Citation and Court Information

CITATION: Okafor v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2025 ONSC 135

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOs.: 644/22 and 572/24

DATE: 2025-01-08

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: LorettO okafor, Appellant AND: ontario college of teachers, Respondent

BEFORE: Shore J.

COUNSEL: Philip Abbink, for the Appellant Stephanie Sugar and Noam Uri, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: in writing

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Ontario College of Teachers has brought a motion for an order extending the publication ban ordered by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers in Ontario College of Teachers v Okafor, 2022 ONOCT 109, pursuant to s. 32.1(1) and 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, SO 1996, c. 12 (the “Act”) with the following direction:

(i) 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; and

(ii) no person shall publish the identity of or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1.

[2] The parties consent to the extension of the publication ban ordered by the Discipline Committee pursuant to s. 32.1(1) and 32.1(3).

[3] For the reasons below, the motion is granted, as requested.

Facts and Analysis:

[4] The Appellant, Loretto Okafor, is appealing the merits of a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College Teachers: Ontario College of Teachers v Okafor, 2022 ONOCT 109, and the further decision of the Discipline Committee in this matter relating to penalty and costs dated August 25, 2024.

[5] The substance of the allegations involve students with special needs, one of which was over 18 years old at the time of the hearing (“Student 1”).

[6] Section 32.1(3) of the Act requires that, “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.”. Therefore, the Discipline Committee ordered a publication ban pursuant to s. 32.1(3), which was a mandatory order the Discipline Committee was required to make.

[7] Section 32.1(1) of the Act further permits the Discipline Committee to make an order, “that the public, including members of the College, be excluded from a meeting, the Committee may make orders it considers necessary to prevent the public disclosure of matters disclosed during the disciplinary stage complaint resolution process, including orders banning the publication or broadcasting of those matters.”. Student 1 was under 18 years old at the time of the events but was over 18 at the time of the hearing and therefore the mandatory s. 32.1(3) publication ban did not apply to him.

[8] The College requested, and the parties agreed, to ask the Discipline Committee to make a further order. The Discipline Committee thus additionally ordered a publication ban pursuant to s. 32.1(1) of the Act, whereby no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1

[9] The publication ban under s. 32(1) is an extension of the rationale of the mandatory nature of the publication ban required by s. 32.1(3) – where vulnerable persons, and students, and victims are implicated in a situation by no fault or reason of their own, their identities and personal information ought to be protected from publication.

[10] This Court has routinely granted similar requests for the extension of publication bans (see, e.g. Ontario College of Teachers v Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453 (Div Ct); Grimstead v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2023 ONSC 1801 (Div Ct); Caine v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2022 ONSC 2592 (Div Ct)).

[11] In Cann v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2022 ONSC 6988 (Div Ct.) a circumstance in which the request for extension of the ban was made at the hearing, the Court cited the nature and purpose of such a request as the basis for which no formal motion be required:

“The court granted an order extending the publication ban ordered by the Panel. In the circumstances, given the nature of the allegations in this case and the mandatory nature of s. 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the court did not require a formal motion record for a publication ban to be brought”.

[12] The same rationale applies to this case.

[13] The identity of the student witness should continue to be anonymized by referring to him as Student 1.

Shore J.

Date: January 8, 2025