DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Miszkiel 2026 ONOCT 03

Date: 2026-01-23

DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION

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

Jolanta Mariola Miszkiel, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JOLANTA MARIOLA MISZKIEL (REGISTRATION #272213)

PANEL: Diane Ballantyne, OCT, Chair

Marlène Marwah

Sara Nouini, OCT

HEARD: June 5-6 and 13-14, 2019; September 20, 2019; October 7-8, and 30, 2019; February 18-19, 2020; January 12, 2021; September 26-27, 2023; November 13, 2023; February 15, 2024; March 21, 2024; June 17, 2024; and October 3, 2024

Zirka Jakibchuk and Dominic Bell, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Jolanta Mariola Miszkiel, self-represented

Julie Maciura, 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 in person before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on June 5, 6, 13, and 14, 2019; September 20, 2019; October 7, 8, and 30, 2019; February 18 and 19, 2020; January 12, 2021; September 26 and 27, 2023; November 13, 2023; February 15, 2024, March 21, 2024; June 17, 2024; and October 3, 2024.

2Jolanta Mariola Miszkiel (the “Member”) attended the hearing but did not have legal representation.

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. OVERVIEW

4In Ontario, teachers employed in the publicly funded education system are regularly evaluated through a process known as the Teacher Performance Appraisal (“TPA”). The TPA system is intended to support teachers in their professional growth and ensure they are meeting established standards to provide high-quality education for students. Every experienced teacher in Ontario’s publicly funded schools participates in a TPA once every five years, in accordance with the requirements of the Education Act, RSO 1990, c E.2 (“Education Act”). The TPA focuses on five primary domains and 16 associated competencies (see: O Reg 99/02, Schedule 1), derived from the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, that teachers must demonstrate.

5The TPA process involves a series of steps. First, the teacher and principal meet to discuss the appraisal procedure and set goals. Next, the principal observes the teacher in their classroom(s) to see how they deliver lessons, work with students, and manage the classroom environment. After the observation, the principal provides feedback to the teacher, highlighting strengths and identifying areas needing improvement. Finally, the principal issues a formal “summative” report and rates the teacher’s overall performance as either “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory.”

6An unsatisfactory rating indicates that the principal has significant concerns about the teacher’s ability to perform their duties. In such a case, the teacher receives specific feedback and targeted support, such as mentoring or professional development opportunities, to help the teacher improve. A follow-up TPA occurs shortly afterward to determine whether the teacher has made the necessary improvements. A third unsatisfactory TPA can lead to the Board’s termination of the teacher’s employment.

7At all material times, the Member was a planning-time teacher, part of the kindergarten team at [XXX] Public School (the “School”) in the Peel District Board of Education (“the Board”). In this role, the Member was expected to take over the classes of her teaching colleagues to provide them with the necessary planning time for their classes.

8The principal of the School, Principal Tina Morrison, assessed the Member’s teaching performance three times between February 2014 and March 2015. Principal Morrison rated the Member’s teaching performance as unsatisfactory on all three TPAs. She also found the Member’s teaching performance to be unsatisfactory with respect to all five domains for each of the TPAs. The Board dismissed the Member from her employment effective June 10, 2015.

9The College alleges that the Member’s three consecutive unsatisfactory TPAs support allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the Member.

10The Panel’s task is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegations, on a balance of probabilities, and if so, whether the Member’s conduct gives rise to findings of professional misconduct and/or incompetence. For the following reasons, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in professional misconduct under each head of misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing, specifically subsection 1(5), 1(15), and 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and is incompetent as defined at subsection 30(3) of the Act.

C. THE ALLEGATIONS

11The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 22, 2016 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Jolanta Mariola Miszkiel is guilty of professional misconduct and/or is incompetent as defined in subsections 30(2) and 30(3) of the Act in that:

(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that 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); and

(d) she displayed in her professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS

1. Jolanta Mariola Miszkiel is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] Public School.

3. Between February 2014 and March 2015, the Member received three consecutive unsatisfactory performance appraisals.

4. The Member, inter alia:

(a) did not demonstrate a commitment to the well-being and development of all pupils;

(b) did not respond to the learning exceptionalities and special needs of her student(s) by modifying her instruction and assessment;

(c) did not differentiate lessons and assist learners in practising new skills by providing opportunities for guided practice and active participation;

(d) did not provide an environment for learning that encouraged pupils to be problem solvers, decision makers, lifelong learners and contributing members of a changing society;

(e) did not provide her students with appropriate feedback and effective questioning, resulting in a lack of rich learning experiences;

(f) did not demonstrate an understanding of the curriculum she was assigned to teach and of the essential components of the subject matter and related skills;

(g) produced inadequate long range plans, including plans that were limited and did not include elements of inquiry-based learning with links to the developmental domains and real life contexts;

(h) did not understand or implement the relevant program planning, and focussed on a narrow teaching approach for her students that was not commensurate with Ministry expectations;

(i) did not ensure that the learning environment had a variety of resources available to support the intended learning outcomes;

(j) did not demonstrate effective teaching and assessment practices and did not align assessment strategies with appropriate learning objectives;

(k) did not demonstrate effective classroom management strategies to engage her students in varied learning experiences;

(l) did not address inappropriate student behavior or manage instructional time and organize student interactions to ensure learning goals were achieved;

(m) did not demonstrate professional knowledge and understanding of pupils, curriculum, legislation, teaching practices and classroom management strategies to promote the learning and achievement of her pupils;

(n) did not have lesson plans for certain programs and there were no learning goals or intended outcomes identified in her lessons;

(o) did not develop appropriate learning goals, provide meaningful lessons, use instructional time in a focused and purposeful manner and did not choose pertinent resources to address student needs;

(p) did not conduct ongoing assessment of her pupils’ progress, evaluate their achievement and report results to pupils and parents regularly;

(q) had a limited repertoire of assessment strategies and was unable to meet the diverse needs of her students;

(r) did not provide students with numerous and varied opportunities to demonstrate their achievement of the curriculum expectations;

(s) lacked a basis for interpreting student progress toward achievement of the curriculum expectations as a result of her limited and inaccurate records;

(t) did not engage in ongoing professional learning and apply it to improve her teaching practice;

(u) did not attend professional development opportunities, did not seek input from colleagues, and rarely accessed the support of the Instructional Coach;

(v) did not collaborate with other teachers and School colleagues to create and sustain learning communities at the School;

(w) did not establish positive relationships or work cooperatively with colleagues, support staff and administration to provide appropriate instruction, and solve student, classroom or School concerns; and

(x) did not engage parents to enhance pupil learning and achievement.

5. The Member’s employment with the Board was terminated effective June 10, 2015.

D. THE MEMBER’S PLEA

12The Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

E. THE EVIDENCE

13The Panel heard from five witnesses in total – four on behalf of the College and one on behalf of the Member. Relevant portions of this evidence will be set out in greater detail, as needed, in the Panel’s reasons for decision below.

(1) The College’s Evidence

14The College called four witnesses to prove the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing: (1) Principal Tina Morrison, who was the principal at the School at the relevant time; (2) Janet Courtin, who was the Board’s superintendent of education while the Member was the subject of the three TPAs; (3) Kimberlee Johnston, a resource education teacher, who helped the Member to implement the improvement plans put in place following the Member’s first two unsatisfactory TPAs; (4) Amanda Bennett, a Board instructional coach who worked with the Member during the TPA process.

(a) Tina Morrison

15Tina Morrison became a certified teacher in 1993 and taught for 12 years with the Board before she was promoted to vice-principal. She became a principal in 2010 and was the principal at the School from September 2011 to 2015. At the time of her testimony, Principal Morrison had conducted more than 80 TPAs. Principal Morrison testified about her interactions with the Member, including conducting the TPAs which are the central issue in this hearing. The College further sought to qualify Principal Morrison as a participant expert regarding (1) the standards of the teaching profession, (2) expectations of a competent teacher, and (3) teacher performance appraisals. The Member did not take a position as to whether Principal Morrison is appropriately qualified as a participant expert in this case.

(i) Participant Expert Qualification

16Expert evidence is admissible in matters requiring specialized knowledge. In Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 (“Novick”), the Divisional Court ruled that the Committee is required to receive expert evidence on the standards of the profession in order to determine whether a member’s conduct met these standards, unless the Member’s conduct is so egregious (e.g., in the case of physical or sexual abuse) that it is self-evidently misconduct.

17A participant expert is a particular kind of expert witness who was a witness to the events central to the hearing and is also permitted to provide opinion evidence to the Panel in certain circumstances. In qualifying a witness as a participant expert, the Panel must first determine whether the expert opinion itself is admissible. Then, the Panel must determine whether the witness is properly qualified as a participant expert.

18The legal test to determine whether expert opinion is admissible was established in the cases of R. v. Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9 (“Mohan”) and R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624. In White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, [2015] 2 SCR 182, the Supreme Court of Canada further clarified the two-step legal test for the admissibility of expert evidence. First, as a threshold requirement, the Panel must determine whether the tendered expert evidence is relevant, whether it is necessary, whether there is a rule that would exclude the evidence, and whether the expert witness is properly qualified. Second, if these threshold requirements are met, the Panel must balance the potential risks of admitting the expert evidence with the benefits of admitting it in the particular case at hand.

19The test to determine whether an expert is properly qualified as a participant expert is outlined in Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”). The Panel must determine whether the expert’s opinion is based on their own observation of or participation in the events at issue in the hearing and if the expert formed their opinion as part of the ordinary exercise of their skills, knowledge, training and experience while observing or participating in the events at issue. If the expert’s opinion was based on their own observation or participation and they formed their opinion as part of the ordinary exercise of their skills, training, and experience, then they are properly qualified as a participant expert.

20After having considered the criteria set out in Mohan and in Westerhof, as well as Principal Morrison’s Registered Member Information and Curriculum Vitae, the Panel qualified Principal Morrison as a participant expert in this matter relating to the standards of the teaching profession, the expectations of a competent teacher, and teacher performance appraisals.

21The Panel determined that expert evidence on these standards was relevant to and necessary for the Panel’s determination of whether the Member breached the standards of practice of the profession pursuant to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The conduct at issue in this case is not of a nature that is so notorious and obviously contrary to the standards such that expert opinion is not required (see: Novick). Additionally, the Panel finds that Principal Morrison’s evidence is necessary in this case to determine whether the TPA was conducted in an appropriate manner.

22The Panel found no exclusionary rule relating to Principal Morrison’s evidence.

23The Panel was satisfied that Principal Morrison had the special skill, knowledge, training, or experience at the time of the events to be properly qualified as an expert. At the time of her qualification as an expert, she had been an administrator for more than a decade, had conducted more than 80 TPAs, received extensive, ongoing training in conducting TPAs, and had trained her staff regarding the standards of the profession. The Panel was also satisfied that Principal Morrison formed her expert opinion while observing or participating in the events in question. Finally, the Panel was not aware of any prejudicial effect that would arise from admitting Principal Morrison’s evidence. On balance, the Panel found her evidence to be properly admissible as expert testimony.

