Ontario College of Teachers v. Beebakhee, 2026 ONOCT 4

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Beebakhee 2026 ONOCT 04

Date: 2026-02-11

PENALTY DECISION 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 Ken Ishwar Beebakhee, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

KEN ISHWAR BEEBAKHEE (REGISTRATION #404188)

PANEL: Emma Rhodes, Chair Terrence Singh, OCT Linda Staudt, OCT

HEARD: January 7, 2026

COUNSEL: Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Alec Stromdahl, for Ken Ishwar Beebakhee Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(3) and 32.1(4) 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 or the person who was allegedly sexually abused or the subject of sexual misconduct.

1The penalty stage of this proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on January 7, 2026. In accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”), this matter proceeded by way of an electronic hearing.

2On October 28, 2025, a majority of the Panel (the “Majority”) found that Ken Ishwar Beebakhee (the “Member”) engaged in professional misconduct. A dissenting member of the Panel (“Panel member Singh”) did not find that the Member engaged in professional misconduct, as alleged. The Majority found that in 2010, during a summer program abroad, the Member sexually abused a student by squeezing Student 1’s thigh under her skirt. The Majority also found that, during the 2018 academic year, the Member used inappropriate classroom management techniques by having students stand with their arms raised, requiring students to sit in a “chair of honour” and allowing students to identify another student who was misbehaving to take their place in the “chair of honour” or standing.

3Based on this conduct, the Majority found that the Member contravened subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Majority also found that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act. The College did not prove that the Member engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing dated October 10, 2023.

4The Panel reconvened on January 7, 2026 to hear submissions with respect to penalty and costs. The Member was in attendance for this phase of the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to penalty.

5The Panel makes an order in accordance with the parties agreement which include a reprimand and revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration. With respect to costs, the Panel finds that a costs order in the amount of $20,000.00 payable by the Member to the College is appropriate in these circumstances.

A. PUBLICATION BAN

6The 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.

7Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request of Student 1, who was allegedly (and later found by the Majority to have been) sexually abused, and Student 2 and Student 4, who were allegedly the subject of sexual misconduct. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1, Student 2 and Student 4.

B. PENALTY DECISION

8The Panel was presented with a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 25) dated January 6, 2026. The parties advised that they had entered into an agreement to seek a penalty order limited to the mandatory penalties set out in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. The parties agree that a reprimand and revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is mandatory in this case given the Majority’s finding of sexual abuse of a student.

9The Panel accepts the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty and makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the penalty hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”).
2. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

C. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

10The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included the sexual abuse of a student, as described in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. Given this finding, section 30.2(1) of the Act provides that the Panel must make an order: (1) requiring that the Member be reprimanded by the Panel; and (2) directing the Registrar to revoke the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration. The Panel makes both of these orders. The Panel notes that it has no discretion in this regard. These mandatory penalty provisions apply retrospectively in this case, pursuant to section 63.2 of the Act¹.

11The Panel is satisfied that the penalty ordered is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

12The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.

D. COSTS SUBMISSIONS BY COLLEGE COUNSEL

13College Counsel sought an order for costs payable by the Member to the College pursuant to subsection 30(5) of the Act. College Counsel requested a total costs order of $50,000. College Counsel highlighted rule 16.05(3) of the Rules, and submitted that no evidence is required if the request for costs is equal to or less than the amount in Tariff A, which is $10,000 per hearing day. College Counsel submitted that this matter proceeded over 12 hearing days, however, two of those hearing days were half days, therefore 10 full hearing days would be a fair calculation which would entitle the College to seek at least $100,000 in costs without the need to provide evidence. The College is seeking half of the amount it would be entitled to, in light of the fact that the Member provided a List of Facts not contested by the Member (Exhibit 10) and the fact that the College was not successful in proving all factual particulars in the Notice of Hearing.

14Further, College Counsel presented five cases in support of their position regarding costs: Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2019 ONOCT 20 (“Hall”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Van Gentevoort, 2025 ONOCT 58 (“Van Gentevoort”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Matar, 2024 ONOCT 16 (“Matar”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Okafor, 2024 ONOCT 31 (“Okafor”); and Okafor v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2025 ONSC 6089. College Counsel submitted that prior panels of the Discipline Committee have considered the factors outlined in Hall to determine the appropriateness of costs. College Counsel submitted that Member’s Counsel spent unnecessary time during the hearing objecting to the expert evidence that the College wanted to call in order to establish the standards of the profession. College Counsel argued that it was clear from prior Discipline Committee decisions that expert evidence was required to establish the standards of the profession. According to College Counsel, the Member argued an abuse of process motion that had no merit. College Counsel submitted that in efforts to avoid arguing this motion, they provided the legislation with respect to what constitutes a complaint under the by-laws to Member’s Counsel and notified them that the College would seek higher costs if the motion was pursued. Finally, College Counsel noted that a Majority of the Panel found the Member guilty of all heads of professional misconduct in the Notice of Hearing, with the exception of sexual misconduct. Even though the College was not entirely successful in proving all factual particulars alleged, it was successful in proving the legal findings.

