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: Unfair treatment of student
Outcome : Not referred (dismissed)

A parent complained to the College about a Grade 2 teacher’s alleged unfair treatment of the parent’s child, including: keeping the student indoors during recess; restricting the student from class trips and school activities; telling the student that the school was too good for the student; grabbing the student by the arm to prevent the student from leaving the classroom; and, during an altercation between the parent’s child and a supply teacher, encouraging the supply to physically restrain the student.

After a full investigation, a panel of the Investigation Committee refused to refer the matter to a hearing. The panel decided that some of the allegations did not relate to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity and that the information provided by the investigation did not support the remaining allegations.

Case #2

Complaint: Inappropriate student disciplining and failure to supervise
Outcome: Not referred (dismissed)

The parents of a Grade 5 student complained to the College about the student’s teacher, after the teacher sent the student out of the classroom into cold outside temperatures, without permitting the student to take a coat. Other allegations included arranging for an emergency phone call to arrive during parent/teacher interviews and failing to properly supervise students on a school ski trip.

The College’s investigation determined that the outside temperature on the day in question was considerably milder than that alleged by the complainants and the Investigation Committee panel reviewing the matter decided that the school board had appropriately addressed that matter.

In respect to the other allegations, the panel decided that some did not relate to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity and that adequate supervision was provided for on the ski trip. Consequently, the panel refused to refer the complaints to a hearing.

Case #3

Complaint: Snatching student's hat and refusing to return it
Outcome: Not investigation

A parent’s agent wrote to the College to complain about several members and their alleged mistreatment of the parent’s Grade 8 child. Two allegations were made against the student’s teacher claiming that the teacher had snatched the hat that the student was wearing in school, against school rules, and then refused to return it to the student until the student said please.

The complaint was considered by a panel of the Investigation Committee at an early stage and the panel instructed College staff not to investigate it because the allegations did not relate to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity.

Case #4

Complaint: Grabbing students by the neck and shoulder
Outcome: Not referred (dismissed)

Having received notification from an employing school board of the board’s suspension of a member pending a Children’s Aid Society (CAS) investigation, the Registrar initiated a complaint against the member alleging that the member had grabbed one student by the neck and another by the shoulder.

The College investigated the matter and learned that the allegations had arisen from a series of disrespectful and defiant acts by several students throughout the day towards the member, including: running in and out of the classroom, banging the door; talking loudly in the classroom; placing a student’s bag on the desk; repeated horseplay despite requests to stop; and refusing to leave the classroom. The College’s investigation also revealed that the CAS had not verified the allegations because there was no evidence that a student had been harmed.

A panel of the College’s Investigation Committee considered the complaint and decided that, as a result of the information obtained in the investigation, the complaint should not be referred to a hearing.