24Accordingly, the Panel qualified Principal Morrison as a participant expert in the areas of (1) the standards of the teaching profession, (2) the expectations of a competent teacher, and (3) teacher performance appraisals.

(ii) Testimony of Principal Tina Morrison

25Principal Morrison began working with the Member in 2011. At that time, the Member was a planning time teacher and was also assigned to teach English as a Second Language (ESL). The Member was scheduled to be evaluated on a TPA in the 2011-2012 school year, and the Member requested that the TPA occur in the fall of that year.

26In October 2011, Principal Morrison conducted the Member’s first TPA. As part of that TPA, she conducted two classroom observations at the Member’s request. This TPA resulted in a satisfactory rating, however, Principal Morrison highlighted several areas for improvement. Among them, the principal observed that the Member did not know the names of all her students two months into the school year, did not provide a diverse range of learning opportunities and assessment practices tailored to the particular needs and abilities of her students, asked her students basic yes-or-no questions that did not require them to engage in higher-order thinking, did not collaborate with her colleagues as expected, and did not participate in all required staff meetings.

27Principal Morrison testified that a teacher would ordinarily receive a performance appraisal once every five years. However, pursuant to the regulations made under the Education Act, a principal may conduct additional performance appraisals if the principal considers it advisable to do so in light of circumstances relating to the teacher’s performance (see: Ontario Regulation 99/02, subsection 6(1)). While the Member was due to receive her next TPA in 2016, Principal Morrison decided to conduct an earlier, out of cycle TPA because of the concerns she identified in the Member’s 2011 TPA.

28Principal Morrison was concerned that the Member was not providing a developmentally appropriate program, that she appeared to be teaching the same lesson repeatedly and to students in different grades, and that she was not collecting appropriate evidence for student assessment. Principal Morrison also received some concerning feedback about the Member from some of the teachers at the School. Additionally, she received negative feedback about the Member from students and parents – including complaints that the Member was “mean” and “abrupt” with students, that the Member refused to let an ill student use the washroom, that she did not ensure that kindergarten students were dressed appropriately for the weather, and that the Member was not cooperating with parents to resolve their concerns when approached. Principal Morrison documented her concerns in detailed handwritten notes of phone calls and meetings with parents, complaints from the Member’s colleagues, and ongoing meetings with the Member between 2011 and 2014. Principal Morrison testified that it was unusual to see such a large number of complaints from parents about a teacher or from fellow teachers about a colleague. Overall, her decision to conduct an out of cycle TPA was made after much discussion with her superintendent, after having met often with the Member to provide feedback and guidance with respect to her teaching performance, and after a formal Letter of Expectation was sent to the Member.

29On February 19, 2014, Principal Morrison completed the Member’s first TPA, which resulted in a finding of unsatisfactory (“TPA 1”). In accordance with the TPA process, she held several pre-observation meetings with the Member to establish expectations and to review the Member’s lesson plans, and she conducted two classroom observations. Principal Morrison found the Member’s teaching performance to be unsatisfactory with respect to all five domains assessed. Regarding the first domain, Principal Morrison recorded that the Member gave the same lessons and used the same assessments for students of different grades, she did not respond to a student’s learning exceptionalities and special needs by modifying instruction and assessment, she relied on passive activities such as watching videos, she did not assist students in practicing new skills, and she only provided general feedback to her students such as “very nice” and “good job”.

30Regarding the second domain, Principal Morrison testified that, although the Member seemed to be familiar with the curriculum, she had difficulty demonstrating this familiarity when delivering her program. The Member did not implement program considerations; she failed to align assessment strategies with learning objectives; she did not assess students on the criteria provided; she failed to provide differentiated instruction, gradual release of responsibility, and appropriate materials to support student learning; and she did not collect data relating to student progress.

31Regarding the third domain, Principal Morrison concluded that, while the Member attempted to incorporate suggestions from the pre-observation meetings into her lessons, she ultimately did not integrate certain required skills (such as literacy) into her lesson, she taught the same lesson for an extended period of time, she used the same task to assess her grade two and grade three students, and she did not maintain accurate records of student performance. Furthermore, the Member provided feedback that was simplistic and not connected to the learning goals.

32Regarding the fourth domain, Principal Morrison observed that the Member did not attend a required grade team collaboration meeting. Additionally, Principal Morrison observed that the Member experienced conflicts with multiple staff and parents.

33Regarding the fifth domain, Principal Morrison concluded that the member failed to demonstrate ongoing professional learning. While the Member attended various professional development sessions, Principal Morrison did not observe any evidence that she implemented new learning into her teaching practice.

34Following the completion of this TPA, Principal Morrison had post-observation meetings with the Member and worked extensively with her to prepare and develop an improvement plan.

35On June 13, 2014, Ms. Morrison completed the Member’s second TPA, which also resulted in an unsatisfactory rating (“TPA 2”) following the same process of pre-observation meetings, classroom observations, and post-observation meetings. Principal Morrison found the Member’s teaching performance to be unsatisfactory with respect to all five domains.

36Regarding the first domain, Principal Morrison observed that the Member did not provide evidence of programming for a student with exceptionalities (aside from giving him the opportunity to use his iPad to explore a story), and the lesson plans did not include examples of how this student would take part in the drama or dance component of the lesson. The Member did not provide differentiation of lessons for grades one, two, and three students and her lesson plans did not show any progression between the grades. The Member utilized new instruction strategies for the first time during the observed lesson, which led to much confusion in her class, and the Member continued with her lesson even though half the class indicated that they did not understand her instruction and would therefore have a difficult time participating. Additionally, the Member did not play music during her dance lesson, failed to interact with the entire class, and provided generalized feedback such as “very nice dance movement”.

37Regarding the second domain, Principal Morrison found that the Member failed to implement program considerations for kindergarten, despite support provided by the Resource teacher and Early Literacy teacher. Students were given minimal opportunities to explore, create, and present dance. The Member also failed to demonstrate effective classroom management strategies as she was preoccupied with addressing inappropriate student behavior for much of the observed lesson. The Member further failed to properly assess students and failed to appropriately collect assessment data – Principal Morrison observed the Member assessing the students inaccurately and giving credit to students who did not demonstrate required criteria.

38Regarding the third domain, Principal Morrison observed that the Member failed to conduct ongoing assessment of students and used the same assessment task for students in different grades. The Member further failed to provide instruction or assessment linked to certain curriculum expectations. Principal Morrison observed that the Member attempted to integrate literacy skills into the lesson by using appropriate text, but she used the text in a limited capacity. Additionally, while the Member created a learning centre in her class, Principal Morrison did not observe the children using the centre to create dances. Principal Morrison also noted that the Member did not choose culturally relevant materials for the class. Principal Morrison noted that the Member used appropriate technology in her teaching practices and related responsibilities, but not during the observed lesson.

39Regarding the fourth domain, Principal Morrison noted that the Member attended staff meetings and professional development sessions. However, the Member did not willingly collaborate with other teachers and was not aware of the grade team to which she was expected to contribute or with whom she was required to work. Additionally, the Member’s communications with parents were limited and she failed to engage parents to support the students in her program.

40Regarding the fifth domain, Principal Morrison noted that the Member attended various professional opportunities, but she failed to implement the learning from those into the observed lessons.

41Following the second unsatisfactory TPA, Principal Morrison again met with the Member to develop a second improvement plan.

42On March 4, 2015, Principal Morrison completed the third TPA which also resulted in a rating of unsatisfactory (“TPA 3”) following the same process of a pre-observation meeting, classroom observation, and post-observation meeting. Principal Morrison found the Member’s teaching performance to be unsatisfactory with respect to all five domains.

43Regarding the first domain, Principal Morrison again observed that the Member’s planning materials did not respond to the learning exceptionalities of a student in her kindergarten program. The Member was not able to provide evidence that she provided modification and accommodations for students with exceptionalities in her program. During the observed lesson, the Member provided limited instructions to students on completing assigned work sheets and as a result, most students were unable to complete the task. The Member also taught a lesson which had previously been used as an activity on prior occasions, thus failing to assist students in practicing new skills. During the lesson, the Member failed to provide differentiated instruction for students with different needs. For example, when a non-reading student told the Member that they could not read the worksheet, the Member simply read the worksheet (which had a significant amount of text) to them and walked away. The student was not able to complete the task.

44Regarding the second domain, Principal Morrison concluded that the Member failed to demonstrate subject knowledge of the science and technology portion of the Full-Day Early Learning Kindergarten curriculum. The Member could not identify this expectation in her lesson plan and was not able to implement it during the observed lesson. Principal Morrison further did not observe the Member collecting assessment data using purposeful, meaningful interactions. Instead, the Member simply took pictures of the structures that students had built. The Member also did not demonstrate effective classroom management strategies. Most of the students were unable to independently read the task set by the Member, and the Member spent much of the lesson supporting two specific students. Principal Morrison observed multiple students engaging in off-task behaviour as a result.

45Regarding the third domain, Principal Morrison concluded that the Member failed to demonstrate professional knowledge and understanding of pupils, curriculum, legislation, teaching practices and classroom management strategies to promote the learning and achievement of her pupils. The Member did not have lesson plans for the kindergarten science and technology program up to the point of the TPA. During the observed kindergarten lesson, the Member focussed most of her time on asking the students simple questions and only 3-4 minutes was spent by the students actually creating structures. During the observed health lesson, the Member used the same five lessons and related activities for 15 out of the 18 lessons for the term. The Member also failed to choose pertinent resources for the health lesson observed and many of the children were not able to read the resources provided by the Member. Principal Morrison also concluded that the Member did not keep sufficient records of student performance in both the kindergarten and the grades 1-3 classes observed.

46Regarding the fourth domain, Principal Morrison noted that the Member did not participate in the professional development activities provided during staff meetings. Additionally, the member failed to identify appropriate and meaningful areas for professional growth. The professional goals listed on the Member’s Annual Learning Plan are: teach assigned class, assigned subjects; and satisfy Mrs. Morrison.

47Regarding the fifth domain, Principal Morrison recorded that the Member could not describe her input as a member of the kindergarten collaborate inquiry team, which took place at staff meetings. The Member failed to engage with her designated early childhood educators and did not share her lesson plans with them. Additionally, the Member’s communication with parents was limited to one letter, which included inaccurate curriculum expectations. Additionally, the Member did not engage parents effectively to support the kindergarten students.

48On March 9, 2015, the Board confirmed to the Member in writing that she was to be assigned to home with pay pending a recommendation to the Board for termination of her employment under section 277.38(5) of the Education Act. On March 25, 2015, the Member was notified that a recommendation would be made to the Board of Trustees of the Board for the termination of her employment. The Board terminated the Member’s employment effective June 10, 2015.

49Principal Morrison testified about the considerable efforts she and others made to help the Member improve her teaching performance throughout the TPA process. Despite this support, the Member’s performance did not improve. The Member taught hundreds of children, and the impact of the Member’s teaching issues affected not just the children but also their families and the greater School community.

