Hearings

Three-member panels of the Discipline Committee conduct public hearings into cases of alleged incompetence or professional misconduct. The panels are a mix of elected and appointed Council members.

If found guilty of professional misconduct or incompetence, a member's certificate may be revoked, suspended or limited. In cases of professional misconduct only, the committee may also reprimand, admonish or counsel the member, impose a fine, publish its order in Professionally Speaking, or order the member to pay costs.

Panels of the Discipline Committee have ordered summaries of these recent disciplinary cases to be published in Professionally Speaking.


Member: Alfred Andrew Aleksandrowicz
Registration number: 244125
Decision: Reprimanded with conditions

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on December 19, 2007 into two allegations of professional misconduct against Alfred Andrew Aleksandrowicz for acting in an unprofessional manner towards students.

Aleksandrowicz, who was certified to teach in June 1992 and worked for the Waterloo Catholic DSB, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel.

The panel heard evidence that Aleksandrowicz had admitted to using drugs, angrily responded to rumours by telling a student, “You are going to get your ass kicked,” and told a student during a discussion on teenage pregnancy that, “You are a nice looking person. If you have a child, no one in the community is going to want you.” Aleksandrowicz also acknowledged sending a rose and a card to a senior male student on Valentine’s Day as a joke. Neither the student nor his parents were offended.

Based on the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a guilty plea, a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel reprimanded Aleksandrowicz for professional misconduct.

The panel directed him to complete, at his own expense, a course pre-approved by the Registrar on appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues within three months of the order.

Aleksandrowicz’s communication with students was inappropriate, the panel decision said. “He referenced their appearance and used unsuitable language. He discussed his own personal life, including an admission of past drug use. His behaviour also included inappropriate gift giving to a senior male student.” The panel said that Aleksandrowicz’s behaviour did not comply with the standards of the profession and was conduct unbecoming a member.

The decision appears on the College’s public register.


Member: Not identified
Decision: Reprimand

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing into an allegation of professional misconduct against a member for seeking a relationship with a female Grade 8 student outside acceptable student-teacher boundaries.

The member, who taught for the Dufferin-Peel Catholic DSB, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel.

The panel heard evidence that the member corresponded with one of his former female Grade 8 students and made references to a relationship that would have been outside the boundaries of students and teachers. The member knew the girl as a student, through his involvement in her family’s business and as a family friend.

Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a plea of no contest, a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel reprimanded the member for professional misconduct.

A majority of the panel accepted the defendant’s submission that publication of the member’s name was unnecessary since specific deterrence was satisfied by the plea of no contest and the reprimand. Further, the panel took into consideration that there was no evidence of any previous or subsequent misconduct by the member, that it was an isolated incident that occurred long ago, and determined that publishing the member’s name might identify the student and be detrimental to her family.

However, one panel member said in a minority opinion that “the need to publish the member’s name and thereby inform the public outweighs the potential impact to [the] member and the student, who is now an adult.

“Publication of the findings and order without the member’s name amounts to suppression of information and raises questions in the minds of the public regarding the transparency of the process,” the minority decision says.

The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register.


Member: Miguel Roland Quesnel
Registration number: 199137
Decision: Revocation

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on January 15, 2008 into six allegations of professional misconduct against Miguel Roland Quesnel for a criminal conviction of sexual interference of a person under 14.

Quesnel, who was certified to teach in June 1990 and worked as a high school teacher for the Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest, did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel.

The panel heard evidence that Quesnel sexually molested a child he was babysitting. He also dressed in feminine underwear and paraded and danced before the child.

In December 2006, Quesnel was sentenced by the Ontario Court of Justice to a year under house arrest followed by three years’ probation. In addition, he was prohibited from being in the company of anyone under 16 unless accompanied by a responsible adult, except in accordance with any Family Court Order, and ordered to attend and actively participate in counselling as directed by his probation officer.

Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a guilty plea, a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel found Quesnel guilty of professional misconduct and directed the Registrar to revoke his Certificates of Qualification and Registration.

“Revocation is the necessary penalty,” the panel wrote. “Revocation will ensure that the member no longer has access to opportunities that place him in a position of trust and authority within the community. Parents and the

general public need to be reassured that members who behave in such a manner will not be tolerated by the profession.”

The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register.


Member: John Alexander Inglis
Registration number: 316193
Decision: Revocation

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on January 30, 2008 into 10 allegations of professional misconduct against John Alexander Inglis related to a criminal conviction for gross indecency, indecent assault and sexual assault involving his students.

Inglis, who was certified to teach in June 1969 and has since resigned from the College, worked as a teacher and guidance counsellor at a private school in Toronto at the time of the incidents. He did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel.

The panel heard evidence that Inglis pleaded guilty in criminal proceedings to gross indecency, indecent assault and sexual assault on three former students. He was sentenced in 2006 to a conditional prison sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years’ probation. The court ordered Inglis not to communicate with the complainants or their families except through counsel, to abstain from alcohol and not to be in the presence of anyone under 18 except in the presence of an adult.

By his abuse of students, Inglis has brought the teaching profession into disrepute and has lost the trust of the public, the panel said. “The member, by his actions, abused the power and trust vested in him in his role as a teacher. He caused emotional, psychological and sexual harm to his students for his own gratification.”

Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a plea of no contest, joint submissions on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel found Inglis guilty of professional misconduct and directed the Registrar to revoke his Certificates of Qualification and Registration.

“The member has pleaded guilty in criminal proceedings to gross indecency, indecent assault and sexual assault on three former students. This is one of the most serious crimes in our society. The public must be informed that a member of the teaching profession who engages in this type of activity will suffer the most serious of consequences,” the panel wrote.

The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register.

Glossary of terminology

The vocabulary used to report disciplinary hearings reflects their quasi-judicial nature. If you wonder what some terms mean, help is at hand.

For past and future reference, the College has posted a glossary of terms on its web site. A link to the glossary can be found on the decision-summary page.

Visit Glossary of Terms.

Top of Page