E. COSTS SUBMISSIONS BY MEMBER’S COUNSEL

15Member’s Counsel submitted that a costs order was not appropriate in this case. Member’s Counsel submitted that awarding costs is a discretionary order and requires a two-step analysis: 1) whether costs should be ordered; and 2) if costs are ordered, what is the appropriate quantum? Member’s Counsel submitted that the Panel should exercise their discretion not to order costs at the first step of the analysis. Alternatively, if the Panel chooses to award costs, Member’s Counsel submitted that a more appropriate quantum aligned with previous caselaw would be $5,000.

16Member’s Counsel presented seven cases in support of their position regarding costs: Hall; Charkhandeh v. College of Dental Surgeons of Alberta, 2025 ABCA 258; Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA); Ontario College of Teachers v. Paterson, 2023 ONOCT 5 (“Paterson”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Stan, 2023 ONOCT 61 (“Stan”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Riccardi, 2015 ONOCT 67 (“Riccardi”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Bhadauria, 2004 CanLII 16867 (ON SCDC). In light of the Hall factors, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member should not be penalized with a costs award simply because he chose to present a reasonable defence, even if it was not ultimately successful. He further noted that the $50,000 costs order that the College is seeking is a large amount that would discourage members from raising reasonable defenses to allegations of professional misconduct. The Member made efforts to shorten the length of the proceedings by providing a List of Facts not contested by the Member (Exhibit 10) and the College was not required to call evidence on any of those alleged particulars. With respect to the success of the parties, Member’s Counsel submitted that success of the parties was mixed. He argued that hearing time was spent receiving evidence of allegations that were not established and therefore the Member should not be liable for that time. He noted that most of the evidence presented in this hearing was on factual particulars that were not found to be proven or not found to have constituted professional misconduct. Finally, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member does not have the ability to pay a costs order and presented the Panel with the Affidavit of Ken Ishwar Beebakhee affirmed on January 5, 2026 (Exhibit 26) where the Member affirms that his employment was terminated in 2022, that he is currently retired and receiving income from a reduced pension, and that he is also the sole source of income for his household.

F. REPLY COSTS SUBMISSIONS BY COLLEGE COUNSEL

17In reply, College Counsel submitted that neither the legislation nor caselaw suggests that considering costs is a two-step analysis. College Counsel noted that costs are discretionary. College Counsel also noted that some of the Discipline Committee caselaw presented by Member’s Counsel is outdated, particularly the Riccardi decision (which is from 2015). During that time, costs were relatively rare and since then there has been a clear evolution of how Discipline Committee panels have dealt with costs. Finally, College Counsel submitted that although the Member cannot return to work as a teacher, he is far from retirement age and there is no indication as to why he cannot seek another form of employment.

G. COSTS DECISION

18The Panel makes the following order with respect to costs:

1. The Member is directed to pay costs of this matter to the College, fixed in the amount of $20,000.00, which must be paid within five (5) years, at a minimum rate of $4,000.00 per year, of the Committee’s Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision.

H. REASONS FOR COSTS

19The Panel acknowledges that it has the jurisdiction and discretionary authority to order costs payable by the member to the College where it has found that member guilty of professional misconduct, according to paragraph 4 of subsection 30(5) of the Act. Rule 16 of the Rules sets out the applicable procedure where costs are sought by either party. The Panel acknowledges that subrule 16.05(3) of the Rules allows the College not to provide any evidence of the costs of a hearing day if the amount they are seeking is equal to or less than the amount in Tariff A. The Panel notes that the amount of costs sought by College Counsel is less than the amount in Tariff A for 10 hearing days.

20The Panel carefully considered the factors outlined in the Hall decision, which were relied upon by both College Counsel and Member’s Counsel. Hall (at pages 12-13) provides the Panel with guidance as to the factors that should be considered when determining costs:

Apportioning costs of proceeding: Costs orders are compensatory, rather than punitive, in nature. Their purpose is to apportion the financial burden of a discipline proceeding between the parties fairly. The nature or severity of a member’s misconduct is not a factor that should be considered when determining whether costs should be ordered or the quantum of any order.

Uncooperative and vexatious conduct: Uncooperative or obstructionist conduct in the course of the litigation process will be a significant factor in the costs determination. Conduct that unnecessarily lengthens the duration of the proceeding ought to be sanctioned, as should vexatious or improper conduct. Consistent with the principle of apportionment, the College and, through their licensing fees, cooperative members of the teaching profession, ought not bear fully the costs of discipline proceedings against uncooperative members.

Promotion of good conduct: Members of the profession are not required to admit all or part of their professional misconduct because the College always bears the burden of proof. However, participation in the disciplinary process, cooperation and conduct that shortens or reduces the complexity of the proceeding ought to be encouraged. Engagement in efforts to settle all or part of a proceeding should be encouraged when considering whether costs ought to be ordered. Costs orders should not be so large as to discourage members from raising reasonable defences to allegations of professional misconduct.

Success of the parties: The relative success of the parties will be relevant in determining and apportioning costs. For example, if the College is only partially successful in establishing the allegations against a member, this will be relevant in determining whether and what amount of costs should be ordered. If significant hearing time is spent receiving evidence on allegations that are ultimately not established, the member ought not be liable for those costs.