(iii) Admissibility of recordings

50During the cross-examination of Principal Morrison, the Member sought to admit an audio recording of a conversation between herself and Principal Morrison to challenge the witness’ credibility and to show that she refused to answer a question asked by the Member during an improvement plan meeting on September 11, 2014. College Counsel objected to the inclusion of this recording and advised the Panel that the Member had provided the College with other recordings that she intended to use during this hearing. The College objected to the admission of all the recordings, submitting that these recordings are inadmissible for two main reasons. First, they are not relevant, and second, policy considerations dictate that surreptitious recordings should not be admitted at discipline hearings.

51College Counsel submitted that while the Member’s recordings are not illegal (see: Criminal Code, s 184), they are largely not relevant to the issues at this hearing. College Counsel conceded that some of the recordings provided to them in advance of the hearing may be relevant to challenge a witness’ credibility. However, some of the other recordings provided are conversations between the Member and her union representative, which do not address any of the issues in this hearing.

52College Counsel further submitted that there are policy considerations that should inform the Panel’s decision regarding the recording’s admissibility. First, there were workplace policies in place at the Board that prohibited secret recordings of meetings (although the Panel was not presented with any specific policy regarding surreptitious recording of meetings). Second, the witness had specifically asked the Member not to be recorded, and it would not be appropriate to admit a recording where the subject specifically declined to participate in the recording. Third, College Counsel submitted that admitting these recordings would send a message to teacher members and administrator members that it is appropriate to distrust each other and to record each other in the future, in case they have to appear before this Committee, thus disrupting the employer-employee relationship (see: Re Siemens Westinghouse and Canadian Auto Workers, Local 512, 2002 CanLII 79045 (ON LA)). A healthy employer-employee relationship requires that teachers and administrators should be allowed to exchange their thoughts and ideas without fear that their conversation is being recorded (see: Jazz Aviation LP v. Canadian Airline Dispatchers’ Association, 2014 CanLII 39814 (CA LA)). Finally, College Counsel submitted that the evidence in the recordings can be brought before the Panel through cross-examination, through other witnesses, or through the Member’s testimony.

53The Member submitted that the recordings are relevant to Principal Morrison’s credibility – to demonstrate that she is not being truthful in her testimony. She further submitted that she did not ask to put the entirely of the disclosed recordings before the Panel but simply those portions that would be relevant to the credibility of the witness. In particular, the portion of the audio-recording the Member intended to put to Principal Morrison proved that Principal Morrison was not telling the truth about giving the Member specific directions included in one of her improvement plans.

54The Panel found that the recordings are presumptively admissible (see: Statutory Powers Procedure Act, s 15), however, the Panel declined to admit the recordings for two reasons. First, the Panel found that the recordings are not necessary for the Member to put the desired evidence before it. The content of the conversation can be admitted either through cross examination or through the Member’s own evidence. The best evidence that can address the issue of credibility is viva voce evidence that can be subject to cross-examination. Since it is possible to get the information on the recordings through viva voce evidence in this case (i.e., the Member’s testimony), the Panel declines to admit the recordings and prefers that the conversations that were recorded be tendered through witness testimony. Second, the Panel agrees with College Counsel regarding the policy considerations of admitting these recordings. While the cases provided were regarding labour arbitration, the Panel finds that similar principles can apply to the discipline process. If the Panel were to allow surreptitious recordings where one of the parties specifically declined being recorded, this would send a message to the profession that the Panel endorses secretive and distrustful behaviour between administrators and teachers. The Panel does not wish to encourage surreptitious recording between teachers and administrators in general and therefore declined to admit the recordings in this proceeding.

(b) Janet Courtin

55Janet Courtin was certified to teach in 1981 and began teaching shortly thereafter. She has been employed by the Board for 32 years working as a teacher, vice-principal, principal and superintendent. Ms. Courtin was the Board superintendent in charge of overseeing the School from 2010 to 2015, during which time she oversaw the Member’s one satisfactory and three unsatisfactory TPAs. Ms. Courtin conducted approximately 100 TPAs during her seven years as principal and was involved in three out of cycle TPAs during her time as superintendent.

(i) Ms. Courtin’s Qualification as a Participant Expert

56College Counsel sought to qualify Ms. Courtin as a participant expert in the areas of: (1) the standards of the teaching profession; (2) the expectations of a competent teacher; and (3) TPAs. The Member took no position as to whether Ms. Courtin was qualified to provide opinion evidence regarding these three areas.

57After considering the four threshold requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence (as described above), the Panel qualified Ms. Courtin as a participant expert. First, the Panel finds that Ms. Courtin’s evidence is relevant to the standards of the profession and to the issue of whether the Member met those standards during the TPA process. Second, Ms. Courtin’s evidence is necessary because the Panel must receive expert evidence regarding the standards of the profession in cases such as this, where the Member’s conduct is not so egregious that it is self-evidently misconduct. Third, there is no exclusionary rule preventing the admissibility of Ms. Courtin’s expert evidence. Fourth, the Panel believes that Ms. Courtin is a properly qualified expert. She has been a principal for seven years and a superintendent for five years; she has conducted more than 100 TPAs; she has received extensive, ongoing training in conducting TPAs; and she has trained others on both the standards of the process, as well as how to properly conduct a TPA.

58The College further demonstrated that Ms. Courtin meets the criteria established by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Westerhof for serving as a “participant expert” (as described above). The Panel finds that she has special skill, knowledge, training, or experience in the three areas set out above, she was not hired as an expert witness by the College, was involved in the Member’s out of cycle TPA process, and formed her opinion during the ordinary exercise of her duties as superintendent. Accordingly, the Panel qualified Ms. Courtin as a participant expert in the areas of (1) the standards of the teaching profession, (2) the expectations of a competent teacher, and (3) TPAs.

(ii) Ms. Courtin’s testimony

59Ms. Courtin testified about the importance of the TPA process, the duties of a principal and a superintendent, a pattern of concerning behaviour on the part of the Member, and her involvement in the Member’s out of cycle TPA process, and her role in investigating the Member’s workplace harassment and/or discrimination complaints against Principal Morrison.

60Ms. Courtin further testified about concerns regarding the Member when Ms. Courtin became superintendent of the School. She testified extensively about her knowledge about emails or letters from Ms. Morrison documenting her concerns with the Member; Letters of Discipline sent to the Member; Letters of Expectation sent to the Member; and parent complaints regarding the Member. Some of the concerns noted in these documents included irregularities in lesson planning, problems with curriculum delivery, issues with classroom management, insufficient student assessments, missing lesson plans, failing to incorporate experiential learning and differentiated instruction into her lessons, and failing to submit sufficient report card comments on time.

61Ms. Courtin testified that she supported Principal Morrison’s decision to conduct an out of cycle TPA for the Member based on the various concerns regarding the Member and her professional practice as outlined above. As superintendent, Ms. Courtin’s role required her to be directly involved in any out of cycle TPAs. She testified extensively about her involvement in the Member’s three out of cycle TPAs and about her opinion that all the TPAs that Principal Morrison conducted were in accordance with the requirements set out in the Education Act and with the more onerous Board requirements.

62Ms. Courtin also testified about her involvement in the Member’s formal workplace harassment and/or discrimination complaints. The Member made repeated workplace harassment complaints regarding Principal Morrison between 2011 and July 2014. In these complaints, the Member claimed that Principal Morrison was harassing her due to her ethnic background. Ms. Courtin concluded that Principal Morrison’s behavior, as alleged in the complaints, did not amount to harassment or discrimination. Overall, the Board found that Principal Morrison’s actions were within the expectations of the Board for a principal in the course of managerial duties.

(c) Sarah Dadgar

63The evidence of Ms. Dadgar was submitted to the Panel by way of affidavit and she was made available for cross-examination by the Member.Ms. Dadgar was a Grade 2 teacher at the School. Between 2008 and 2014, shewas an Early Literacy Teacher with the Board. In this capacity, she supported the Member in her teaching roles as a kindergarten and primary planning time teacher for dance/drama (2012-2014); as a Media Literacy and Technology planning teacher/ESL support teacher (2011-2012); and as a kindergarten teacher (2009-2011).

64Ms. Dadgar regularly spent time co-planning and co-teaching with four teachers, including the Member. She spent more time working with the Member one-on-one and supporting her through co-planning and co-teaching than with any of the other teachers. The Member also participated in professional learning sessions facilitated by Ms.Dadgar and Kimberlee Johnston. Between 2009 and 2011, Ms. Dadgar worked with the Member one to three times per week. After the Member’s satisfactory 2011 TPA, Ms. Dadgar provided a wide range of support to the Member, including: best practices in media literacy and technology; assisting the Member with her understanding of the student evaluation requirements; and, providing the Member with resources, literacy strategies, assistance with report card writing, and assistance with lesson planning. After the Member received a Letter of Expectation in January 2013, which outlined concerns about the Member’s student evaluation methods and assessment records, Ms. Dadgar provided further advice, suggestions, and resources to assist the Member. Following the Member’s first unsatisfactory TPA in February 2014, Ms. Dadgar reviewed excerpts of the Member’s March 2014 Improvement Plan and worked with the Member to assist her in reaching the listed goals and expectations. Ms. Dadgar worked with the Member on skills such as assessment strategy, lesson planning, long range programming, report cards and marking rubrics, and the use of technology. Ms. Dadgar’s work with the Member ended on April 28, 2014. In September 2014, Ms. Dadgar transitioned to a new position out of the School.

(d) Kimberlee Johnston

65Ms. Johnston started working with the Board in 1996 or 1997 and spent approximately 16 years as a teacher. She later became a resource teacher and vice-principal. At the time of hearing, Ms. Johnston was employed as a principal.

66Between September 2011 and June 2014, Ms. Johnston was a resource teacher with the Board supporting 10 schools, including the School. Ms. Johnston supported the Member during this time and worked with her one-on-one to improve her teaching practice during this three-year period. Ms. Johnston testified about working with the Member to build capacity in the areas of lesson planning, student assessment and report card writing. Ms. Johnston did not observe any improvement from the Member in these areas between September 2011 and June 2014.

(e) Amanda Bennett

67Amanda Bennett began her teaching career as a supply teacher in 2002 and started working with the Board in 2004. She taught grades 1 through 8. In 2014, Ms. Bennett became an Instructional Coach with the Board where she worked with five schools to assist teachers who were on improvement plans. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Bennett taught a Grade 5-6 split class and spent part of the day as an “in school support” for students with Individualized School Support Plans.

68Ms. Bennett testified that Ms. Morrison contacted her in or around September 2014. Ms. Morrison told her that the Member would be contacting Ms. Bennett for assistance as the Member was placed on an improvement plan in September 2014. Ms. Bennett testified in detail about her work with the Member following the Member’s second Improvement Plan dated September 11, 2014. Ms. Bennett worked with the Member following her second unsatisfactory TPA and the focus of their work was in two areas: lesson planning and assessment practices. Ms. Bennett testified that she felt she could not make any progress with the Member in either of these areas.

