DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Hilderley 2026 ONOCT 10

Date: 2026-03-09

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

Roger Lloyd Hilderley, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ROGER LLOYD HILDERLEY (REGISTRATION #142496)

PANEL: Alain Martel, OCT, Chair

Jennifer Da Ponte

Victoria Romero

HEARD: March 2, 2026

Lisa Feinberg, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Catherine Patterson, for Roger Lloyd Hilderley

Emily Graham, 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 March 2, 2026, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Roger Llyod Hilderley (the “Member”) did not attend 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 November 1, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Roger Lloyd Hilderley 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. 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. At all material times, Roger Lloyd Hilderley, was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member obtained an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate on June 24, 1966 and a Certificate of Qualification and Registration from the College on May 20, 1997. On September 28, 2022, the Member’s membership status with the College was changed to “Cancelled – Resigned.” On December 20, 2022, the Member undertook not to re-apply for registration with the College, not to teach at a private or public school in Ontario, and not to hold or seek to hold a position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration from the College until these disciplinary proceedings were concluded. Attached as Appendix "A" is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

3. In the 1970s, the Member was employed by the Avon Maitland District School Board as a Vice Principal at the [XXX] School in [XXX], Ontario (the “School”). While the Member was so employed, Person 1 was an [XXX] school student at the School.

4. In 2001, the Member and Person 1 reconnected at a grocery store and discussed Person 1’s plans to return to school. By this time, the Member had retired from the School, and Person 1 had graduated from the School and had become an adult with a family of her own.

5. On May 1, 2002, Person 1 attended at the Member’s personal residence on his invitation. During this visit, the Member served Person 1 a coffee that had the drug temazepam in it. Person 1 was not aware that the Member had put temazepam in the coffee. After drinking the coffee with temazepam, Person 1 felt unsteady and did not have full control over her body. While Person 1 was in this vulnerable state, the Member sexually assaulted Person 1.

6. Person 1 reported the sexual assault to the Stratford Police Service on May 4, 2002, but no charges were laid at that time.

7. On April 12, 2016, Person 1 filed a statement of claim against the Member in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, seeking damages for her and her children for the sexual assault against her on May 1, 2002.

8. On July 12, 2019, the Member was charged criminally for sexual assault against Person 1 and administering an overpowering drug with the intent to commit sexual assault against Person 1 on May 1, 2002.

9. On March 10, 2020, the Interim Deputy Registrar of the College initiated a complaint against the Member in relation to the criminal charges (the “Complaint”).

10. On April 30, 2020, the Member requested that the Complaint be placed in hiatus pending the outcome of his criminal charges.

11. On February 18, 2021, the Ontario Court of Justice held that the Member was not guilty of the criminal charges against him, finding that the crown had not met the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

12. On December 20, 2022, the Member entered into an Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement, under which the College agreed to hold the Member’s disciplinary proceedings in abeyance pending the outcome of Person 1’s civil lawsuit against the Member and any associated appeals. The Member undertook not to re-apply for registration with the College, not to teach at a private or public school in Ontario, and not to hold or seek to hold a position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration from the College until the College’s disciplinary proceedings were concluded. Attached as Appendix "B" is a copy of the Undertaking, dated December 20, 2022.

13. On July 30, 2024, the Honorable Madam Justice Maria V. Carroccia of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found the Member liable for civil sexual assault of Person 1, ordering the Member to pay Person 1 $200,000 in aggravated damages, $50,000 in punitive damages, $33,390 for past loss of income, and $14,298 for future loss of income, and to pay Person 1’s children $5,000 in damages each. Attached as Appendix “C” is a copy of the decision of the Honorable Madam Justice Maria V. Carroccia of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated July 30, 2024 (the “Decision”).

14. On August 29, 2024, the Member appealed the Decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

15. On November 27, 2025, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Member’s appeal of the Decision, ordering the Member to pay $25,000 in costs to Person 1. Attached as Appendix “D” is a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated November 27, 2025.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

16. 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 1-15 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

17. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 5, 13, and 15 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 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).

18. By signing 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.

19. 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.

20. 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 March 2, 2026, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 15 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 facts set out in paragraphs 5, 13, 15 of the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member drugged and sexually assaulted Person 1.

8In making its findings, the Panel has given weight to the factual findings of the July 30, 2024, Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision referred to at paragraph 13 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (the “Decision”). The Panel notes that the Member did not contest the admissibility of the Decision, the appeal of the Decision was dismissed by the Ontario Court for Appeal, and the Member did not lead evidence to contradict the findings or conclusions of the Decision, or to lessen their weight.

9The Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Person 1 was a student at the School where the Member was a vice principal and the two reconnected years later when the Member was retired and Person 1 was an adult. When Person 1 went over to the Member’s home, the Member put the drug temazepam in her coffee without her knowledge and took advantage of Person 1’s vulnerable physical state to sexually assault her. Teachers and administrators are expected to be upstanding members of society. It is clearly disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional for a teacher to engage in the sexual assault of any person. The teaching profession does not tolerate such reprehensible conduct.

10The Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession who engage in sexual assault undermine the trust and confidence that the public places in members of the profession.

F. PENALTY DECISION

11The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on March 2, 2026, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to receive a reprimand, in writing, 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 immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

12The 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. Hamilton 2018 ONOCT 70; Ontario College of Teachers v. Ganuelas, 2022 ONOCT 35 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Trinchi, 2020 ONOCT 134.

13The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are four aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member used his position as a former educator to reconnect with Person 1, and the Member’s sexual assault of Person 1 was a gross violation of his position of trust as her former vice principal, and a former leader in the School’s community. Second, the Member took advantage of Person 1 while she was particularly vulnerable, as she had gone through a divorce and was retraining for a new career. Third, the Member’s conduct was violent, degrading and invasive and was planned as it involved the administration of a drug. Fourth, Person 1 suffered significant harm as a result of the sexual assault. She experienced PTSD, became socially withdrawn and the assault also had an impact on her children as well. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. The Panel agrees with the submission of College Counsel that while the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past, this is an absence of an aggravating factor as opposed to a mitigating factor. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

14The Panel finds that the Member’s sexual assault of Person 1, warrants a reprimand. Members of the teaching profession are expected to act as positive role models and to always adhere to the highest moral standards. The Member failed to do so when he sexually assaulted Person 1. 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.

15The Panel finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is appropriate in this case. The Member’s sexual assault of Person 1 was abhorrent and reprehensible. Teachers are held to a high standard both on and “off duty” due to the unique position of trust and authority they hold in the community. The Member’s planned and violent sexual assault of Person 1 violated Person 1’s sexual integrity and demonstrated a complete disregard for her physical and emotional well-being. Revocation of the Member’s certificate ensures that the public is protected as the Member will no longer be a member of the profession. The Member’s revocation will also serve as a specific and general deterrent, by sending a clear message to the Member and the profession that sexual assault is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Accordingly, the Member is no longer entitled to be a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.

16The 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.