehicles under any circumstances.

4. During the 2021-2022 school year, the Member drove Grade [XXX] and [XXX] students, who were members of the boys’ [XXX]team, in her personal vehicle multiple times without authorization. On one occasion, the Member gave a ride to a particular male student alone in her vehicle.

5. The Member communicated with students, primarily Grade [XXX] male students, on social media and by text message. Their conversations included matters of a personal nature and, on occasion, involved poking fun at other students.

6. When one of the School’s Vice-Principals learned that the Member had a group chat with students on Instagram, she reminded the Member that she was only to communicate with students using Board approved platforms. About an hour after receiving that direction, the Member sent another message to students on Instagram, informing them that she would, henceforth, only use Google Chat to communicate.

7. The Member was aware of the School’s dress code expectations with respect to students using appropriate facilities when changing before sports practices and games. When the Member began working at the School, she observed that the male students often changed on the field or walked around without their shirts on. When the Member initially observed them doing this, she told them not to do so. The students largely disregarded her instruction. Over time, the Member became complacent and would walk away, instead of discipling the students or disrupting their behaviour as they were resistant to using the facilities.

8. On or about May 9, 2022, at the request of some of the players, the Member posted a photograph on Instagram of five members of the Grade [XXX] boys’ [XXX] team posing without their shirts on. The Member did not have the permission of all five players to do so. When a colleague questioned her about it, the Member reflected about the impact it could have and removed the photograph.

9. On or about May 27, 2022, the Member met with the [XXX] players in the football room and had a discussion with them about their disrespectful behaviour at a school event. While speaking with the students, the Member could be heard from the hallway raising her voice and using profanity.

Undermining colleagues and school administration

10. When other staff members disciplined students or took action with which students disagreed, the Member undermined her colleagues’ efforts by letting the students know that it was not her choice, that she shared their frustration, and that she disagreed with the consequences being imposed on them. In her discussions with students, she reassured them that she was on “their side” and criticized her colleagues and the School administration for the decisions they made and the discipline measures they imposed.

11. The use by students of the “N-word” and other inappropriate or profane language was not permitted at the School. The Member took the position that, as a white teacher, it was not her place to police the use of the “N-word” by Black students on the basis that it was “part of their vernacular”. While the Member was present, a student, who was engaged in a confrontation with another teacher, shouted the “N-word” at him. The teacher responded using profanity. The Member not only failed to reprimand the student for his behaviour but, in fact, sent an Instagram message to the student after the incident voicing her negative opinion about her colleague’s actions.

12. In June 2022, the Member nominated twelve players to participate in an “all star game” for [XXX]school students being hosted by the [XXX]. The Member made this decision unilaterally, disregarding the fact that some of the players she nominated had been suspended from playing [XXX]due to inappropriate behaviour. The Member invited the students to participate in the tournament without the approval or knowledge of the School’s Athletic Director or the administration. She did so even though she was aware that the Board had previously prohibited its students from participating in the tournament because of a third party waiver issue.

Failure to Supervise

13. The Member had been provided a particular room in the School for use as an office. Without the permission of the School administration, the Member provided access to the room to select students. It was used mostly by [XXX] players. They began to hang out in the room on a frequent basis, without supervision, and referred to it as “the lounge” or “the den”.

14. When one of the Vice-Principals discovered the use being made of the room, including the fact that the Member had permitted students to move couches into the room, she ordered that the couches be removed and the locks on the door changed to prevent access to anyone other than the custodial staff or administrators.

Board Discipline

15. The Board conducted an investigation regarding the Member’s conduct. Based on the investigation, the Board made a determination that the Member’s employment should be terminated. On May 8, 2024, the Member submitted an irrevocable notice of resignation effective April 2, 2024. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Member’s resignation letter.

GUILTY PLEA

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

17. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(11), 1(15) and 1(18).

18. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

19. 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

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 29, 2025, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(11), 1(15), and 1(18).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 15 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitutes professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in inappropriate conduct by undermining her colleagues and the School’s administration and by failing to adequately supervise students who were under her professional care. The Admitted Facts also demonstrate that the Member engaged in inappropriate communication with students and failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students.