(2) The Member’s Evidence

69The Member testified on her own behalf and called no other witnesses. She presented oral and documentary evidence in her defence. She denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

70The Member obtained a full certificate of qualification of registration on August 12, 1998. Before that, the Member obtained a Magister from University of Gdansk, Poland in 1988 followed by a Bachelor of Education from the Faculty of Education at York University in 1998. The Member worked at the Board from her graduation in 1998 until the termination of her employment in 2015.

71The Member’s testimony was lengthy, often moving into subject matter beyond the scope of the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. The Member’s testimony can be summarized into five main themes.

72First, the Member testified that the out of cycle TPAs conducted by Principal Morrison and that are the subject of this hearing were conducted improperly. The Member testified that she had received three satisfactory TPAs prior to Principal Morrison’s first unsatisfactory TPA rating. The Member testified that her staffing assignment in the 2012-2013 school year was discriminatory. The Member ought not to have been teaching kindergarten classes and instead should have taught grades 2-4 as per her request in the beginning of the year. In assigning the Member to teach kindergarten, Principal Morrison ignored evidence that the Member’s health has deteriorated while teaching kindergarten children. The Member claimed that she was the only teacher at the School whose assignment preferences were disregarded. The Member testified that Principal Morrison decided to conduct the TPA in February 2014, not due to concerns with the Member’s performance, but as a retaliation or reprisal for the Member filing a workplace harassment complaint against Ms. Morrison with the Board. During the TPA process, Principal Morrison treated the Member as a second-class employee, harassed the Member in front of her colleagues and students, physically intimidated the Member, and yelled at the Member on multiple occasions. For example, Principal Morrison refused to answer e-mails from the Member, telling her to communicate face-to-face. The Member believed that this was a tactic by Principal Morrison to humiliate the Member during face-to-face communications. The Member also testified that the principal assigned the Member to teach in a windowless room and could not account for a missing computer from the Member’s room. Additionally, Principal Morrison yelled at the Member on several occasions, with at least one occasion being in front of the Member’s class. On another occasion, Principal Morrison came into the Member’s classroom and slammed the door for no apparent reason. Overall, the Member testified that Principal Morrison treated her with disrespect throughout the out of cycle TPA process.

73Second, the Member testified that Principal Morrison was not being truthful regarding the support that was being provided to the Member. In fact, Principal Morrison refused to respond to numerous inquiries made by the Member regarding how to improve her performance and how to successfully complete a TPA. The Member testified that Principal Morrison was not clear regarding her expectations of the Member. Principal Morrison’s expectations were beyond what was reasonable when it came to things such as how kindergarten children can demonstrate use of higher-order thinking skills.

74Third, the Member testified that Principal Morrison and Ms. Courtin were not being accurate in their assessment that the Member did not keep accurate records of student performance. The Member submitted that she always kept appropriate records regarding her students. The Member testified that when she attempted to bring the records (which were located in her locked car) to the administrators during a meeting, she was not permitted to do so by the superintendent.

75Fourth, the Member testified that there was collusion between her union representatives, and the School administration to subject her to a systematic pattern of harassment. During the time of her unsatisfactory TPAs, the Member was consistently seeking the support of her union representatives. The Member submitted grievance letters that were filed on her behalf following her termination that alleged improper treatment by Principal Morrison in relation to the timing of the TPAs. The Member testified that, ultimately, her union representatives were not able to adequately support her grievances due to their collusion with administrators.

76Fifth, the Member testified that she was a competent and caring teacher. The Member testified that she was passionate about children and about teaching. Teaching was the Member’s calling, and she took her responsibility for student safety seriously. The Member testified that she always taught with the utmost regard for the ethical and professional standards of the teaching profession. She collaborated with her colleagues and always treated them with respect, and she values her relationships with her colleagues dearly.

77On cross-examination, the Member agreed that she received three consecutive unsatisfactory TPAs, as evaluated by Principal Morrison. She also agreed that she met with Early Literacy Teacher Sarah Dadgar for several years and "discussed the best way to help children learn the Ontario curriculum." She acknowledged that Ms. Dadgar assisted her with lesson planning and long-range planning, programming for literacy, dance, drama, and kindergarten, and student evaluation/assessment. The Member also acknowledged that Ms. Dadgar occasionally assisted her with report card writing and Ms. Dadgar shared her professional expertise on media literacy and technology. The Member also agreed that she met with Resource Teacher Kimberlee Johnston for about a year and a half (between March 2013 and May 2014). She indicated that Ms. Johnston assisted her with lesson planning in music, student evaluation and assessment, and writing report card comments. Even after working with Ms. Dadgar and Ms. Johnston for years, the Member admitted that she still received a second unsatisfactory TPA in June 2014. The Member further acknowledged that there was another Improvement Plan developed on September 11, 2014, after the Member's second unsatisfactory TPA, and that it was recommended that the Member meet with the Board's Instructional Coach (Amanda Bennett) to support her programming planning and assessment practices. The Member agreed that Ms. Bennett assisted her with lesson planning, and assessment and evaluation of students (including report card writing). Despite meeting with Ms. Dadgar, Ms. Johnston and Ms. Bennett, the Member agreed that she received a third consecutive unsatisfactory TPA in March 2015.

F. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

78College Counsel submitted that the evidence presented to the Panel proves each of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing on a balance of probabilities. College Counsel therefore submitted that the Panel should find that the Member engaged in professional misconduct and is incompetent as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

79College Counsel submitted that the Panel should prefer the testimony of its witnesses to that of the Member. The College’s witnesses had a good memory of the events and were credible according to the markers of credibility outlined in Re Pitts and Director of Family Benefits Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, 1985 CanLII 2053 (ON SC) (“Pitts”). College Counsel submitted that the evidence of their witnesses, and particularly that of Principal Morrison, proves each of the allegations of misconduct on a balance of probabilities. College Counsel submitted that the Panel should conclude that Principal Morrison conducted the Member’s TPAs in an appropriate manner and that the observations made in those TPAs were reliable. College Counsel also submitted that the Panel should rely on Principal Morrison’s and Ms. Courtin’s conclusions in their capacity as expert witnesses regarding whether the Member committed professional misconduct. As such, the Panel should find that the Member engaged in professional misconduct as alleged.

80College Counsel further submitted that the Panel should not place weight on any claims that the Member has been discriminated against or harassed. The Member has brought complaints to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) alleging discrimination and harassment by the Board, and those complaints had been adjudicated by the HRTO (which dismissed the Member’s claim of discrimination). College Counsel therefore submitted that the Panel should not make findings that the Member was discriminated against by the School administration or by anyone at the Board.

G. submissions of the member

81The Member’s submissions mirrored much of her testimony. Overall, the Member submitted that the Panel should find that the College has not proven the allegations against her. The Member’s submissions reflected three of the themes discussed in her testimony. First, that the three unsatisfactory TPAs conducted by Principal Morrison were conducted improperly and used as a tool of discrimination and harassment against the Member. The Member reminded the Panel that she experienced harassment from Principal Morrison in several ways – the Member’s staffing assignment, the Member’s room assignment, and Principal Morrison’s behaviour towards the Member in front of staff and students. Second, that there was a systemic pattern of harassment and collusion against the Member by School administration, the Member’s union representatives, the College’s Investigations team, and College Counsel. Overall, the Member submitted that the Panel should not place weight on the TPAs conducted by Principal Morrison as they are part of a pattern of discrimination against the Member by Principal Morrison and others at the School and the Board. Finally, the Member submitted that she is a competent and caring teacher, who always taught properly with all due regard to the Standards of Practice of the Teaching Profession and the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. According to the Member, she always collaborated appropriate with colleagues and with parents, and she had the utmost regard for student safety and for proper student education. The Member submitted that the Panel should find that the College has failed to prove the allegations in the Notice of Hearing.

H. DECISION ON FINDING

82The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 SCR 41, which is proof on a balance of probabilities. Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of the parties, the Panel found that the College proved, on a balance of probabilities, the allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence set out in the Notice of Hearing dated June 22, 2016. In particular, the Panel found that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15) and 1(18). The Panel also found the Member to be incompetent, as defined at section 30(3) of the Act.

I. REASONS FOR DECISION

83The Panel has carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented in this hearing. In the reasons that follow, the Panel comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel first sets out its factual findings and then explains why these facts give rise to a finding of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

84College Counsel made several submissions regarding matters that were outside the scope of the Notice of Hearing. In particular, the College made submissions regarding behaviour by the Member that led to Principal Morrison conducting TPA 1 (i.e. behaviour prior to February 2014) and regarding the Member’s behaviour during this hearing. The Panel finds these submissions to be outside the scope of the findings stage of this hearing. As such, the Panel has not made any findings that relate to the Member’s conduct during this hearing or to any conduct by the Member outside of the time frame specified in the Notice of Hearing (February 2014 – March 2015).

85As stated above, the College has the burden of proving the allegations. This means that first, the College must prove that the behaviour alleged in the Notice of Hearing occurred on a standard of the balance of probabilities – or that it is more likely than not that the Member acted as alleged. Second, the College has the burden of proving that any such behaviour constitutes professional misconduct or incompetence.

(1) Factual Findings

86In making its factual findings, the Panel first sets out its credibility assessments followed by its findings of fact.

(a) Credibility Assessments

87In evaluating the evidence before it, the Panel recognizes that it can accept all, some, or none of any witness’ evidence. When deciding how much of each witness’ evidence to accept, the Panel has considered the following credibility factors: the witness’ ability to observe and recall the events; whether the witness has an interest in the outcome of the hearing that may cloud their recollection; the plausibility or reasonability of the evidence; and the internal and external consistency (or inconsistency) of the evidence (see: Pitts). The Panel can also determine credibility based on logic, common sense, and its experience.

(i) Principal Morrison

88The Panel found Principal Morrison to be a credible and reliable witness. Her evidence was clear and detailed throughout. She was able to recall the events to which she testified and was truthful when she could not recall information and required her notes to refresh her memory. Additionally, when she misspoke during her evidence, she subsequently corrected her testimony when necessary. Much of her testimony was corroborated by the other witnesses, and primarily by the evidence of Ms. Courtin. Her testimony regarding the TPAs and the content of the TPAs was not challenged by the Member’s testimony. During cross examination, Principal Morrison was clear and consistent with her responses. The Panel is of the view that Principal Morrison was truthful throughout her testimony, and her testimony is overall reliable as it was corroborated by the rest of the witnesses in this hearing, including much of the Member’s own testimony.

89The Panel rejects the Member’s submissions that Principal Morrison discriminated against, harassed, or displayed malice against the Member. The Member was a teacher who required significant attention from Principal Morrison; significant supports were provided to the Member by Principal Morrison and others in an attempt to improve her teaching performance. It makes sense that Principal Morrison may have become frustrated with the Member. However, other than the Member’s assertions, the Panel did not hear reliable evidence of malice or harassment by Principal Morrison towards the Member. The Panel accepts Ms. Courtin’s expert opinion that Member’s out of cycle TPAs were conducted properly, with appropriate consultation, and in accordance with statutory requirements. The Panel further cannot find that Principal Morrison has any interest in the outcome of this hearing. Overall, the Panel finds Principal Morrison to be credible and reliable and has placed significant weight on her testimony to make its findings.

