Robin McKechney

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for verbally and physically abusing a special needs student and acting unprofessionally toward a colleague.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Member was found guilty of professional misconduct and ordered to receive a reprimand and complete an anger management course focused on dealing with special needs students.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for engaging in boundary violations with a female student.

Despite previous warnings and a prior disciplinary finding for similar conduct, the Member engaged in unwanted conversations, invaded the student's personal space, and shared inappropriate personal details.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and the completion of coursework on professional boundaries and classroom management.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers held a penalty hearing after finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The member had engaged in a pattern of verbally and physically abusive conduct toward students, inappropriately disciplined students by sending them into the hallway unsupervised, and acted unprofessionally and insubordinately toward her principal.

The member did not attend the penalty hearing.

The Committee ordered that the member receive a reprimand, serve a six-month suspension of her Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and successfully complete pre-approved coursework regarding anger management and appropriate boundaries before returning to a teaching position.

The Member, a teacher, faced a discipline hearing for professional misconduct after stealing textbooks, shin pads, and money from a colleague's wallet at his school.

The Member admitted to the facts and pled guilty to professional misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and requiring the Member to complete an ethics course.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in conduct unbecoming a member.

The misconduct arose from her handling of a cancelled Grade 8 school trip, including failing to communicate with parents and school administration, and refusing to meet with parents or provide necessary records.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, ordering a written reprimand and mandatory publication of the decision with the Member's name.

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

The withdrawal was sought in exchange for the Member's Undertaking, Acknowledgment and Consent, which required the Member to complete an Additional Qualification course and undergo a performance appraisal upon returning to teaching.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal in exchange for the undertaking was reasonable and served to protect the public interest.

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

The withdrawal was sought in exchange for the member entering into an Undertaking and Acknowledgment, which required the member to complete an Additional Qualification course prior to returning to teaching and to provide a copy of his next performance appraisal to the Registrar.

The Discipline Committee found the withdrawal reasonable and in the public interest, and granted the motion.

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

The parties agreed to the withdrawal in exchange for the member's Undertaking and Acknowledgment, which included her immediate resignation and conditions for any future reinstatement.

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

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

The parties agreed to the withdrawal in exchange for the Member entering into an Undertaking and Acknowledgment, which required her to complete an Additional Qualification course and provide her next performance appraisal to the Registrar.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal in exchange for the Undertaking and Acknowledgment was reasonable and served to protect the public interest.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct after she aggressively confronted, yelled at, and threatened two young students following a schoolyard incident involving her own child.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including verbal and emotional abuse of a student.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and the completion of an anger management course.

The Committee also ordered that the Member's name be published in the College's official publication, finding that the serious nature of the misconduct outweighed the mitigating factors.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the Member, citing insufficient evidence and no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion pursuant to Rule 13.13 of its Rules of Procedure, finding the withdrawal reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

The Member, a teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct following criminal convictions for assault and assault causing bodily harm against his estranged wife and her partner.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, the completion of a stress and anger management course, and publication of the decision with the Member's name.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for repeatedly using profanity, making inappropriate gestures, discussing his personal marijuana use, and making inappropriate sexual remarks about his genitals in the presence of students.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and a course on student sensitivities.

The Committee also ordered that the Member's name be published in the College's official publication, finding that the aggravating factors of repeated misconduct despite prior warnings outweighed the mitigating factors.

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

The parties agreed to withdraw the allegations in exchange for an Undertaking and Acknowledgment from the member, which required the member to complete an Additional Qualification course before returning to teaching and to undergo a performance appraisal within the first two years of employment.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal in exchange for the undertaking was reasonable and served to protect the public interest.

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

The member had resigned from the College and provided an undertaking never to seek reinstatement or work in any school in Ontario.

Criminal charges against the member had previously been withdrawn.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the member's undertaking to resign and never seek reinstatement protected the public interest and upheld the standards of the profession.

The three accused, former senior executives of Nortel Networks Corporation, were charged with two counts of fraud over $5,000.

The Crown alleged that they deliberately misrepresented Nortel's financial results by manipulating accrued liability balances to meet earnings targets and trigger bonus payments.

The court conducted a detailed review of Nortel's accounting practices, the use of accrued liabilities, and the restatements of its financial results.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately misrepresented the financial results or that the financial statements were materially misstated.

The accused were found not guilty on both counts.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the Republic of Korea, sought an order for the committal for extradition of the respondent for offences corresponding to conspiracy to commit fraud and fraud.

The respondent allegedly defrauded the Korean government of approximately $12 million CAD by illegally obtaining compensation for redeemed land.

The respondent argued the Record of the Case was manifestly unreliable due to translation errors and inconsistencies.

The court found sufficient available and reliable evidence on every essential element of the offences to justify committal and ordered the respondent's committal for extradition.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in granting only 1:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the appellant was entitled to enhanced 2:1 credit due to the unavailability of parole and his desire to attend a treatment centre.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of granting 14 months and two weeks of pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to fairly and fully assess his alibi defence before finding guilt based on the credibility of the Crown's case.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge carefully reviewed the alibi and provided several valid reasons for rejecting it, including the strength of the Crown's case and the appellant's failure to testify.

The appellant appealed his custodial sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to properly consider a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the sentencing judge incorrectly concluded that only incarceration could satisfy the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation.

The Court noted that a properly fashioned conditional sentence can meet these objectives, and highlighted that the equally culpable co-accused received an 18-month conditional sentence despite having a prior record.

The appeal was allowed, and an 18-month conditional sentence was substituted for the youthful first-time offender.