Professionally Speaking regularly reports on decisions of panels of the Discipline Committee after complaints have been referred to a public hearing. But about four out of five complaints made to the College never reach a disciplinary hearing and are disposed of in other ways.

The Investigation Committee – according to the Ontario College of Teachers Act – must refuse to consider and investigate complaints that do not amount to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity, as well as those considered to be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

The Investigation Committee is one of the College’s busiest committees. Last year, more than 190 formal complaints came before the committee; only 41 were referred to hearings. In this issue, we report on three cases that were disposed of by the Investigation Committee. The Ontario College of Teachers Act requires that the names of members involved in these situations remain confidential.

Case 1: Under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, a school board shall notify the College of any member behaviour that in the opinion of the board should be reviewed by a committee of the College.

In this instance a public board notified the College that one of its long-term occasional teachers had allegedly sent three Kindergarten students outside in the snow without shoes or coats and told them to walk to the school fence. The stated purpose was to teach the children a lesson regarding the importance of bringing proper footwear to school.

The member allegedly minimized the incident in telephone calls to the students’ parents, saying that they were instructed only to stand on dry cement for 10 seconds, but admitted that the actions were inappropriate.

A panel of the Investigation Committee decided that although the member’s discipline methods were inappropriate, the matter did not merit a referral to the Discipline Committee. The panel directed that the member be admonished for these actions and for placing students at risk.

Case 2: The mother of a Junior Kindergarten student at a public school complained that the principal of her child’s school was aggressive towards her daughter and failed to do anything about her complaint that other students had sexually assaulted her daughter.

The mother alleged that she was told by the school to withdraw her complaint about the sexual assault and that her daughter was not allowed to attend the school. When the student returned to the school, the mother claimed she was placed in another class with younger children, thereby hindering her education.

An investigation by Children’s Aid Society (CAS) into the alleged sexual assault concluded that it was rough play and not sexual assault.

The principal denied the allegations and relied on the conclusion of the CAS investigation in respect to the alleged sexual assault. The principal confirmed that when the student returned to school, she was placed into another Junior Kindergarten class so that she would not come into contact with the students accused of assaulting her.

A panel of the Investigation Committee considered the complaint and directed that it not be referred to either the Discipline Committee or the Fitness to Practise Committee.

The panel concluded that the allegations were not supported by the information it had and that the principal had acted appropriately by involving the CAS. The panel also concluded that the class to which the student was moved after her return had an identical program to that of her previous class.

Case 3: A parent of academically gifted students complained that a superintendent with a public board failed to ensure that the principal and Special Education teacher of her children prepared the required minutes of an Identification Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) meeting.

The complaint alleged that the superintendent also failed to supervise the principal and teacher appropriately, allowing the students to partially fill out their own IPRC documentation and authorized the cancellation of an IPRC meeting without parental permission.

The parent complained that the superintendent failed to supervise the chair of a special needs committee, permitted the closure of an IPRC meeting without parental consent, failed to use a particular program in the IPRC procedure and ensure that the complainant was notified of the IPRC meeting 10 days ahead of time, or provide the complainant with a complete copy of the documentation.

The parent also complained that the superintendent failed to ensure that the appeal board filed their decision within the appropriate period, provide a stay of placement and attempted to intimidate and harass the complainant and her family. The superintendent was also accused of failing to become familiar with all placement options.

A panel of the Investigation Committee first considered whether the allegations amounted to or may amount to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity on the part of the member and concluded that they did not. The panel therefore refused to investigate and consider those allegations, commenting that they were more appropriately dealt with at the local and board level in any event.