The member’s ability to pay: Evidence or submissions about the member’s ability to pay a costs order may be relevant to the Committee’s decision. This factor may also be relevant to the Committee’s decision about how much time the Member is given to pay the costs order. The impact of other penalties imposed (for example, revocation) may be relevant to this factor.

21In light of the Hall factors, the Panel finds it appropriate to order costs against the Member in the amount of $20,000.00, payable within five years of this Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision. In determining the quantum of costs, the Panel considered the need to apportion costs appropriately, the Member’s participation, cooperation and conduct that helped shorten the length of these proceedings, the mixed success of the parties, and the Member’s ability to pay.

22The Panel recognizes that a costs order is compensatory and it is fair to apportion the financial burden of these proceedings between the parties. However, the Panel also notes that costs should not be a crushing financial burden on the Member.

23When considering the promotion of good conduct factor, the Panel notes that the Member participated in these proceedings, was cooperative and conducted himself in a way that helped reduce the length and complexity of the hearing. Although it was a lengthy hearing, the hearing time amount was reasonable given the matter’s moderate complexity. The matter involved different types of allegations (i.e., sexual abuse and classroom management) and involved expert evidence; however, it was not an overly complex case. A reasonable amount of hearing time was spent for this matter. The Member made reasonable concessions by providing the Panel with a List of Facts not contested by the Member (Exhibit 10) which helped shorten the length of the proceedings. The Member also presented a reasonable defence. For instance, although the Member brought an abuse of process motion (which lasted over two hearing days) that was ultimately unsuccessful, the Panel notes that it was a reasonable defence. The Member also agreed to change the order of the College witnesses due to a witness being ill to avoid potential adjournments or further delays in the proceedings. Finally, the Panel acknowledges that prior Discipline Committee decisions have ordered costs (albeit in reduced amounts) even though they recognized that the members raised reasonable defences (i.e., Stan at paragraphs 32 and 34 and Paterson at paragraph 34). The Panel finds that these cases support that advancing a reasonable defence does not preclude the Panel from making a costs order. It is appropriate to order costs in these proceedings even though the Member was cooperative and presented a reasonable defence. However, the Panel is also mindful that the amount of costs should not present a crushing financial burden on the Member.

24Further, the Panel notes that the parties’ success was mixed. There were 17 factual particulars noted in the Notice of Hearing; five of which were not pursued by the College. The College proved five particulars and was successful in proving all heads of misconduct, except for the sexual misconduct allegation. However, a significant amount of hearing time was spent receiving evidence that the College was not successful at proving; seven particulars were either found not to be proven or to constitute professional misconduct. When looking at the success of parties factor outlined in Hall (reproduced above in this decision) it says as follows: “If significant hearing time is spent receiving evidence on allegations that are ultimately not established, the member ought not be liable for those costs.” The Panel agrees with Member’s Counsel’s submission that hearing time was spent receiving evidence of factual particulars that were ultimately not established. Given this, the Panel finds that the parties success in this matter was mixed for the purpose of costs.

25Finally, the Panel considered the Member’s ability to pay. The Panel received evidence from the Affidavit of Ken Ishwar Beebakhee (Exhibit 26) in which the Member affirmed that his employment was terminated in 2022 and that he retired in February 2022 at the age of 52 with a reduced pension. The Member also affirmed that he is the sole source of income in his household and has joint custody of his [XXX]-year-old child. The Panel considered the above when determining the Member’s ability to pay a costs order of $50,000 as sought by College Counsel. The Panel notes that the Member only provided his 2024 T4 statement from the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board and indicated that it was his only source of income. The Member did not provide a Notice of Assessment. However, the evidence that he received no other source of income was unchallenged by College Counsel. The Panel acknowledges the penalty ordered in this matter (i.e., revocation) prevents the Member from returning to a teaching position but also considered the Paterson case where Mr. Paterson’s certificate was also revoked, but he was still earning income working at LCBO (Paterson, see paragraph 34). Given this, the Panel finds that the Member does have the ability to seek employment as they did not receive any evidence that he is unable to work or seek another form of employment. For all of these reasons, while the Panel recognizes that the Member’s sole source of income is currently his reduced retirement pension, it finds that it is appropriate to allow the Member to pay the $20,000 costs order within five years at a minimum rate of $4,000 per year.

26The Panel is satisfied that an order of $20,000 in costs payable by the Member to the College within five years at a minimum rate of $4,000 per year of this Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision is just and appropriate, in the circumstances and represents a fair allocation of the costs of the hearing. The Panel is also satisfied that this costs order is proportional in balancing the financial burden of this discipline proceeding, but that costs should not be punitive in nature.

Footnotes

1. 1Although this mandatory penalty provision was not in force at the time of the Member’s sexual abuse of Student 1, section 63.2 of the Act provides that the mandatory penalty provisions at section 30.2 of the Act apply retrospectively where the sexual abuse occurred before April 3, 2019 and no order has been made under subsection 30(4) of the Act before then. These conditions are met in this case and the Panel must therefore apply the mandatory penalty provisions set out at section 30.2 of the Act.