DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v McKegney 2026 ONOCT 11

Date: 2026-03-20

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

Sean McKegney, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

SEAN MCKEGNEY (REGISTRATION #278736)

PANEL: Kimberley Westfall-Connor, Chair

Adam Dharsee, OCT

Yasser Leheta, OCT

HEARD: February 11, 2026

Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers

No one appearing for Sean McKegney

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 February 11, 2026, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).

2Sean McKegney (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have legal representation.

3In support of its request for an order that the hearing proceed in the Member’s absence, counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Attempted Service of Kelly Reeves sworn on November 27, 2025 (Exhibit 2). In this affidavit, Ms. Reeves, a professional conduct coordinator at the Ontario College of Teachers, described her attempted communications with the Member, by couriering correspondence to his last-known address. Although contact with the Member could not be established, the Panel is satisfied that the College met its service obligations of all required documents in accordance with section 52 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”), section 8.09 of the College’s Bylaws, and rule 2.03 of the Rules. The Member was responsible for notifying the Registrar of any change to his current contact information, pursuant to section 25.01 of the College’s Bylaws. The Panel is satisfied that the College had taken all reasonable steps to communicate with the Member and granted the order sought by the College that the hearing proceed in the Member’s absence.

A. PUBLICATION ban

4The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of 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 October 22, 2025 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Sean McKegney is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(1) he contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);

(2) 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);

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

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS

1. The Member is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). His membership status with the College has been ‘Inactive/Non-Practising’ since April 19, 2018.

2. Between on or about September 10, 2020 and on or about May 9, 2023, the Member was charged with numerous offences under the Criminal Code (Canada) (the “Criminal Code”), including:

(1) On or about the 10^th day of September in the year 2020 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did, without lawful excuse, possess a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm or a non-restricted firearm, namely a hand gun, without being the holder of a licence permitting such possession, contrary to Section 91, subsection (3) of the Criminal Code;

(2) On or about the 10^th day of September in the year 2020 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did, without lawful excuse, possess a loaded restricted firearm, namely a hand gun, at Address A, without being the holder of an authorization or a licence permitting such possession at that place and the holder of a registration certificate for the said firearm, contrary to Section 95, subsection (2) of the Criminal Code;

(3) On or about the 9^th day of November in the year 2021 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did being at large on a release order, fail without lawful excuse to comply with a condition of that release order, namely Do not possess-any weapon(s) as defined by the Criminal Code (for example, but not restricted to, a pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, cross-bow, prohibited or restricted weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person), contrary to Section 145, subsection (5), clause (a) of the Criminal Code;

(4) On or about the 9^th day of November in the year 2021 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did steal from Person A while armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, contrary to Section 344, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code;

(5) On or about the 11^th day of July in the year 2022 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did steal from Person B, and at the time thereof, use violence to the person of Person B, and thereby commit robbery, contrary to Section 343, clause (b) of the Criminal Code;

(6) On or about the 15^th day of July in the year 2022 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did steal from Real Canadian Superstore located at 825 Oxford Street East, merchandise of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars, the property of Loblaw Supermarkets Limited, contrary to section 334, clause (b) of the Criminal Code;

(7) On or about the 25^th day of July in the year 2022 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did being at large on a release order, fail without lawful excuse to comply with a condition on that release order, namely Report to the John Howard Society Bail Verification and Supervision Program at 570 Queens Ave in person or by telephone at 519-518-5420 by Wednesday July 13, 2022, between the hours of 9:00 am and 11:00 am, and thereafter as required, contrary to Section 145, subsection (5), clause (a) of the Criminal Code;

(8) On or about the 2^nd day of August in the year 2022 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did steal from the LCBO located at 900 Oxford Street East, merchandise of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars, the property of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, contrary to Section 334, clause (b) of the Criminal Code;

(9) On or about the 14^th of August in the year 2022 at the City of London un [sic] the Southwest Region did steal from LCBO, 1820 Adelaide Street North, London, ON, merchandise of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars, the property of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, contrary to Section 334, clause (b) of the Criminal Code;

(10) On or about the 16^th day of August in the year 2022 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did steal from LCBO, 1820 Adelaide Street North, London, ON, merchandise of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars, the property of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, contrary to Section 334, clause (b) of the Criminal Code;

