Ontario College of Teachers v. Goertzen, 2026 ONOCT 1

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Goertzen 2026 ONOCT 01

Date: 2026-01-02

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

Rusty William Goertzen, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

RUSTY WILLIAM GOERTZEN (REGISTRATION #428441)

PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair Damienne Lebrun-Reid Michelle Pinsonneault, OCT

HEARD: December 19, 2025

Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers Philip Abbink, for Rusty William Goertzen Rebecca Durcan, 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 December 19, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Rusty William Goertzen (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated March 11, 2025 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Rusty William Goertzen is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) 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);

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

(c) he failed to comply with the member’s duties under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, Statutes of Ontario 2017, Chapter 14, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(27).

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. Rusty William Goertzen is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. 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 Greater Essex County District School Board (the “Board”).

3. In the 2022-2023 academic year, the Member was a teacher at [XXX] Public School (the “School”) in Windsor, Ontario.

4. In July 2023, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old female student at the School.

5. In July 2023, the Member, after Student 1 contacted him, failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries and engaged in a personal relationship with Student 1 by communicating with Student 1 regarding personal matters via Facebook messenger. The full message conversation is not available, but a copy of some of the messages exchanged between the Member and Student 1 are attached as Appendix “B”.

6. The messages included the following:

(a) the Member engaged in informal conversation with Student 1 about personal matters;

(b) the Member asked Student 1 if she deletes her chat with the Member in the context of a conversation about how messages can be deleted. Student 1 is the first to raise the topic of deleting their conversation history in the messages that are available; and

(c) when the Member asked Student 1 whether she was in the same house as someone, she replied “Of course not in the same house I’m stupid to get raped. As I’m done with that”.

7. Despite Student 1 mentioning rape, the Member failed to report these messages to anyone at the Board, the Children’s Aid Society, or to Student 1’s parents. In doing so, the Member failed to comply with his duty to report under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

8. 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 7 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

9. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 5-7 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 committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

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

(c) he failed to comply with the member’s duties under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, Statutes of Ontario 2017, Chapter 14, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(27).

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

6Counsel for the College requested that the particulars of the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs 4, 8 and 9 of the Notice of Hearing be withdrawn and advised that no evidence would be tendered on those particulars. The Panel granted this request.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on December 19, 2025, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) (dishonourable and unprofessional only), 1(19) and 1(27).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pled no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that paragraphs 5-7 of the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with Student 1 and failed to comply with his duty to report under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (“CYFSA”).

9The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). It is unacceptable for teachers to engage in communications of a personal nature with a student. As an experienced teacher, the Member ought to have known that sending messages to Student 1 over Facebook messenger and discussing personal matters was a violation of appropriate teacher-student boundaries. Moreover, the Member ought to have taken steps to comply with his legal duty to report pursuant to the CYFSA. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct can therefore be characterized as dishonourable and unprofessional.

10The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). By failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Student 1 and by failing to comply with his duty to report under the CYFSA, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and breached the trust which students, parents and the public place in teachers.

11The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with his duties under the CYFSA, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(27). Members of the teaching profession have a legal duty to report to a children’s aid society when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is or may be in need of protection. In this case, the Member does not contest that Student 1 sent him a Facebook message that stated: “…I’m stupid to get raped…”. Furthermore, the Member does not contest that despite Student 1 mentioning rape, he failed to report this message to a children’s aid society. By doing so, the Panel finds that the Member did not act in accordance with his legal obligations set out in the CYFSA.

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 December 19, 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 via videoconference, 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 2 months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and the 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 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 and professional ethics with an emphasis on reporting obligations, 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. Handscomb, 2022 ONOCT 63; Ontario College of Teachers v. Bujacz, 2024 ONOCT 41; Ontario College of Teachers v. Krol, 2023 ONOCT 56; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Barwinski, 2019 ONOCT 58.

14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: 1) the age of Student 1; 2) the informal and personal nature of the Facebook messages between Student 1 and the Member; and 3) by his conduct, the Member blurred professional boundaries with Student 1. The mitigating factors in the Member’s case are: 1) the evidence indicates that the Member’s conduct was an isolated incident and occurred during a specific and narrow point in time (July 2023); 2) the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past; and 3) the Member did not contest his misconduct, which demonstrates insight and acceptance of responsibility, thereby saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and sparing witnesses from having to testify. 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 misconduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to always maintain professional boundaries with students, which includes appropriate communication with students inside and outside of school hours. The Member failed to meet this expectation with respect to his conduct towards Student 1. Additionally, members of the teaching profession are expected to know and to fulfill their duty to report any suspicion of child abuse pursuant to the CYFSA. The Member ought to have known and demonstrated better professional judgment by immediately reporting Student 1’s disclosure to a children’s aid society. 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 two-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 January 3, 2026, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

17The Panel finds that the courses of instruction regarding professional boundaries and professional ethics with an emphasis on reporting obligations 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 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.