Ontario College of Teachers v. Levitan, 2026 ONOCT 8

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Levitan 2026 ONOCT 8

Date: 2026-02-26

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Lisa Sharon Levitan, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

LISA SHARON LEVITAN (REGISTRATION #487314)

PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair

Adam Dharsee, OCT

Lois Figg

HEARD: February 11, 2026

Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Vanora Simpson, for Lisa Sharon Levitan

Emily Graham, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on February 11, 2026, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Lisa Sharon Levitan (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION BAN

3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated May 13, 2025 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Lisa Sharon Levitan is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) 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);

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

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

1. Lisa Sharon Levitan is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers in Good Standing. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at Knoxdale Public School (the “School”) in Nepean, Ontario.

3. At all material times, Person A was a teacher with the Board.

The Member’s conduct toward her colleague

4. The Member is a Jewish teacher who has committed much of her personal and professional life to fighting anti-Semitism. The Member, along with members of the local Jewish community, successfully advocated for the Board to create the role of a Jewish Equity Coach. Prior to the formal establishment of this role, the Member voluntarily took on many of the associated responsibilities of this position herself.

5. In May 2023, Person A was selected by the Board for the role of Jewish Equity Coach.

6. Between approximately September 2023 and January 2024, the Member sent Person A frequent e-mails in which she raised concerns about his work, questioned how he was spending his time, opined that he was too passive to be successful in his role, and directed what he should be doing instead. The Member was persistent in suggesting that Person A involve her more in the work he was doing. During this time, Person A did not ask the Member to stop sending him e-mails, nor voice a concern directly with the Member about her communications.

7. The Member also publicly undermined Person A by chastising him in front of their colleagues on a number of occasions.

8. The Member’s communications with Person A were unprofessional. She provided negative feedback about his performance and commented on the limited impact he was having, purporting to speak on behalf of other members of the local Jewish community. As evidence, the Member referenced anonymous criticism of Person A posted on a Jewish Facebook group which the Member administered. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of excerpts of emails sent by the Member to Person A.

9. The Member was a member of a Facebook group, founded in July 2021, called Ottawa Against Antisemitism (“OAA”). In 2022, the Member became an Administrator of the account. Between approximately September and December 2023, an anonymous author in the OAA group wrote a number of negative posts about Person A and the work he was doing as the Board’s Jewish Equity Coach. In December 2023, screenshots of these posts were taken and sent by someone to the Office of the Human Rights and Equity Advisor (“O-HREA”).

10. When the Member discovered that posts from the OAA Facebook account had been shared with the O-HREA, she sent a message to Person A on his private phone asking whether he was the person responsible for sharing the posts with the Board as she planned to take legal action. Person A replied by telling the Member that her message was unwelcome and inappropriate and asked her not to contact him on his personal phone again. The Member complied and did not contact him again.

The Member’s Social Media Posts

11. The Member had a public X account (formerly Twitter) using her full name and identified that she was a teacher in Ottawa.

12. In the immediate aftermath of the October 7, 2023 attack in Israel, the Member expressed views, on her X account, about how others should be responding to these events. In particular, the Member suggested that anyone who did not show support for Israel, or advocated on behalf of Hamas, supported terrorism and was not welcome in “her” Canada.

13. A significant number of individuals took offense to the Member’s posts, characterizing them as anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and Islamophobic.

Board Investigation

14. In October 2023, the Board received numerous complaints about the Member’s public comments and social media posts regarding the events in Israel. In addition, the Board had received a complaint from Person A about the Member’s conduct toward him and, as a result, commenced a Respectful Workplace investigation. Before the investigation findings were finalized, the Member resigned from the Board effective August 31, 2024.

Prior History with the Board and College

15. In June 2023, the College received a report from the Board regarding allegations that the Member had engaged in unprofessional conduct toward colleagues. The Investigation Committee addressed this complaint by way of a non-disciplinary outcome.

GUILTY PLEA

16. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

17. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 6 to 10 of the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(18) and 1(19).

18. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

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

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

(d) she understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

19. In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 11, 2026, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) (unprofessional only) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 15 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts set out in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts at paragraphs 6 to 10 demonstrate that the Member engaged in inappropriate behaviour towards a colleague.

8The Panel notes that while the Member has agreed that paragraphs 11 to 13 of the Admitted Facts regarding the Member’s social media comments are factually accurate, the parties asked the Panel not to include those facts for the basis of its findings of professional misconduct as a part of the joint submission as to the finding.