(11) On or about the 21^st day of August in the year 2022 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did steal from the LCBO located at 900 Oxford Street, merchandise of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars, the property of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, contrary to Section 334, clause (b) of the Criminal Code;

(12) On or about the 21^st day of January in the year 2023, at the City of London in the Southwest Region did, being at large on a undertaking, fail without lawful excuse to comply with a condition of that undertaking, namely You must not go to any LCBO location within the City of London, ON, contrary to Section 145, subsection (4), clause (a) of the Criminal Code;

(13) On or about the 21^st day of January in the year 2023, at the City of London in the Southwest Region, did steal from the LCBO at 1820 Adelaide Street North, London, merchandise of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars, the property of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, contrary to Section 334(b) of the Criminal Code;

(14) On or about the 11^th day of March in the year 2023 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did being at large on a release order, fail without lawful excuse to comply with a condition of that release order, namely “8. Do not attend at any Real Canadian Superstore in the City of London, Fast and Fresh Foodmart at 551 Richmond Street, London, ON, No Frills at 960 Hamilton Rd in London, ON, any LCBO stores in London, ON, or the Home Depot at 448 Clarke Road, London ON.”, contrary to Section 145, subsection (5), clause (a) of the Criminal Code;

(15) On or about the 11^th day of March in the year 2023 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did steal from the LCBO at 1981 Hyde Park Road, merchandise of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars, the property of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, contrary to Section 334, clause (b) of the Criminal Code;

3. On or about January 17, 2024, the Member pled guilty to, and was convicted of the following offences before the Honourable Justice K. McHugh in the Ontario Court of Justice in London, Ontario:

(a) two counts of failing to comply with a release order, contrary to section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code (counts 3 and 14 above). The offence dates were November 9, 2021, and March 11, 2023;

(b) one count of robbery with an offensive weapon, contrary to section 344(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (count 4 above). The offence date was November 9, 2021;

(c) one count of assault causing bodily harm, contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code (count 5 above – reduced from charge of robbery using personal violence, contrary to section 343(b) of the Criminal Code). The offence date was July 11, 2022; and

(d) one count of theft not exceeding $5,000, contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code (count 13 above). The offence date was January 21, 2023.

4. The remaining charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

5. On or about January 26, 2024, the Member was sentenced to a total of 21 months’ incarceration (16 months in pre-trial custody plus five months) and placed on probation for a period of two years, before the Honourable Justice McHugh in the Ontario Court of Justice in London. The Member was also made subject to a number of ancillary orders.

6. The Member did not appeal his convictions or sentence and the appeal period has expired.

C. THE MEMBER’S PLEA

6As the Member was not present, the Panel proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

D. THE EVIDENCE

7College Counsel entered into evidence the Registered Member Information for Sean McKegney (Exhibit 3). The Member’s Registered Member Information indicates that he changed his membership status with the College to Inactive/Non-Practising on April 19, 2018. Despite this change to his membership status, the Panel finds that the Member was a member of the College at all material times and was, in accordance with section 14 of the Act, subject to the College’s jurisdiction.

8The College also entered into evidence a Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 4), which contains the following documents:

1. Certified Copies of Court Informations, appearances, and dispositions in the criminal proceedings;

2. Certified Copy of Prohibition Order at Sentencing;

3. Certified Copy of Probation Order;

4. Certified Transcript of the Proceedings at Guilty Plea before Justice K. McHugh in the Ontario Court of Justice on January 17, 2024; and

5. Certified Transcript of Reasons for Sentence before Justice McHugh in the Ontario Court of Justice on January 26, 2024.

9The evidence presented in Exhibit 4 establishes that on or about January 17, 2024, in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Member pled guilty to and was convicted of two counts of failing to comply with a release order, one count of robbery with an offensive weapon, one count of assault causing bodily harm, and one count of theft not exceeding $5,000, contrary to sections 145(5)(a), 344(1), 267(b), and 334(b) of the Criminal Code. The remaining charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown. On or about January 26, 2024, the Member was sentenced to 21 months’ incarceration, less 16 months credit for pre-trial custody, and was placed on probation for a period of two years. The Member was also made subject to a number of ancillary orders. The Member had legal representation during his criminal proceedings. The Member did not appeal his convictions or sentence, and the appeal period has expired.

E. SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING

10College Counsel described the incidents which led to the Member’s criminal charges and the criminal offences to which the Member plead guilty to and of which he was convicted.

