investigations

The College investigates and considers complaints about members that relate to alleged professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity. If the Investigation Committee concludes that a complaint does not relate to one of those three matters or is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, it does not proceed with the complaint.

Approximately four out of five complaints are not referred to the Discipline Committee but are dismissed or resolved by other means. Examples of cases considered by the Investigation Committee and not referred to a hearing are provided here.


Case #1

Complaint: Failure to provide parent with supply teacher’s name and lying
Outcome of investigation: No investigation

A Grade 3 student’s parent complained to the College that a supply teacher at the student’s school had grabbed the student by the ears, after the student had made a sarcastic comment when told to hurry in removing outer clothing.

The parent alleged that the student had fallen to the ground, screaming, and that the teacher then grabbed the student by the arm. The parent also alleged that, at a later meeting, the vice-principal refused to give the supply teacher’s name when the parent asked for it.

The parent further alleged that, at a subsequent meeting, the vice-principal denied the existence of a behaviour management plan for the student that the parent had seen when reviewing the student’s OSR.

A panel of the Investigation Committee instructed staff not to investigate the complaint, which it said did not relate to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity.


Case #2

Complaint: Failure to report student assault to police or Children’s Aid Society (CAS)
Outcome of investigation: No investigation

The parent of an elementary school student wrote to the College stating that, while at the school, they had witnessed the student being kneed by another student. The parent remonstrated the offending student and obtained their name.

The parent then complained to the school administration and the vice-principal interviewed both students, but failed to report the matter to either the police or the CAS.

The Investigation Committee panel considering the complaint instructed staff not to investigate it because the allegations did not relate to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity. The panel commented that the member did investigate the incident and, in its opinion, dealt with the matter appropriately.


Case #3

Complaint: Poking several students with pen or pencil and shouting at students
Outcome of investigation: Written caution

The member’s employing school board notified the College, as required by section 43 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, that it had suspended the member pending investigations by the school board and CAS.

The board advised that several students had complained that the member had poked them with a pen or pencil in the chest, head, neck or chin, and had grabbed and dragged one student by the sweater. The member was also alleged to have shouted at the students.

The police and CAS interviewed six students and verified the member’s use of excessive force.

The complaint was considered by a panel of the Investigation Committee, which directed that the member be cautioned in writing. The panel instructed the member to always use appropriate classroom management strategies and advised that it was never acceptable to use physical force in the correction of student behaviour, unless in self-defence or in defence of another student or staff member.


Case #4

Complaint: Refusing student permission to use washroom and emotional abuse
Outcome of investigation: No investigation

The parent of a seven-year-old wrote to complain that the student’s classroom teacher had failed to grant the student’s request to use the washroom during a lesson. The parent said that the member responded that the school rule was that students were permitted to use the washroom at the end of the lesson.

The parent said that the student then lost control and urinated and that this caused embarrassment and emotional upset.

The member admitted that the student had made the request and had been reminded of the school rule regarding washroom breaks. The member added that the student did not impress the urgency of the situation on the member, who would always permit a washroom break in an emergency situation.

The member advised that he had apologized to the student and parent, in the presence of the principal, after the incident.

The complaint was considered by a panel of the Investigation Committee, which directed that it not be investigated because the allegations did not relate to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity.

Top of Page