(ii) Janet Courtin

90The Panel found Ms. Courtin to be a credible and reliable witness. She was able to observe and recall the evidence to which she testified. In some cases, Ms. Courtin testified to communications about the Member that she received from Principal Morrison. Where the contents of Ms. Courtin’s evidence relate to observations made by Principal Morrison, the Panel prefers Principal Morrison’s evidence and has not relied on Ms. Courtin’s testimony. Ms. Courtin also was truthful when she misspoke during her evidence and corrected her testimony when necessary. Much of her testimony was also corroborated by the Member’s testimony. The Panel did not receive any evidence that Ms. Courtin had an interest in the outcome in this hearing and can find none. Overall, the Panel found Ms. Courtin was credible and has relied on her testimony where appropriate.

(iii) Amanda Bennett and Kimberly Johnston

91The Panel finds that Ms. Bennett and Ms. Johnston were credible and reliable witnesses. They testified to the best of their recollection and consulted written evidence, such as emails, to refresh their memory when they were not able to recall events with precision. Furthermore, their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Principal Morrison and the Member, and most of their evidence was not challenged by the Member. Furthermore, they did not display any inconsistencies during cross-examination. Overall, the Panel finds that Ms. Bennett and Ms. Johnston were credible and reliable witnesses and has relied on their testimony to make its findings where appropriate.

(iv) Sarah Dadgar

92The Panel finds that Ms. Dadgar was a credible and reliable witness. She was able to observe the events described in her affidavit, there was no evidence that she had any interest in the outcome of the hearing, her evidence was plausible and was internally consistent during cross-examination. The Panel did not hear any arguments against Ms. Dadgar’s credibility and does not have any issues with her evidence. Overall, the Panel finds that Ms. Dadgar’s evidence was useful to create context and narrative for the time prior to the Member’s first unsatisfactory TPA. However, ultimately the Panel did not rely on her evidence to make its findings as most of her evidence related to events prior to the time frame outlined in the Notice of Hearing (i.e. February 2014 to March 2015).

(v) The Member

93The Panel had serious concerns with the Member’s credibility and reliability. Generally, the Panel found that the Member was able to recall the events at issue in this hearing (i.e. the TPAs conducted by Principal Morrison), and she was oftentimes consistent with other witnesses about the events to which she testified. Additionally, the Panel had no issue with the accuracy of the voluminous evidence that the Member presented which showed her frequent written communication with staff and administrators at the School during the relevant time. However, the Panel finds that the Member testified at length about events that were beyond the scope of the allegations. In particular, the Member often testified regarding perceived malice that she experienced from various actors both as a teacher at the School, and as a subject of investigation and prosecution at the College. The Member further testified at length regarding perceived poor treatment (or discrimination) from students, parents, fellow teachers at the School, administrators, union representatives, College investigators, and College Counsel. The Panel finds that this evidence was not helpful in determining the case before it. Furthermore, much of the Member’s testimony could be characterized as either legal submissions or opinion evidence – the Member often reviewed the same exhibits tendered by College Counsel during their case but argued that these exhibits demonstrated the Member’s competence, as opposed to demonstrating professional misconduct or incompetence. Where the Member’s testimony veered into opinion evidence regarding her competence as a teacher, the Panel could not rely on it in making its findings as the Member was not an expert witness in this hearing. The Panel also found the Member’s testimony to be excessively self-serving. Her testimony often went beyond the scope of the allegations and into irrelevant good character statements about her teaching practice and her love of education and children.

94When it comes to the allegations before it, the Panel finds that much of the Member’s factual (as opposed to opinion) testimony corroborated the testimony of the College’s witnesses. The Panel will deal with specific elements of the Member’s testimony in its factual findings below.

(b) Panel’s Findings

Particular 4(a): The Member did not demonstrate a commitment to the well-being and development of all pupils

95The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(a) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel relies on the evidence of Principal Morrison, Ms. Johnston, and Ms. Courtin to make this finding. During the Member’s 3 unsatisfactory TPAs, Principal Morrison assessed the Member’s performance as unsatisfactory in the Domain of “Commitment to pupils and pupil learning.” In TPA 1, the Member “failed to differentiate lessons and assessments to ensure that the needs of all students were met”. Additionally, it was not evident from the Member’s lesson plans that she was providing modifications or accommodations for a special needs student. During the pre-observation meeting, the Member could not describe the activities that she provided to the student or the activities that she had asked the teacher’s assistant to carry out to support the program. Additionally, the Member’s lessons were mostly organized around passive viewing with only rare occasions for pupils to participate meaningfully. In TPA 2, Principal Morrison determined that a Grade 2-3 drama block degraded from instruction into behaviour management and explanation and in the kindergarten dance period, the Member offered “very vague” feedback and provided no opportunities for students to compose their own dance movements. In the third TPA, Principal Morrison recorded that the Member’s instruction and assessment were not modified for exceptional pupils, Grade 1 materials were not comprehensible for the children assigned to use them, and the kindergarten daybook pages for this cycle did not include the guided or whole-group activities needed to draw all students into the work.

96Ms. Johnston testified that before the Member’s second TPA, she suggested in an email to the Member that she move away from questioning students on the carpet to activities that would purposefully engage students in dance and/or drama, like taking on roles in a book. However, both Ms. Johnston and Principal Morrison did not see any improvement from the Member in this regard.

97The Panel further accepts the evidence of Ms. Courtin’s testimony regarding a parent concern from January 2015. The parent reported to Ms. Morrison that on several occasions her four-year-old daughter was not adequately dressed for cold weather while at school. On one occasion, the student was outside without a sweater under her jacket, and the Member did not allow her to get her sweater. On another occasion, the Member refused to allow the student to go back into the classroom to change her indoor footwear to winter boots. The Member also did not ensure that the student was wearing snow pants for outdoor play. When the student’s parents picked her up, the Member called the student a liar and told her that she did not, in fact, have snow pants. These incidents are troubling, particularly given the student’s young age. It is unacceptable for a teacher not to allow a kindergarten student to get dressed appropriately for outdoor play.

98The Member repeatedly submitted that she always demonstrated a commitment to all her students. However, she did not present evidence to contradict the credible evidence above. Weighing the evidence, the Panel finds that across three TPA cycles, the Member demonstrated poor planning that involved inaccessible tasks and materials, and limited support for student growth. The Panel finds that the College has proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(b): The Member did not respond to the learning exceptionalities and special needs of her student(s) by modifying her instruction and assessment

99The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(b) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel relies on Principal Morrison’s observations of the Member’s lesson plans and lessons to make this finding. While conducting all three TPAs, Principal Morrison observed that the Member failed to respond to the needs of one or more students with exceptionalities. In TPA 1, Principal Morrison observed no evidence of planned instruction or assessment for a special‑needs pupil. In the pre‑observation conversation, the Member could not describe the program and suggested the teaching assistant was responsible for the lack of planned instruction. In TPA 2, Principal Morrison noted that a student was using an iPad to watch videos rather than being engaged in a way that would enable them to express themselves or to learn from the Member. She further determined that the Member’s lesson plans still did not show modified instruction or assessment. In TPA 3, neither plans nor assessments had been adapted and that support staff were not given the daybook information they needed to implement accommodations. The Member did not provide programming or instructions to a special needs student despite Principal Morrison having made numerous suggestions regarding this student in the first TPA and modifications being listed as one expectation on the Member’s improvement plan implemented following TPA 1.

100The Member testified at length about the behaviour of a student with exceptionalities and her belief that her concerns regarding this student were not dealt with appropriately by school administration. The Member believed that she was being discriminated against by school administrators, which is why she could not manage the student’s behaviour appropriately. The Member’s evidence does not adequately explain why she was not able to appropriately modify her lessons for a student with exceptionalities, aside from permitting him to use an iPad. As such, the Panel finds that the College has proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(c): The Member did not differentiate lessons and assist learners in practising new skills by providing opportunities for guided practice and active participation

101The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(c) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel relies on Principal Morrison’s observations of the Member’s lesson plans and lessons to make this finding. In TPA 1 and TPA 2, Principal Morrison observed that the Member gave the same lessons and used the same assessments for students of different grades. Additionally, the Member taught the same lesson several times during the term. Following TPA 1, differentiation of instruction had been raised as an expectation in the Member's improvement plan, but the Member did not show improvement in this regard during the observed lesson in TPA 2.

102During the observed lessons in TPA 1, kindergarten students were required to sit for extended periods of time, which is very difficult to do for very young students, who learn best through movement. In TPA 2, the principal noted that half the Grade 2/3 block was consumed by explaining new strategies, leaving no time for the students to rehearse them. In kindergarten, students were not invited to create dance, so they neither practised nor received coaching. In TPA 3, the Member provided worksheets to the students that were difficult for them to understand. During the health lesson, the students did not understand what they were expected to do and many were unable to complete the task because they could not read the text. Furthermore, the Member focused her attention on two students while others were off task, and she determined that there was a lack of appropriate feedback and effective questioning that would ordinarily support practice.

103The Member’s evidence did not challenge the accuracy of Principal Morrison’s observations during the three TPAs, but only Principal Morrison’s conclusions that this kind of practice should have led to an unsatisfactory rating. Having considered the evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the College has established this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(d): The Member did not provide an environment for learning that encouraged pupils to be problem solvers, decision makers, lifelong learners and contributing members of a changing society

104The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(d) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel relies on Principal Morrison’s observations of the Member’s lesson plans and lessons to make this finding. In TPA 1, Principal Morrison observed that the Member’s program was built around passive activities such as watching videos. Additionally, the Member repeated the same lesson across grades, which meant that students did not get the opportunity to plan, choose, test, or reflect according to their grade-level expectations. In the observed lesson for TPA 2, students were given minimal opportunities to explore, create, and present dance. Additionally, during this lesson, activity time collapsed into redirection – students were running, arguing, and wrestling – because routines for purposeful activity were not in place. Without those structures, students did not make decisions that advanced learning. In the observed lesson for TPA 3, the Member’s assigned tasks were beyond the level of many students. At the same time, the Member asked very basic questions of the students, so students were not led into inquiry and could not be evaluated as decision‑makers.

105The Member’s evidence regarding this particular again did not challenge the accuracy of Principal Morrison’s observations, but only her conclusions. The Panel finds that, overall, this evidence shows that the Member did not give students an opportunity for creative thinking and problem solving while planning or teaching her lessons. Instead, the Member relied largely on passive instructional techniques, which discouraged students from being active learners. The Panel finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(e): The Member did not provide her students with appropriate feedback and effective questioning, resulting in a lack of rich learning experiences

106The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(e) on a balance of probabilities. Principal Morrison, Ms. Bennet, and Ms. Johnston’s evidence confirms that the Member continuously failed to provide students with appropriate feedback. In the observed lessons in TPA 1, TPA 2, and TPA 3, the Member provided generic feedback such as “good job”, “very nice”, “that’s fantastic. Oh, you made a zoo. You made a barn”. Additionally, the Member’s questioning did not probe the students’ understanding of the subject matter being taught. In the observed lesson for TPA 3, the Member photographed students’ work instead of using questions to elicit thinking against success criteria. The Member was aware, through meetings with Ms. Bennett and Ms. Johnston, that classroom feedback and report card comments should be personalized based on what students had shown through conversations and through observations of student work.