11According to College Counsel, the Member’s conduct, as detailed in the record of the criminal proceedings (Exhibit 4) and the resultant criminal convictions, provided a sufficient basis to justify a finding of professional misconduct under all of the heads of misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

F. DECISION ON FINDING

12Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 11, 2026, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).

G. REASONS FOR DECISION

(1) Factual Findings

13In accordance with the law of evidence and rule 13.03 of the Rules, the Panel accepts the certified copies of the Court Informations, appearances, and dispositions in the criminal proceedings (Exhibit 4, Tab 1) as proof, in this case, that the Member committed four of the criminal offences outlined therein. The Member pled guilty to and was convicted of multiple criminal offences before a Canadian court, no appeal was taken, and the time for an appeal has expired.

14In addition, pursuant to rule 13.04 of the Rules, the Panel also admits the findings of facts contained in the Certified Transcript of Proceedings at Guilty Plea (Exhibit 4, Tab 4) and the Certified Transcript of Reasons for Sentence (Exhibit 4, Tab 5). The Panel admits these certified transcripts for the purpose of explaining the findings of guilt and convictions.

15Between approximately September 10, 2020, and May 9, 2023, the Member was charged with numerous offenses under the Criminal Code. Based on the evidence contained within the Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 4), the College has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member: committed robbery with an offensive weapon, contrary to section 344(1) of the Criminal Code; committed assault causing bodily harm, contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code; failed to comply with a release order on two occasions, contrary to section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code; and committed theft not exceeding $5,000, contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code. The remaining charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

16The Court described the facts of the Member’s criminal convictions:

(a) The Member committed robbery on November 9, 2021. During the robbery, the Member used a knife to restrict and direct the operator of a convenience store, in London, Ontario, to open the cash register. The Member stole several hundred dollars from the cash register and fled. He later disposed of the money in a nearby park. The amount taken by the Member and recovered by the police was $210. At the time of the robbery, the Member was at large on a release order requiring him to abstain from weapons.

(b) On July 11, 2022, while outside of a grocery store in London, the Member punched a security officer—who was responsible for loss prevention of the store—in the nose. The security officer received a minor laceration on the bridge of his nose.

(c) On September 16, 2022, the Member was charged with a theft and released on an undertaking. One of the conditions of the undertaking was not to attend any LCBO store location in London. On January 21, 2023, the Member entered an LCBO store in London and selected multiple bottles of alcohol and placed them in his jacket and a bag. He left the store and made no attempt to pay for the items. The total loss of the items was $241.

(d) On February 28, 2023, the Member was released on a release order which included a variety of terms and charges. One of the conditions was that the Member shall not attend any LCBO store in London. On March 11, 2023, the Member failed without lawful excuse to comply with this condition of his release order and attended an LCBO store in London, which was a direct violation of the imposed condition.

17On or about January 26, 2024, the Member was sentenced to a 21-month custodial sentence, less 16 months credit for pre-trial custody, a two-year probation order, and was made subject to a number of ancillary orders. The Member did not appeal his convictions or sentence and the appeal period has expired.

(2) Legal Conclusions

18The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was a clear breach of each of the following heads of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing: subsections 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

19The Member contravened a law which was relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to subsection 1(16) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority in their classroom, as well as in their communities. The Member’s criminal convictions are relevant to his ability to provide a safe and secure learning environment for students. The Member pled guilty to and was convicted of several serious offences, including physical violence of others. By using a knife to restrict and direct the movements of an operator of a convenience store, and by punching a security office of a grocery store in the nose, the Member demonstrated an inability to control his actions, exercise good judgment, as well as to have regard for the safety and well-being of others. Teachers are trusted to maintain composure in difficult situations, to resolve issues productively, and to avoid any inappropriate conduct with students or others. Moreover, the Member failed to comply with two court orders that prohibited him from possessing weapons and from attending various stores in London. By doing so, the Member demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to follow Court orders, which calls into significant doubt whether he can be trusted to follow rules and requirements of the teaching profession.

20The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct could reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. It is unacceptable for members of the teaching profession to engage in criminal actions and to have blatant disregard for the law and safety of others. The Member ignored the welfare and safety of others when he robbed a convenience store with a knife and when he punched a security guard in the nose after he tried to prevent the Member from stealing from the grocery store. The Member further demonstrated a lack of integrity by committing theft and failing to comply with several court orders. The Member’s misconduct involved, among other things, violent and physical behaviour and as such, the Panel finds his behaviour could reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

21Finally, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members must uphold the public’s trust in the profession and its members by acting appropriately in and outside of the classroom with due regard for the law. The Member’s behaviour, however, eroded such trust and demonstrated a lack of regard for his community when he committed such criminal acts. The Member’s violent and off-duty conduct undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and violated the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.

H. SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

22Counsel for the College submitted that revocation of the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration and a reprimand are appropriate penalties, considering the gravity of the Member’s misconduct. Counsel for the College submitted that the Panel should find that this penalty appropriately considers the penalty principles of specific deterrence, general deterrence, remediation, and public protection.

23College Counsel presented the Panel with eight cases in order to establish that the proposed penalty was appropriate and that it fell within the range of penalties previously ordered for similar misconduct: Ontario College of Teachers v Lamure, 2022 ONOCT 71, Ontario College of Teachers v Bowles, 2021 ONOCT 135, Ontario College of Teachers v Condy, 2021 ONOCT 131, Ontario College of Teachers v Canacari, 2017 ONOCT 4, Ontario College of Teachers v Lutczyk, 2017 ONOCT 97, Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v Dr. Neilank Kumar Jha, 2020 ONCPSD 36, Dr. Jha v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 769 (Div. Ct), and Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v Sidhu, 2002 ONCPSD 41.

I. PENALTY DECISION

24On February 11, 2026, the Panel made the following order as to penalty:

1. The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers; and

2. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

J. REASONS FOR PENALTY

25In arriving at its decision with respect to penalty, the Panel carefully considered the College’s evidence and submissions. The Panel was also mindful of the guiding principles that penalty orders should address, including specific and general deterrence, remediation (in appropriate cases), and public protection. The Panel also recognizes the principle that like cases should be treated alike. The Panel is satisfied that the penalty in this case falls with the range of penalties ordered in several similar prior cases, as presented by College Counsel.

26The 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 was convicted of numerous and serious criminal offences stemming from several instances occurring over a prolonged period of time; (2) the Member engaged in violent behaviour towards his victims—in relation to his convictions of robbery with use of an offensive weapon and assault causing bodily injury—and at least one victim suffered physical injuries; and (3) the Member breached multiple release orders and thereby demonstrated a pattern of unwillingness to comply with the law and authority of the Court, even when sanctions were issued against him. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past.

27The Panel finds that the Member’s violent misconduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models for students, which the Member failed to do so when he resorted to robbing a convenience store and using a knife to direct the store’s operator to open the cash register to steal money. Furthermore, the Member’s decision to commit theft and assault a security guard, by punching him in the nose, was abhorrent and unbecoming of a member of the teaching profession. Members are expected to respect the law, serve as positive role models for students and in their communities, and maintain their composure during difficult situations. 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 will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

28The Panel finds that revocation is the order that appropriately responds to professional misconduct of this nature and gravity. Although revocation is not a mandatory penalty in this case, the Member’s professional misconduct involved various criminal acts, including physical violence, which occurred over a prolonged period of time. The Panel acknowledges that the Member has been a member of the teaching profession since August 25, 1997, and his membership was in good standing with the College for nearly two decades. The Panel recognizes that the Member’s struggles with addiction may have impacted his conduct which has brought him before the Panel in this disciplinary matter. The Panel further relies on Justice McHugh’s sentiments in his reasons for sentence, at paragraph 13, in that:

It would seem that were it not for the addiction in this case that Mr. McKegney would never have been before the court…So in many ways the situation of Mr. McKegney is a tragic one, but on the other hand one must remember that his offences were violent, they were many, and they caused considerable concern for the community (Exhibit 4, Tab 5).

The Panel is sensitive to the Member’s problem relevant to his addiction, but cannot ignore that the Member’s actions had serious consequences. His utter disregard for people’s safety and the law warrants an order of the Panel’s most severe penalty available: revocation.

29Furthermore, the Member’s conduct has eroded the public’s trust in the teaching profession. The public must be able to trust that teachers will model respect for others and the law. The Member’s actions are not reflective of someone who embodies such values and through his repugnant misconduct, he has forfeited the privilege of being a member of the teaching profession in Ontario. The revocation of the Member’s certificate will denounce his behaviour. It will also promote the objectives of general deterrence and public protection, which are of primary concern to the Panel.

30The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.