Paul Marshall

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by physically and verbally abusing students in her Grade 7/8 class.

The allegations included hitting a student with test papers, throwing a sandwich at a student, and making inappropriate comments.

After hearing testimony from students, the vice-principal, and the Member, the Discipline Committee found the evidence insufficient to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee noted inconsistencies in the students' testimony and concluded that any physical contact was likely accidental rather than intentional abuse.

The allegations were dismissed.

The College brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of incompetence and misconduct against the member.

The parties consented to disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, allowing the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing in exchange for the member's undertaking to complete an Additional Qualification course in reading and to obtain a satisfactory performance appraisal upon returning to work.

The Committee found the resolution reasonable and in the public interest.

The applicant, a child with multiple exceptionalities (learning disability and giftedness), alleged that the respondent school board failed to accommodate her special needs in grades 4 and 5.

She also alleged that a vice-principal engaged in sexual solicitation of her mother and created a poisoned environment when the mother rebuffed her.

The Tribunal found that the school board had generally implemented the required accommodations set out in the applicant's Individual Education Plan.

The Tribunal rejected the allegations of sexual solicitation and poisoned environment, preferring the evidence of the respondents over that of the applicant's mother.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the member, which were based on three unsatisfactory teacher performance appraisals.

With the consent of the parties, the Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing was reasonable and protected the public interest.

In an ongoing human rights application regarding accommodation in education, the Tribunal issued an interim decision on the admissibility of the applicant's proposed reply evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant to provide her version of events to refute the respondents' witnesses but excluded evidence raising entirely new matters or collateral issues.

Audio recordings not previously disclosed were excluded, while late-disclosed emails were admitted.

The applicant's Request for Order seeking sanctions for alleged perjury was dismissed as premature.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving an inappropriate relationship with a student.

The member entered a plea of no contest, admitting to exchanging inappropriate personal emails, conducting sexual conversations, and engaging in inappropriate sexual actions with the student.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, revoking the member's teaching certificate, directing that he not apply for reinstatement for at least five years, and ordering the publication of his name and a summary of the findings.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the member.

The allegations were based on three unsatisfactory Teacher Performance Appraisals.

Since the filing of the allegations, the member completed a course and received a satisfactory appraisal.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion on consent, finding the withdrawal reasonable and in the public interest.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct after failing to prevent a classroom door from closing on a student's fingers and inappropriately taking another student by the hand.

The Member entered a plea of no contest and admitted to failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a verbal reprimand, the completion of an Additional Basic Qualification Course in Special Education, and publication of the decision without the Member's name.

The College brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence against the member.

The allegations were based on two unsatisfactory performance appraisals conducted by the same person within a short period, which were vague and subjective.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion on consent, finding that it would be difficult to prove incompetence on this basis and that withdrawal served the public interest.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for fastening a student to a chair with masking tape as a joke and calling him 'pig-headed'.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea, finding that her actions failed to maintain the standards of the profession and were disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

The Committee ordered the member to appear in person for a verbal reprimand, complete a specified course on respecting boundaries, and directed that a summary of the decision be published without identifying the member.

The parent of a child identified as an exceptional pupil appealed the child's special education placement to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the parent was not actually dissatisfied with the placement decision of 'Regular Class with Withdrawal Assistance', but rather with the specific programming, services, and accommodations provided within that placement.

Because the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 57(3) of the Education Act is limited to appeals regarding identification and placement, and does not extend to programming details, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Ottawa Catholic District School Board brought a motion to dismiss an appeal regarding the special education placement of a ten-year-old student.

The parent had appealed the school board's decision to uphold the Identification Placement Review Committee's placement of the child in a regular class with withdrawal assistance.

The school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision unanimously finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal, with full reasons to follow.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting partial summary judgment to the respondents on the issue of product ownership.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that there was no triable issue regarding the appellant's ownership of the product, noting the appellant's pleadings and a 1996 licensing agreement were inconsistent with ownership.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, striking the declaration that the respondent owned the product because the respondent had not filed a counter-claim.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates in November and December 2001 due to the anticipated passage of Bill 130.

The applicant undertook to advise the Board by December 20, 2001, whether it would also seek to adjourn the January 2002 hearing dates.

The Board granted the adjournment.

The applicant employee appealed a decision of an Employment Standards Officer refusing to issue an Order to Pay for unpaid wages and overtime pay.

At the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment because his lawyer was unavailable, which the Board denied as it was the second request and no prior notice was given.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the claim for overtime pay due to a lack of evidence that the employer's records were altered.

The Board also dismissed the claim for unpaid wages for a two-week period in January 1998, finding based on witness testimony that the applicant was present at the workplace but did not perform any work.