9The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel agrees with the submission of College Counsel that the Member’s behaviour was not disgraceful or dishonourable in the circumstances as it did not involve a moral failing on the part of the member. However, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would be reasonably regarded by members as unprofessional as it involved disregard for the Member’s professional obligations, including the requirement to demonstrate good judgment. This lack of judgment was demonstrated through the communications sent by the Member to Person A (Exhibit B). The Member acted as though she was a supervisor to Person A even though she was not. She frequently provided directives to Person A regarding what he should be communicating to senior staff, where she thought he needed to be proactive, what he needed to prioritize and pointed out what she perceived to be Person A’s shortcomings in the role. The Member also made disparaging comments towards Person A via email such as “We (you) have a lot of work to do. Jewish staff are feeling really terrible right now”. Some of the Member’s comments to Person A were direct, while others were passive-aggressive such as when the Member suggested the job may be too much for Person A to handle. In addition, the Member used a disrespectful tone when she conveyed to Person A that members of the Board’s Jewish community would come to her, rather than to him, to express their discontent. Furthermore, the Member demonstrated poor judgment when she chastised Person A in front of their colleagues on numerous occasions. Overall, the Panel finds that the Member’s behaviour towards Person A constituted bullying given the content, tone and amount of messages she sent to him.

10The Panel recognizes that the Member may have had well-intentioned motives in wanting to support the Board’s Jewish community. However, the Member’s motivations are not relevant to the Panel’s determination in this case. In addition, the Panel notes that Person A responded politely and professionally to the Member’s unwanted, unsolicited, and unprofessional communications. The Member could have expressed her concerns to Person A in a way that met her professional responsibilities, but her behaviour frequently crossed the line.

11The Panel also finds that the Member engaged in misconduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members must have the ability to exercise good judgment and act professionally towards their colleagues. The Member failed to use good judgment and act professionally when she bullied Person A by sending inappropriate communications to him via email and text and chastising him publicly in front of his peers. The reputation of the teaching profession is undermined when members are unable to maintain effective and professional working relationships. Furthermore, members have professional responsibilities to model tolerant and respectful interactions, and not behaviour that amounts to bullying, for the benefit of their students and members are encouraged to remain reflective of their actions towards colleagues regardless of their intentions. It is therefore unbecoming a member to engage in bullying behaviour themselves.

F. PENALTY DECISION

12The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 11, 2026, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered by videoconference and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”).

2. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee the Member shall enrol in, and successfully complete, at her own expense, a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, in appropriate communication and interactions with professional colleagues, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within thirty (30) days of his [sic] completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

13The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.¹ The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel on behalf of the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Giannias, 2020 ONOCT 172; Ontario College of Teachers v. Reid, 2021 ONOCT 126; Ontario College of Teachers v. Shackleton, 2020 ONOCT 122 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Vandenburg, 2018 ONOCT 15.

14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are two aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member’s conduct was not an isolated incident but involved multiple communications to Person A over several months. Second, the Member made it more difficult for Person A to do his job. Given the events of October 7, 2023, it was already a challenging time for Person A to be helping lead the Jewish community and students. The Member undermined Person A at a fraught time for the Jewish community, which in turn made it more difficult for the community and students to receive support. The Panel acknowledges College Counsel’s submission that it is aggravating that the Member was previously subject of a complaint regarding unprofessional conduct towards colleagues which was dealt with by the Investigations Committee by way of a non-disciplinary outcome. However, due to the limited information provided about the previous complaint, the Panel has ascribed limited weight to this factor in determining whether the proposed penalty is appropriate in this case.

15There are four mitigating factors in the Member’s case. First, this is the Member’s first appearance before the Discipline Committee. Second, the Member pleaded guilty to the misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and sparing witnesses from having to testify at a contested hearing. Third, by pleading guilty the Member is expressing remorse and taking accountability for her actions. Fourth, while some of the Member’s conduct preceded October 7, 2023, the Panel accepts that it was a highly emotional and difficult time for the Member and the Jewish community as a whole and that this had an impact on the Member’s state of mind in the days immediately following that event. The Panel acknowledges the submission of College Counsel that none of the Member’s misconduct was directed at students. However, the Panel notes that this factor does not have much bearing because the Member’s communications at issue were made to Person A directly or in front of colleagues; they did not involve students. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct towards her colleague, warrants a reprimand. Members of the teaching profession are expected to serve as role models and to act professionally towards their colleagues. The Member failed to do so by sending inappropriate communications to Person A and by chastising him in front of his colleagues. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

17The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding appropriate communication and interactions with professional colleagues will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with colleagues.

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

Footnotes

1. 1See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204; Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453.