9The Member failed to supervise adequately persons who were under her professional supervision, contrary to subsection 1(11) Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member allowed students to use a room in the School, which was meant to be used as an office space, without supervision. Students moved couches into the room, used it on a frequent basis, and referred to it as “the den” or “the lounge”. Members of the profession are expected to provide students with a safe learning environment by adequately supervising students who are under their professional supervision. By providing students access to a private office room and by failing to supervise their use of the room, the Member failed to meet this expectation.

10The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Subsection 264(1)(d) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the School. The Member disregarded the athletic director’s direction that staff are not permitted to drive students in their vehicles by driving Grade [XXX] and [XXX] students (who were members of the boys’ [XXX] team) in her personal vehicle multiple times without authorization. The Member also violated the expectation that teachers are not permitted to use social media to speak with students, when she regularly spoke to students via a group chat on Instagram. Furthermore, the Member nominated twelve athletes from the School to participate in a [XXX] game hosted by the [XXX] without the knowledge or permission of the athletic director or the School’s administration. The Member did so even though she was aware that the Board had previously prohibited students from participating in this [XXX] game for legal reasons. By engaging in such conduct, the Member did not contribute to a collaborative and cooperative school environment.

11Subsection 264(1)(e) requires members to maintain proper order and discipline in the classroom. By openly undermining and criticizing her colleagues and the administration’s disciplinary efforts towards students—including students’ use of the “N-word” and profanity—the Member failed to maintain a proper order and discipline in her classroom in a professional and appropriate way. School staff should behave as a unified front and should never undermine each other in front of students. Instead, the Member told students that she was on “their side”, she shared their frustration and also disagreed with the consequences being imposed on them by her colleagues. By her conduct, the Member failed to exemplify the qualities that teachers are expected to demonstrate as trusted members of the school community. The Member’s conduct was at odds with her obligations as a teacher.

12The Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member demonstrated an element of moral failing by violating professional boundaries with her students. For instance, the Member frequently drove students alone in her car without authorization, she communicated with students via group chat on Instagram and she posted a photo on Instagram of a group of students posing shirtless. Members hold a privileged and unique position of trust and authority in their communities and are therefore expected to serve as role models. They are expected to demonstrate respect for others’ boundaries. In failing to meet these expectations, the Member demonstrated a lack of professional judgment.

13Additionally, the Member demonstrated poor professional judgment by allowing students to use an office room without supervision, by openly undermining her colleagues and the School’s administration discipline decisions in front of students, and by allowing students to participate in a [XXX] game that she knew was not approved by the Board. The Member also engaged in unprofessional conduct by raising her voice and using profanity when speaking with students. Although the Member’s conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional, the Panel finds that it does not rise to the high level of disgraceful conduct as the circumstances of her misconduct and her acts are clearly distinguishable from other kinds of misconduct that have been more aptly characterized as disgraceful. As such, it is appropriate to find that the Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional.

F. PENALTY DECISION

14The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 29, 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 by videoconference 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 three (3) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1st and August 1st, the suspension will commence on September 1st;

3. The Registrar 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 enroll in, and successfully complete, at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar in maintaining professional boundaries, ethics and appropriate communication with students, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to the 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 her 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

15The 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. Warland, 2021 ONOCT 77; Ontario College of Teachers v. Morgan, 2024 ONOCT 47; Ontario College of Teachers v. Allore, 2021 ONOCT 3; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Toh, 2021 ONOCT 99.

16The 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 engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behaviour, even after being reminded of expectations, rules and procedures from colleagues or the administration (e.g., regarding appropriate communication with students); (2) many actions taken by the Member showed a repeated pattern of obvious breaches of expectations (e.g., driving students in her vehicle on many occasions); and (3) the Member’s conduct negatively impacted her colleagues and jeopardized students’ relationship with other staff and the administration. The mitigating factors in this case are the following: (1) the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past; (2) the Member’s employment at the School was terminated as a result of her conduct in relation to this matter; and (3) she has participated in the disciplinary process by entering into a resolution and admitting her misconduct, thus saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and students from testifying. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to create a safe and supportive learning environment for their students and to serve as role models for students. The Member failed to do so by inadequately supervising students use of an office, undermining her colleagues and the administration, as well as, failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with 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 will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a three-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 November 13, 2025, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding maintaining professional boundaries, ethics and appropriate communication with students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future 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 SCR 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.