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 of Investigation: No professional misconduct,
incompetence or incapacity

Parents of a Grade 4 student complained to the College that one of
their son's teachers was not allowing him to go to the washroom.
They said that their child suffered from a small bladder, which required frequent abseces for urination, as often as twice during a 30- to
45-minute period.

The parents said that they had informed the teacher of this need at a school open house, about a week after the beginning of the school year and that, in any event, the teacher knew their son, since he had been a student of hers for two years.

The parents complained that their child had urinated in class, causing great embarrassment, because the teacher had not allowed him to leave the class despite three requests. The mother said that after this incident, she again spoke to the teacher and asked that her son be allowed to leave the class.

The parents also complained that the teacher began to single out their child for ill treatment, accusing him of laziness, non-conformity and lying.

In response to the complaint, the teacher said that she was unaware of the student's problem and that the child was manipulative in avoiding work and attending class.

Several colleagues of the member confirmed that the child asked to go to the washroom frequently; that sometimes he would not return promptly; that on occasions they had to send another student to find him or have the office page him.

Some of the other teachers said that the child had problems organizing and handing in assignments and would often leave the class for extended periods saying he had to look for work.

Although asked to do so, the parents failed to provide names of other students who could verify the allegations.

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

The panel felt that although there was an obvious lack of communication among the parents, teachers and administration, the actions of the teacher did not amount to professional misconduct and that there was insufficient information to support the allegation that the teacher singled out the student for ill treatment.

Case # 2
Complaint: Accusation of sex with a minor
Outcome of Investigation: Unsubstantiated allegation, not referred to hearing

In 2002, a member of the public and the ex-husband of a member complained to the College that his former wife had told him in 1998 that she had a sexual relationship with a 13-year old child, nine or 10 years previously.

The complainant said that the child was living in the matrimonial home at the time in a temporary care arrangement with the approval of the child's family, the Family Court and the Children's Aid Society.
The child was not a student of the member and despite many attempts, the College was unable to locate the alleged victim, 12 or 13 years after the alleged events.

The member denied the allegations, saying that they were false, frivolous and vexatious and therefore an abuse of process and that this was one of many efforts on the part of her former husband to discredit her and ruin her career. The teacher claimed that the complainant was attempting to use the College to abuse and harass her.

A panel of the Investigation Committee directed that the matter not be referred to a hearing and stated that the complainant had provided insufficient information to support the allegations.

Case # 3
Complaint: Unprofessional relationship with students
Outcome of Investigation: Cautioned by College and reassigned by school board

A school board, under its discretionary obligation according to the Ontario College of Teachers Act, reported to the College its concerns about a former teacher, who had resigned his position with the board.

The board said that in 1996, witnesses had observed students in the member's elementary class looking at books displaying nude images and reported that he was discussing his personal life with the students.

In late 1999, a report that he had touched a 13-year old male student on the chest was made to the Children's Aid Society, who investigated but took no further action.

In spring 2000, one of the member's Grade 5 students entered in her journal that the member had touched her face, asked her personal questions, rubbed his fingers through her hair, touched her back and shoulders and made her stay after class for no apparent reason.

The principal, on this occasion, reminded the member that he had previously been cautioned about speaking to students in a personal manner and touching them and he was instructed to stop those behaviours.

In May 2000, that matter was also reported to the Children's Aid Society which once again investigated and concluded that although the member did not intentionally touch children, it was clear that some students felt a measure of discomfort around him.

In June 2000, four female teaching colleagues complained to the director of education that the member spoke inappropriately to female staff, single parents and co-op students, telling them about his personal sex life and making inappropriate personal and sexual comments to them. The matter was reported to the police, who investigated but concluded that the behaviour did not warrant laying criminal charges.

The teacher was reassigned to another school and subsequently resigned, obtaining a teaching position with another board.

The complaints were considered by a panel of the Investigation Committee, who directed that the member should be cautioned in respect to certain of his behaviours, as follows:

Your conduct has been interpreted by students as creating an atmosphere of discomfort. You are cautioned to conduct yourself in a manner that does not create such an atmosphere, and you are advised to follow the direction as communicated to you in writing on April 28, 2000 by your former principal.

In your relationship with parents, colleagues and your superiors, take note that your pattern of behaviour has raised concerns about your conduct. You should take appropriate steps to address those concerns and remain professional in your discussions with and your comments to such persons.

Case # 4
Complaint: Unfair treatment of student
Outcome of Investigation: Not professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity

A parent complained that her daughter's teacher had treated her daughter unfairly and that the principal had done nothing to correct the alleged injustices.

The complainant said that her daughter, an OAC student, had missed an unscheduled test because of illness and the teacher did not permit the student to write the test after her return to school.

On another occasion, the complainant said, her daughter had gone to a travel agency to pick up money returned for a cancelled March break trip and, in doing so, missed another test. The student was aware of the test but said she was told by her friend that she had made arrangements with the teacher to write the test the next day. When the student attempted to write the missed test after returning to school, the teacher refused permission.

Another allegation was that the teacher had given the student a low mark on one of her assignments, and while the parent agreed that one component of the assignment was of poor quality, she did not feel that the assignment deserved such a low mark.

Lastly, the complainant said that because of the failing mark that the teacher had given her child in her
OAC class, she was unable to gain entry into university for the 2001-2002 academic year and the parent
did not receive the disability benefit that she would have received while her child was a full-time student.

The allegations in the complaints were reviewed by a panel of the Investigation Committee at an early stage, to decide whether they would amount, if true, to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity. The panel concluded that they did not. The panel therefore refused to consider and investigate the complaint and commented that the College does not have the authority to change marks, require members to re-schedule tests or influence the acceptance of any applicants into university.

back | next