DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Sparks 2026 ONOCT 12

Date: 2026-03-31

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

Thomas William Sparks, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

THOMAS WILLIAM SPARKS (REGISTRATION #500257)

PANEL: Alain Martel, OCT, Chair

Jennifer Da Ponte

Victoria Romero

HEARD: March 2, 2026

Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Kirsty Niglas-Collins, for Thomas William Sparks

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.

2Thomas William Sparks (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 August 28, 2025 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

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

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

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

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Thomas William Sparks 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at Bell High School (the “School”) in Nepean, Ontario.

3. At all material times, Persons A, D, E and F were female educational assistants at the School. Persons B and C were female teachers at the School.

4. Between in or around September 2022 and in or around January 2024, the Member engaged in inappropriate communications of a personal and/or sexual nature, which he knew or should have known were unwelcome, with Persons A, B, C, D and E.

5. The Member repeatedly commented on his female colleagues’ appearances. For example, the Member repeatedly commented about Person B’s body to multiple coworkers, shared his views about Selena Gomez being curvy and beautiful, and commented that a parent looked like a whore.

6. The Member repeatedly asked sexually inappropriate questions of his female colleagues. For example, the Member asked Person A about the frequency that she had sex with her boyfriend, asked Person A why young women like rough sex, asked Person D if young women like oral sex, and asked Person C if Person A would be absent on her birthday due to rough sex the night before.

7. The Member repeatedly talked about his personal sex life and/or shared sexualized stories with his female colleagues. For example, the Member told Person A and Person E about his vasectomy story, including having to masturbate into a jar, spoke about the lack of sex in his own marriage, and his sexual experiences in university. The Member told Person D these same things, and told her about not receiving oral sex. The Member further told Person C that he watched pornography.

8. The Member also repeatedly made sexualized jokes with his female colleagues. The Member made jokes to Person A about pornography and made sexual innuendos. The Member and Person E repeatedly made sexualized jokes to Person C, and the Member also made various “boob and butt” jokes to Person C. This occurred even after Person C told him she found his behaviour inappropriate.

9. Between in or about September 2022 and in or about January 2024, the Member told staff at the School that he did not want to work with Person F. According to the Member, this was because Person F would fall asleep in class.

10. The Member knew or ought to have known that his behaviour was unwelcome and that it diminished the dignity of his coworkers. The Member’s sexualized comments, jokes and interactions with his colleagues made them feel uncomfortable and created a poisoned work environment.

11. After completing its investigation, the Board found that the Member engaged in a pattern of inappropriate sexualized comments and interactions with colleagues, constituting a breach of the Board’s Respectful Workplace policy. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the Board’s Investigation Report.

12. On March 21, 2024, the Board issued a discipline letter to the Member, suspended him for ten days without pay, re-assigned him to another school, and required him to enroll in a boundaries training course. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter.

13. The Member grieved the discipline through his federation and his suspension was reduced to eight days.

GUILTY PLEA

14. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-13 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

15. The Member hereby acknowledges that the conduct set out at paragraphs 4-11 of the Admitted Facts constitutes professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of subsections 1(15) (based on section 264(1)(d) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

16. By this document, the Member states that:

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

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

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

(d) 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;

(e) he understands that any agreement between his and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and having obtained or had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

17. In light of the Admitted Facts and 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

6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the conduct set out in paragraphs 4-11 of the Admitted Facts constitutes professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behaviour when he made personal and sexual comments to his colleagues, which he knew or ought to have known were unwelcome.

8The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(d) requires teachers to assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school. Instead of working collaboratively with his colleagues and other staff at the school, the Member made his colleagues and staff feel uncomfortable and created a poisoned work environment. The Member did so by repeatedly commenting on his female coworkers’ appearances, discussing sexual topics and making sexualized jokes. The Member ought to have known that his behaviour was unwelcome and that it diminished the dignity of his coworkers. In addition, the Member told School staff that he did not want to work with Person F. By making this comment, the Member also demonstrated a reluctance to work cooperatively with his colleagues and to build a positive working and learning environment.

9The Panel finds that the 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. Teachers are expected to conduct themselves in a respectful and professional manner with their colleagues at all times, particularly when they are in a position of authority over them. While the Member was not an administrator, he was in a position of authority over Persons A, D, E and F who were educational assistants. The Member repeatedly commented on his female colleagues’ appearances. For example, the Member made comments about Person B’s body to multiple coworkers. The Member also asked his colleagues sexually inappropriate questions. He asked Person D if young women like oral sex, asked Person A about the frequency of sex she had with her boyfriend and asked Person C if Person A would be absent on her birthday due to rough sex the night before. In addition, the Member talked about his personal sex life, shared sexualized stories, and repeatedly made sexualized jokes to his colleagues including jokes about pornography and “boob and butt” jokes. The Member’s behaviour made his colleagues feel uncomfortable and it diminished their dignity. Through his behaviour, the Member violated appropriate professional boundaries with his colleagues, demonstrated a disregard for his professional duties and exhibited a concerning lack of professional judgment. Therefore, the Member’s conduct can be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

10The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). The public must be able to trust that teachers are acting professionally and exercising good judgment to provide a safe, supportive and positive work and learning environment. By repeatedly engaging in demeaning behavior towards female staff at the School, including making sexualized comments, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and violated the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.

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, as amended by the parties on March 2, 2026, 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 of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two (2) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee in this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;

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 Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, regarding appropriate communication and professional boundaries with colleagues, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a 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, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee; and

(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; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written 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

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. Campbell, 2022 ONOCT 103; Ontario College of Teachers v. Merolle, 2022 ONOCT 84; Ontario College of Teachers v. Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453; Ontario College of Teachers v. Whyte, 2024 ONOCT 19; Ontario College of Teachers v. Janvary, 2022 ONOCT 13 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Elken, 2021 ONOCT 120.

13The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are five aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member’s behaviour was not a momentary lapse of judgment; it involved multiple incidents occurring over a period of more than a year. Second, the Member’s inappropriate conduct involved six of his colleagues, including four educational assistants. While the Member was not an administrator and was not in a leadership role, there was a power imbalance between the Member and the educational assistants. Third, many of the Member’s jokes and comments were sexual in nature. Fourth, the Member continued his conduct towards Person C, even after she told him that his behaviour was inappropriate. Fifth, the Board found that the Member, through his conduct, had created a poisoned work environment and breached the Board’s Respectful Workplace policy.

14There are six mitigating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member was not in a formal position of responsibility over any of his colleagues. Second, there is no indication that the Member intended to cause harm to his colleagues. The Board investigator found that the Member had conflated familiarity and candidness among colleagues with consent to engage in sexualized conversations, which he did not have. Third, the Member’s conduct was limited to making inappropriate comments; it did not involve any inappropriate physical interactions. Fourth, the Member has been disciplined for his behaviour by the Board. The Board suspended the Member for eight days, reassigned him to another school and required him to enroll in a boundaries training course. In addition, the Member will be required to complete additional coursework in accordance with the Panel’s order in this case. Fifth, the Member has no disciplinary history with the College or the Board. Sixth, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. 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 pattern of inappropriate conduct towards his colleagues, warrants a reprimand. Teachers must behave in a professional manner with their colleagues and help to create and maintain a safe, positive and supportive work and learning environment. The Member did the opposite. 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.

16The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding appropriate communication and professional boundaries with colleagues 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 colleagues.

17Given 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 March 17, 2026, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

18The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

19Date: March 31, 2026

Alain Martel, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

Jennifer Da Ponte Member, Discipline Panel

Victoria Romero Member, Discipline Panel

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.