107The Member submitted a number of her lesson plans to the Panel and testified that these lesson plans provided for effective student feedback and effective student questioning that included opportunities for rich learning experiences. However, the Member did not testify about how she implemented those lesson plans, and she did not contradict the observations made by Principal Morrison during the TPA observed lessons. As such, the Panel finds that the College has proven on a balance of probabilities that the Member did not provide her students with appropriate feedback and effective questioning, resulting in a lack of rich learning experiences.

Particular 4(f): The Member did not demonstrate an understanding of the curriculum she was assigned to teach and of the essential components of the subject matter and related skills

108The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(f) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts the evidence of Principal Morrison and Ms. Johnston that the Member was familiar with the curriculum, but that this familiarity was not demonstrated in her lessons. In TPA 1, many of the Member’s planning documents did not have a learning goal or a specified activity in which students would be able to participate. In addition, the same expectations were listed repeatedly throughout her daybook. Also, the essential components of the Arts and full-day kindergarten programs did not appear in her planning or instruction. In TPA 2, Ms. Morrison observed that the Member’s lessons did not reflect the required curriculum components, so even when expectations were named in the Member’s lesson plans, the lessons did not match those expectations. In TPA 3, the Member failed to demonstrate subject knowledge in kindergarten science and technology and her daybook entries did not connect to overall or specific expectations.

109Ms. Johnston offered corroborating observations. Prior to the Member’s second TPA, she had advised the Member to move away from passive, carpet-based questioning and toward more active, student-centered approaches — specifically, engaging students in purposeful activities that aligned with the drama and dance curriculum, such as role-playing scenes from a story. However, the Member did not implement her suggestions.

110During her testimony, the Member pointed the Panel to some lesson plans that listed a learning goal. The Panel finds that this demonstrates that the Member was familiar with the curriculum, as testified by Principal Morrison. However, the Member did not show the Panel that she applied the learning goals during her lessons. Having considered the evidence, the Panel finds that the Member did not demonstrate an understanding of the curriculum she was assigned to teach and of the essential components of the subject matter and related skills.

Particular 4(g): The Member produced inadequate long range plans, including plans that were limited and did not include elements of inquiry-based learning with links to the developmental domains and real life contexts

111The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(g) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s and Ms. Johnston’s evidence and finds that the Member’s long-range plans were limited and inadequate. In TPA 1, the Member’s long‑range planning documents read as lists rather than as a plan: they did not sequence learning over time, did not identify inquiry threads, and did not anchor work in developmental domains or authentic contexts. The recurrence of identical lessons across grades confirms that the Member’s long‑range planning was not driving her instruction. This observation was corroborated by Ms. Johnston’s testimony. In reviewing the Member’s lesson plans in advance of her TPA, Ms. Johnston’s observed that the lesson requirements for the Member’s lesson on the book “Those Shoes” were the same for Grades 1, 2 and 3. In TPA 2, Principal Morrison observed that drama/dance units lacked culminating tasks and did not build upon earlier work. This demonstrated practical evidence of a structural planning defect. In TPA 3, she recorded that kindergarten science/technology had no plans at all and that the Member’s daybook omitted goals and structures, signalling that long and short‑range planning were both failing. Principal Morrison would have expected the Member to have broken up the expectations in the science and technology portion of the kindergarten program and would have had a timeline of when she anticipated to be focusing on those expectations. Instead, the Member quoted excerpts of a letter of discipline dated January 31, 2013 that Principal Morrison had provided to her previously.

112The Member’s testimony regarding this particular focused on showing the Panel individual lesson plans. She took the panel to what she submitted was a comprehensive long range lesson plan that included real life contexts. She also testified that Ms. Johnston was not being truthful in her testimony about the Member’s inability to produce lesson plans. In reviewing the Member’s lesson plans, the Panel has observed recurring identical lessons, which matches Principal Morrison’s observations. The Panel does not agree with the Member’s conclusion that her long-range plans were adequate and finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(h): The Member did not understand or implement the relevant program planning, and focussed on a narrow teaching approach for her students that was not commensurate with Ministry expectations

113The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(h) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s and Ms. Courtin’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Principal Morrison observed a one‑speed, one‑task approach for all students in grades 1 through 3, with little scaffolding and extensive passive viewing, contrary to Ministry expectations. In TPA 2, she noted that the Member asked kindergarten children to imitate rather than to compose and reflect, demonstrating a narrow teaching approach. In TPA 3, she determined that the Member’s health planning showed a lack of familiarity with basic organizational approaches and that the Arts and full-day kindergarten plans still did not reflect program considerations. The Member’s students were not provided with opportunities to explore, create, or present dance. As a result, they were unable to dance when asked. The Member did not model any dancing but rather directed the students exactly what movements they should be doing. Ms. Courtin’s opinion regarding the Member’s performance (i.e. the curriculum not being taught, apparently fabricated assessments and report card marks, and unfinished lesson plans) was that the Member was likely not instructing properly and that the lack of implementation of the curriculum was “shocking”.

114The Member took the Panel to examples of her lesson plans to demonstrate that this allegation was unfounded. In particular, she pointed the Panel to the fact that her lesson plans listed curriculum expectations, methods used to teach lesson, and resources planned to be used to teach the curriculum expectations. However, aside from an assertion from the Member that she taught the relevant program, the Panel did not receive evidence that the Member understood and implemented the program. The Panel accepts the evidence of Principal Morrison’s observations. The Panel finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(i): The Member did not ensure that the learning environment had a variety of resources available to support the intended learning outcomes

115The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(i) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Principal Morrison observed centres stocked with materials unrelated to the learning goals. In TPA 2, she noted that students mainly watched and listened, and that the iPad – a device issued to support a particular student’s learning and communication – was used as a video player instead. Although the Member had created literacy centres in advance of the classroom observation for TPA 2, the students did not use the materials that were available to them or go to the centres to create dance during the action phase of the lesson. Additionally, the Member included in a literacy centre some books that were not age appropriate and not on topic. Principal Morrison spoke to the Member about changing the centres throughout the year, which she believed was important to keep students engaged in learning. Instead, the Member simply renamed the existing centre. In TPA 3, she recorded that the Member arrived in class with very limited materials, was unfamiliar with what was available, and did not plan resource‑dependent activities.

116The Member testified that she worked hard to ensure that her classroom had a variety of resources, including meeting with the resource teacher to come up with a plan about music teaching and using the computer lab to incorporate technology into the lesson. Additionally, the Member took the Panel to various emails written both to Principal Morrison and to her union representatives to show that she was taking her responsibility to create an appropriate learning environment seriously. The Panel accepts the Member’s evidence that she made an effort to obtain relevant resources for her classroom. However, the Panel finds that she ultimately was not able to provide a sufficient variety of resources to support the curricula of instruction for all the grades for which she was responsible. As such, the Panel finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(j): The Member did not demonstrate effective teaching and assessment practices and did not align assessment strategies with appropriate learning objectives

117The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(j) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison and Ms. Johnston’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Ms. Morrison observed that the Member’s assessment practice was untethered to learning goals. The Member reused the same lessons across grades and no rubric or feedback was apparent. In TPA 2, she noted two concrete errors: the Member gave different marks for identical answers (which had been noted in her previous improvement plan), and criteria were deemed satisfied even when not demonstrated (resulting in the Member providing students with assessments that were not accurate). In TPA 3, Principal Morrison recorded the absence of success criteria and tools, with the Member focusing on photographing students and what they had built during the kindergarten science and technology lesson rather than probing students’ understanding against objectives. The Member did not put into practice any of the suggestions Principal Morrison had given about assessment in the previous improvement plan. Ms. Johnston testified to similar concerns. She stated that in the draft report card comments, the Member had not commented about the progression of the students’ skills, and there was no differentiation between the grades in the Member’s comments.

118The Member testified that her assessments were aligned with the learning objectives. However, the documents to which the Member pointed the Panel regarding this particular displayed very limited learning goals and did not demonstrate that the member displayed effective assessment practices. As such, the Panel finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(k): The Member did not demonstrate effective classroom management strategies to engage her students in varied learning experiences

119The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(k) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison and Ms. Johnston’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Principal Morrison observed extended passive time and thin engagement structures – conditions in which varied activity was unlikely to occur. Following TPA 1, Ms. Johnston suggested to the Member to move away from questioning on the carpet to more engaging activities, but the Member did not improve in this regard. In TPA 2, she noted that the Grade 2/3 period devolved into redirection, so the students were not able to participate in the way that the Member had planned. In TPA 3, she recorded a disorganized Grade 1 Health lesson in which some students left the room unnoticed while attention centred on two pupils. According to Ms. Morrison’s observation, the students were unable to complete the assigned worksheets, were not doing anything, and were not listening to the Member. More concerning, the Member appeared unaware that some students had left the classroom. Ms. Morrison described the Member’s attention as being narrowly focused on just two students, to the exclusion of the rest of the class.

120The Member provided examples of misbehaviour by students in her class and testified that, during the TPA observations, she was not failing to demonstrate effective classroom management but was instead responding appropriately to a tremendous amount of misbehaviour by her students. The Panel does not agree. Overall, the Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s expert opinion and agrees with her assessment that the Member did not engage her students appropriately, which led to excessive redirection and ineffective classroom management by the Member. The Panel therefore finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(l): The Member did not address inappropriate student behaviour or manage instructional time and organize student interactions to ensure learning goals were achieved

121The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(l) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Principal Morrison observed that the Member misused classroom time by conducting assessments on the day a concept was introduced, by prolonged passive viewing, and by repeating the same lesson. In TPA 2, she noted that most of the period was consumed by behaviour management and explanation. In a Grade 2/3 classroom, Principal Morrison observed that students could not participate in the lesson the way the Member had described it in the pre-observation meeting, so they weren't practising new skills. The Member could not guide practice because she was addressing inappropriate student behaviour throughout the course of the activity time. Students were off task. The class was loud, and the Member was ringing a bell and constantly asking students to stop. Students were ignoring her, so it was difficult for the Member to guide and ask effective questions because so much of her effort was spent in redirecting students. Ms. Morrison had previously suggested classroom management strategies, but the Member did not use those strategies. In TPA 3, she observed students wandering, exiting the classroom, and delayed instruction by the Member as a result.

