Victoria Réaume

The Member, an elementary school principal, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct arising from an inappropriate relationship with a student.

The Member engaged in ongoing personal electronic communications, met with the student outside of school, exchanged gifts, and spent extended periods alone with the student.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and imposing conditions on the Member's certificate requiring psychological or psychiatric clearance before returning to work.

The Committee also ordered publication of the decision with the Member's name, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of the profession.

While on supervisory lunch duty, the Member kicked students' shoes that were not placed against the wall, making contact with a student who fell and suffered minor scraping.

The Discipline Committee accepted the plea and found the Member guilty.

The Committee ordered the Member to be counselled and directed publication of the findings and order in summary form without the Member's name, noting the minor nature of the incident, the Member's cooperation, and prior remedial steps.

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

College counsel advised that due to evidentiary challenges and the difficulty of proving the case through the key witness, there was no prospect of a finding of professional misconduct.

The Member's counsel consented.

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

The employer school board sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that reinstated a teacher who had been discharged for inappropriate behaviour towards a female colleague.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the award, finding that the arbitrator made several fundamental errors.

Specifically, the arbitrator failed to make critical findings of fact regarding the allegations, improperly applied a subjective test for harassment that required intent, and failed to ask whether the proven inappropriate conduct constituted just cause for discipline even if it did not amount to harassment.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member set out in the Notice of Hearing.

With the consent of the parties, and pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations without a hearing.

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

With the consent of the parties, and pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations without a hearing.

The applicant, a retired school principal, sought an order of prohibition to restrain the Ontario College of Teachers from proceeding with a discipline hearing against him.

The allegations related to his failure to properly screen and discipline a teacher who was later convicted of sexual offences.

The applicant had retired and cancelled his teaching certificate before the professional misconduct regulation came into effect.

The Divisional Court held that the College lacked jurisdiction to apply the professional misconduct regulation retrospectively to a former member who had resigned before the regulation was enacted, as the proceedings would be purely punitive rather than for public protection.

The application for prohibition was granted.

The Applicant, a private per diem operator of children's residences, applied to rescind a Review Officer's Order declaring it a 'seeking employer' under the Pay Equity Act.

The Applicant argued it was a private sector employer.

The Tribunal found that because the Applicant operates its residences under licences issued under the Child and Family Services Act, it falls squarely within the definition of a public sector employer in the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act.

The application was dismissed and the Order confirmed.