122The Member’s evidence regarding this allegation was identical to her evidence regarding particular 4(k). As in that allegation, the Panel prefers Principal Morrison’s evidence and finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(m): The Member did not demonstrate professional knowledge and understanding of pupils, curriculum, legislation, teaching practices and classroom management strategies to promote the learning and achievement of her pupils

123The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(m) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison and Ms. Johnston’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Principal Morrison determined that the Member’s professional practice was unsatisfactory, citing passive lessons that were the same across grades, ineffective questioning, and records that neither captured student learning nor supported evaluation. During the classroom observation, the Member failed to provide meaningful integration of literacy skills despite this being previously noted as an expectation. For example, rather than focusing on students’ understanding of the story in the book “Goldilocks and the Three Bears,” the Member asked students to name the characters. In TPA 2, she observed the same concerns – undifferentiated tasks, misaligned assessment, and behaviour issues overwhelming the ability to instruct – despite targeted coaching and examples provided after the first TPA cycle. During the observation for TPA 2, there was no difference between the lessons the Member provided to students in Grades 1, 2, and 3. This issue had been raised previously with the Member, but the Member did not show improvement.

124Ms. Johnston testified that, in the spring of 2014, the Member asked her for some focused assistance “…on creating lesson plans for Dance for grades 1, 2, 3; lessons in Drama for grades 1, 2, 3 and lessons for kindergarten (combined Dance and Drama) that will satisfy Principal Tina Morrison.” Ms. Johnston understood, by the breadth of this request, that the Member was asking for lessons for all those things, thus showing the Member’s gap in professional knowledge regarding these topics.

125The Panel has reviewed the myriad documents that the Member submitted to support her claim that she indeed understood pupils, curriculum, legislation, teaching practices, and classroom management. The Panel finds that, while the Member did provide evidence of some comprehensive lesson plans (particularly for grades 1-3), which included appropriate curriculum expectations, the Member’s lessons did not reflect an understanding on the part of the Member as to how to promote learning and achievement in her classroom. The Member repeatedly was unable to successfully execute her planned lessons for all her students and could not adequately assess her students. As such, the Panel finds that the College has successfully proven particular 4(m) on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(n): The Member did not have lesson plans for certain programs and there were no learning goals or intended outcomes identified in her lessons

126The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(n) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Ms. Morrison observed that the Member’s planning did not include a learning goal or the activity students would do, and aligned plans for the observed lessons were not located in the Member’s daybook. In TPA 2, she noted that lesson plans were missing for significant portions of the program and, where plans existed, goals were absent or not connected to the activity. Since lesson plans were missing, students were taught the same lesson repeatedly during the term. Ms. Morrison had raised differentiation of instruction as an expectation in the Member's improvement plan following the first TPA, but the Member did not show improvement in this regard. In TPA 3, she recorded that kindergarten science/technology had no lesson plans, the Member’s daybook lacked goals or outcomes, and plans did not specify whole or small‑group structures. Within the lesson plans that were provided to Principal Morrison through the daybook, there were no learning goals or intended outcomes identified. It was not evident whether the Member would be working with the whole group of students or small groups, and Principal Morrison could not see the activity that had been identified.

127The Member provided the Panel with a handful of lesson plans to show that she indeed prepared lesson plans for all her programs. The existence of these lesson plans is not inconsistent with the College’s evidence that certain programs were missing lesson plans and that the same lesson was taught repeatedly. The Panel finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(o): The Member did not develop appropriate learning goals, provide meaningful lessons, use instructional time in a focused and purposeful manner and did not choose pertinent resources to address student needs

128The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(o) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, the Member repeated lessons across grades, had identical learning goals for multiple grades, spent prolonged time on single‑task work, left goals unstated, and used resources that were not matched to the lesson’s purpose. Additionally, the Member failed to provide meaningful integration of literacy and numeracy skills, which ought to have been incorporated in all subject areas. In TPA 2, the Member spent much of the lesson time explaining tasks rather than having the children actually take part in the lesson. Additionally, in TPA 2, the Member demonstrated that she was able to use technology appropriately for basic administrative functions – such as accessing the school webpage, curriculum supports and writing report cards. Principal Morrison suggested that the Member integrate technology as part of her programming so that the students also had access to the technology but in the following TPA the Member was still not able to successfully integrate technology pursuant to this suggestion.

129During TPA 2, Principal Morrison spoke with the Member about integrating culturally relevant resources into her classroom. She recommended using books and toys that reflected the cultural backgrounds of the students as a strategy to increase engagement. In response, the Member explained that she selected the book “Those Shoes” – a story about a boy who cannot afford the shoes he wants – on the basis that it was culturally relevant for students from a lower socioeconomic area. The Member also cited a book featuring pictures of trees as culturally relevant because it supported environmental awareness. Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that the Member did not appear to understand the concept of cultural relevance and did not implement advice to incorporate culturally relevant books, dolls and dances in her lessons.

130During the hearing, the Member testified that she had one “Topsy-Turvy” doll (a double ended doll with a Black girl doll on one side and a white girl doll on the other side) in her classroom and submitted this was evidence that she had successfully integrated culturally relevant resources. The Panel finds that one doll is not sufficient evidence to show that she had appropriate resources in her classroom. The Panel finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(p): The Member did not conduct ongoing assessment of her pupils’ progress, evaluate their achievement and report results to pupils and parents regularly

131The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(p) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, the Member failed to provide evidence of ongoing feedback to parents, with no agenda notes, newsletters, interviews, or interview records apparent in the Member’s records. Additionally, the Member’s classroom records were limited or inaccurate, undermining the Member’s evaluation of students’ progress. In TPA 2, the Member’s misaligned and inconsistent classroom assessment left little sound basis for evaluation and required repeated intervention on reporting expectations. After TPA 2, Principal Morrison met with the Member to notify her that the kindergarten teachers had not received report card comments from the Member by the report card writing day, which impacted their work. The result of the Member's failure to provide comments for the kindergarten report cards was that the comments in the students’ cards were based entirely from their homeroom teachers and did not incorporate anything the Member had done with the students in the arts. During the hearing, the Member filed a large volume of report cards to show that she in fact provided comments for students in her class. After careful review of these report cards, many of the report cards had identical comments for a number of students, and many report cards were missing comments in the Member’s allotted sections. In TPA 3 and in particular in the Member’s Grade 1 Health lesson, there was insufficient evidence for the Member to judge achievement against expectations. The Panel finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(q): The Member had a limited repertoire of assessment strategies and was unable to meet the diverse needs of her students

132The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(q) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Ms. Morrison observed the same assessment task used across Grades 1-3, with tools that were not varied or tied to criteria. The dance/drama program should be ongoing, varied, and differentiated by grade. The Member’s limited assessment tools were not sufficient to meet the needs of all students in all grades taught. After TPA 1, Principal Morrison met with the Member regarding an improvement plan. The focus of this meeting was to provide examples of kindergarten assessment and instruction. During this meeting, the Member did not want to observe a colleague’s classroom because she indicated it would not be useful for her. In TPA 2, the Member’s assessment repertoire remained narrow and identical answers drew different marks, with criteria sometimes checked as met when not demonstrated by students. Additionally, there were significant portions of the curriculum that the Member was not providing. This meant there could be no assessment on those portions of the curriculum. In TPA 3, Principal Morrison recorded that the Member’s assessments were largely reduced to photos of students’ work and generic notes, were without criteria, and that because materials were not accessible to all pupils, opportunities to show learning remained narrow.

133The Member maintained that she provided appropriate assessments and testified that any failure to provide proper assessment was due to Principal Morrison’s discrimination against the Member and refusal to support her. The Panel rejects this assertion; there is uncontroverted evidence of multiple meetings between the Member and Principal Morrison on the subject of student assessment. Overall, the Panel finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(r): The Member did not provide students with numerous and varied opportunities to demonstrate their achievement of the curriculum expectations

134The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(r) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, the Member’s combination of passive delivery and same‑task lessons across grades limited the ability of students to demonstrate learning. On several occasions, Ms. Morrison had discussed with the Member that it was not appropriate to ask students to complete the same task repeatedly. However, in TPA 2, Principal Morrison again observed lessons that relied on singular activities and that drama/dance lacked culminating tasks that would ordinarily provide diverse evidence of student achievement. In TPA 3, Principal Morrison recorded that the Member’s missing success criteria/tools and incomplete plans meant there were few valid avenues for students to demonstrate achievement. During that same TPA, half-way through the school year, the Member had still not covered significant portions of the curriculum and students did not have an opportunity to engage in that curriculum and demonstrate their learning. The Member has not provided evidence contrary to Principal Morrison’s observations. The Panel finds that the College has proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(s): The Member lacked a basis for interpreting student progress toward achievement of the curriculum expectations as a result of her limited and inaccurate records

135The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(s) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepts the evidence of Principal Morrison and Ms. Bennett regarding this particular. In TPA 1, the Member did not maintain accurate records, did not provide appropriate feedback or learning tools, and she proposed using learning skills to determine a grade. This approach was unsound. In TPA 2, the Member recorded inaccurate and inconsistent marks for identical responses provided by students. After TPA 2, Ms. Morrison met with the Member to discuss report card comments made by the Member following a class trip to a farm. The Member's comments related to the animals at the farm, but the students had not seen any animals at the farm. As a result, there was no comment for the kindergarten students regarding the science and technology curriculum, and a letter was sent home letting parents know that the kindergarten report cards would not be received on time as expected. The Panel concludes that the Member did not make accurate records during this trip and therefore, was not able to evaluate students appropriately. In TPA 3, Principal Morrison noted the Member’s absence of success criteria and assessment tools, her substitution of photographs for evidence of understanding. During this observation, the Member's comments to the students focused on things outside of the science and technology curriculum such as fine motor skills or gross motor skills. The Member also copied comments from previous report cards which pertained to activities in which the students had not participated. Finally, the Member failed to provide her team with documentation to assist in writing report cards after being asked to do so.

136The Panel also accepts Ms. Bennett’s evidence regarding this particular that when asked how she was documenting student thinking, the Member responded that she was using her phone, but it was taking up all the memory on her phone. Ms. Bennett suggested that the Member could use a cloud service that would not take up space on her device. The Member seemed keen on that and decided that she would probably use that but it does not appear that the Member ultimately used this cloud service. Ms. Bennett also reviewed the Member’s draft report card comments, noting that the comments were not based on any documentation from the Member. The Panel did not hear any credible evidence from the Member that contradicted the evidence described above. The Panel therefore finds that the College has proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(t): The Member did not engage in ongoing professional learning and apply it to improve her teaching practice

137The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(t) on a balance of probabilities. While the Member clearly attended some professional learning opportunities, she failed to apply it to her teaching practice. The Panel accepts Principal Morrison’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Principal Morrison noted that although the Member attended professional development, she failed to demonstrate that she understood the concepts discussed during these development sessions. During the observed lesson, the Member did not differentiate between grades, did not use learned assessment strategies, and did not use technology to capture evidence of student learning. In TPA 2, there were the same classroom deficits despite coaching after the first cycle. The Member again failed to implement prior learning. In TPA 3, Principal Morrison noted that the Member failed to attend a full-day kindergarten professional development day, engaged minimally at a staff professional development session, and determined that the Member did not apply strategies such as success criteria, aligned assessment, or differentiated planning. During the kindergarten lesson, the Member demonstrated that she was unaware of the types of processes and procedures that a regular classroom teacher would have used. The Member also did not know how to get the students to sit on the carpet at the end of the lesson, she used language with which the students weren't familiar, and she did not implement the classroom management strategies that Principal Morrison had discussed with her previously. The Member submitted that she attended numerous professional learning opportunities and that she did her best to implement what she learned in her teaching. The Panel finds that this is consistent with the evidence of the College’s witnesses but finds that the Member was unable to appropriately apply professional learning in her practice. The Panel therefore finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(u): The Member did not attend professional development opportunities, did not seek input from colleagues, and rarely accessed the support of the Instructional Coach

138The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(u) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel relies on the evidence of Principal Morrison, Ms. Johnston, and Ms. Bennett to make a finding regarding this particular. The Member declined numerous professional development opportunities offered to her. The Member also declined to observe other classrooms, although the opportunity was offered. In TPA 1, Principal Morrison observed that while professional development and staff‑meeting learning were provided, the Member neither applied them nor attended grade/team collaboration meetings at the School. The Member did not consistently or effectively use input received from the resource teacher. In TPA 2, she noted that support from the resource teacher and coach was available but seldom used by the Member. Offers to observe exemplars or to co‑teach were declined. In TPA 3, she recorded the Member’s non‑attendance at a kindergarten professional development day, limited use of the assigned coach, and disengagement during an in‑school review. She further noted that the Member did not share her daybook with early childhood educators and teachers’ assistants.

139While accessing support from Ms. Johnston, the Member appeared to be looking for “ready-made lesson plans.” Ms. Johnston told the Member she would not be providing pre-made lessons at their meeting. Rather, lessons would be constructed jointly, and she would be happy to assist with co-planning using the curriculum as a starting point. Ms. Johnston did not see improvement in the Member’s lesson planning over time. Additionally, the Member only consulted with Ms. Bennett’s twice between the months of September and December 2014.

140The Member testified that she sought support from Principal Morrison, Ms. Johnston, and Ms. Bennett during her time at the School. The Panel finds that the Member’s evidence is not inconsistent with that of the College’s witnesses on this particular. While the Member may have accessed support as she has testified, she only did so in a limited manner. The Panel therefore finds that the College has proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(v): The Member did not collaborate with other teachers and School colleagues to create and sustain learning communities at the School

141The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(v) on a balance of probabilities. In TPA 1, Ms. Morrison determined that the Member’s collaboration was unsatisfactory. The Member did not attend the grade‑team work on the School’s Theory of Action and frequent administrative intervention was required to deal with the Member’s conflicts with other staff. In TPA 2, there was again little evidence of collaborative uptake. During improvement meetings, the Member revisited basics rather than advancing shared work. During the parts of staff meetings that were related to professional development, the Member was often confused about which group she was meant to work with even though it had been communicated to her that she was assigned to the kindergarten team. The Member sat silently during the meetings and did not contribute. Additionally, the Member neglected to provide evaluation comments to her colleagues by the report card writing day. In TPA 3, Principal Morrison recorded that the Member failed to meet with the kindergarten team and did not share the daybook with early childhood educators and teachers’ assistants.

142Ms. Bennett testified that the Member was oppositional and very difficult during their meetings, and that the Member spent a lot of time stalling instead of being productive. During their second meeting, Ms. Bennett offered to co-teach the Member’s Grade 1/2 health class with the Member, but the Member refused Ms. Bennett’s help.

143The Member submitted that she constantly collaborated with colleagues including Principal Morrison and Ms. Bennett. However, the Member’s evidence on this point appeared to be exaggerated and self-serving. The evidence of Principal Morrison and Ms. Bennett, two credible witnesses, demonstrates a persistent pattern of unprofessional and uncooperative conduct by the Member in her interactions with staff who were attempting to support her. The Panel prefers the evidence of the College’s witnesses regarding this particular and finds that the College has made out this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(w): The Member did not establish positive relationships or work cooperatively with colleagues, support staff and administration to provide appropriate instruction, and solve student, classroom or School concerns

144The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(w) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel relies on Principal Morrison’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Ms. Morrison observed that the Member was repeatedly in conflict with staff that frequently required administrative intervention. Principal Morrison’s view was that the Member needed to establish positive relationships to work cooperatively. In TPA 2, Principal Morrison noted that the Member continued to be reluctant to cooperate with offered supports, including declining offers of co‑teaching and observation. In TPA 3, Principal Morrison further recorded that the Member did not share her daybook with early childhood educators and teaching assistants and that engagement with the kindergarten team remained limited, impeding coordinated programming and accommodations. The Member’s evidence regarding this allegation was identical to her evidence regarding particular 4(v). As in that allegation, the Panel prefers the evidence of the College’s witnesses and finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

Particular 4(x): The Member did not engage parents to enhance pupil learning and achievement

145The Panel finds that the College has proven particular 4(x) on a balance of probabilities. The Panel relies on Principal Morrison’s evidence regarding this particular. In TPA 1, Principal Morrison observed no evidence of regular parent engagement by the Member, and the Member failed to provide evidence of ongoing communication with parents about student progress. There were no agenda communications, newsletters, invitations, or interview notes. Principal Morrison noted that parents frequently sought help from school administration after unsuccessful attempts to resolve their concerns with the Member. In TPA 3, Principal Morrison recorded that the Member did not arrange parent interviews and that parent communication did not reflect classroom learning.

146The Member submitted that she always communicated appropriately with parents. The Panel disagrees. The Panel finds that the Member's failure to regularly communicate with parents reflected a lack of professionalism and poor judgment. She did not demonstrate the commitment to respectful, open, and consistent communication required of a teacher. The Panel finds that the College has successfully proven this particular on a balance of probabilities.

(2) Legal Conclusions

147The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct set out above gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5); she failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15); 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);

(a) Professional Misconduct

148With respect to the Member’s failure to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsection 1(5), the standards of the profession include, among other policies and publications, the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession and the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was a breach of the standards of practice. The standards of practice mirror the domains of the TPA. They are: “Commitment to Students and Student Learning”, “Professional Knowledge”, “Professional Practice”, “Leadership in Learning Communities”, and “Ongoing Professional Learning”. Based on the accepted expert evidence that the Member’s performance was deficient in all five domains of the TPA, the Panel finds that has also failed to meet all five standards of practice of the teaching profession.

149The Panel further finds that the Member has failed to maintain the ethical standards of the teaching profession. In particular, the Member has failed to abide by the standards of “Care”, “Respect”, “Trust”, and “Integrity”. The standard of “Care” includes compassion and insight for developing students’ potential. Members express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. The Member consistently failed to do this. The Member did not provide opportunities for active participation or guided practice (i.e. students were required to sit on the carpet for extended periods of time and to watch their classmates present dances one at a time, instead of all being invited to participate in creating dance moves). She also neglected to create varied, culturally relevant and age-appropriate learning experiences, and did not provide appropriate feedback or encouragement to students. As it relates to “Respect”, the Member frequently failed to show respect for colleagues. For example, she was oppositional during her meetings with Ms. Bennett, and she did not participate in team collaboration opportunities with her colleagues. Additionally, the Member failed to contribute to students’ report cards by report card writing day, thus impacting her colleagues’ work. The Member’s relationships with students, colleagues, parents, and the public did not embody the ethical standard of “Trust”. Trust includes fairness, openness and honesty. The Member failed to demonstrate trust when she refused to share her plans with Ms. Bennett or her daybook or lesson plans with the designated early childhood educator who was working with the Member in her classroom. Finally, regarding the ethical standard of “Integrity”, the Member failed to demonstrate honesty, reliability and moral action in her professional commitments and responsibilities. The Member showed a lack of reliability in neglecting to provide her students with the instruction and the rich learning opportunities they were required to receive. Additionally, the Member failed to demonstrate integrity by failing to submit her report card comments on time, resulting in report cards going out late and students not receiving personalized comments in science and technology. She also consistently assigned grades to students without carrying out adequate assessments of their performance, demonstrating dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

150With respect to the Member’s failure to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 264(1)(a) and 264(b) of the Education Act provide that it is the duty of a teacher “to teach diligently and faithfully the classes or subjects assigned to the teacher by the principal”, and “to encourage pupils in the pursuit of learning”. The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with both of these duties by failing to diligently teach the classes that were assigned to her. During the three TPAs at issue in this hearing, the Member continually failed to provide meaningful and engaging lessons for her students and she failed to use her instructional time in a focused and purposeful manner. The Member failed to provide students with opportunities for guided practice and hands-on, active participation, rich learning experiences, and she failed to engage them in effective questioning to encourage higher-order thinking skills. The result of the Member’s failure to adhere to these duties was that students were not learning the material in the curriculum and were disengaged with her lessons.

151The 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. Disgraceful conduct is the most severe – this is conduct that casts serious doubt on the Member’s moral fitness or ability to be a member of the profession. Dishonourable conduct is similar but not as severe – this is conduct that has an element of moral failing and usually includes (but is not limited to) dishonest, deceitful or fraudulent conduct, or other moral shortcomings. Unprofessional conduct is conduct that involves poor professional judgment by a member. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct in this case would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional but not disgraceful.

152The Panel finds that by delivering the same lessons to students at different grade levels for extended periods of time, by repeatedly submitting inaccurate assessments of students’ achievement, and by repeatedly failing to submit proper report card comments, the Member acted in a way that was contrary to her professional duties as a teacher. The Panel further finds that the Member’s refusal to cooperate with her colleagues and administrators (despite the many attempts made to engage with and support her) would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional conduct. The Member deliberately refused to share her daybooks and lesson plans with her colleagues, and she was deliberately obstructionist with colleagues who attempted to collaborate with her to improve her teaching practices. Additionally, the Member acted dishonourably when she locked the teacher-in-charge out of the classroom with a phone in an emergency. Overall, the Panel finds that the Member’s behaviour can reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional.

(b) Incompetence

153The Panel finds that the Member’s teaching performance as described above gives rise to a finding of incompetence, as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act. In particular, the Member, in her professional responsibilities, displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that she is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by her under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions, or limitations.

154In arriving this conclusion, the Panel relied on the content of the Member’s TPAs, as well as the evidence that the Panel received regarding the significant and ongoing support that was offered to the Member. Despite constant support for years, the Member was not able to accurately teach the curriculum assigned to her, keep appropriate records, differentiate her lessons over time and between different grade levels, employ effective instructional techniques, and tailor her programming appropriately to students with exceptionalities. Additionally, she displayed an inability to effectively communicate with staff and parents to support the well being of her students. As such, the Panel finds that the Member displayed an ongoing lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of her kindergarten and grades 1-3 students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that she is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities, or that her certificate of qualification and registration should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

155Overall, there is a significant gap between what is expected of a competent, responsible teacher and what the Member demonstrated. Despite the many opportunities she was given to improve, the Member showed a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment reflecting a lack of competence as a teacher, which jeopardized the welfare of her students and limited their ability to learn and progress. As such, it is appropriate to make a finding of incompetence in this case.

J. PENALTY

156The Tribunals Office will schedule a subsequent date on which the Panel will hear the parties’ submissions with respect to penalty.

Date: January 23, 2026

Diane Ballantyne, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

Marlène Marwah

Member, Discipline Panel

Sara Nouini, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel