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: Racial discrimination and failure to protect student from racial harassment by students
Outcome of Investigation: Not referred to a hearing

A parent complained that from 1998 to 2004, when their child was a student in Grades 1 to 6, the school principal exhibited a pattern of racial discrimination against the student, failed to accommodate a learning disability, failed to protect the student from the racial harassment, bullying and physical assaults of other students, exaggerated facts and coerced student witnesses into false confessions and disciplined the student in circumstances where other students were not.

The parent provided a long list of examples of such alleged incidents over the six-year period and authorized the release of the student's Ontario Student Record information to the College investigator.

After considering the complaint documentation, a panel of the Investigation Committee directed that the matter not be referred to either the Discipline or Fitness to Practise committees because the information provided by the College's investigation confirmed that the school principal acted “fairly, professionally, respectfully and equitably” with respect to the student.

Case #2

Complaint: Inappropriate student discipline, discussing personal matters and failure to fulfill duties
Outcome of Investigation: Written caution

An employing board notified the College after it imposed restrictions on a teacher who, despite being directed by the school principal not to do so, disciplined students by sending them outside to write lines while kneeling on the pavement during recess.

The board's own investigation also determined that the teacher had called students names, such as “lazy,” “liar” and “cheater,” had discussed the teacher's marital status and situation with students and parents, had failed to evaluate student work and failed to complete Individual Education Plans for those students requiring them.

A panel of the Investigation Committee cautioned the member to practise disciplinary strategies that respected the emotional well being of students and to ensure that all student evaluations were conducted appropriately.

Case #3

Complaint: Administering a breathalyser test on students attending a school prom
Outcome of Investigation: Not referred to a hearing

The parent of a student attending a high school's annual prom wrote to complain that the school's vice-principal had, without authorization, administered a breathalyser test to several students attending the prom.

The parent complained that after they were allowed to enter the event the vice-principal/member approached three students, escorted them to a private area and produced a breathalyser device, which was then consensually administered to the students, who admitted having previously consumed alcohol.

Although the parent agreed that all students had been warned prior to the prom that anyone who had been drinking would not be allowed to enter the prom, the parent complained that the vice-principal was neither trained nor authorized to administer the test.

The Investigation Committee panel reviewing the complaint decided that it did not relate to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity and, therefore, should not be referred to a hearing. The committee commented that school and board protocols, including those relative to permitted events, were within the board's purview.

Case #4

Complaint: Failure to provide medical attention to a student injured during a physical education class
Outcome of Investigation: No investigation undertaken

The parents of a 14-year-old complained that their child suffered a finger injury during gym, while attempting to catch a ball. The parents said that, when the student informed the teacher about the injury, the teacher asked if the student “was dying” and, when the student answered “no,” the member told the student to continue playing.

The student's finger was examined the next day and a flake fracture was detected.

As a result of that injury the parents requested that the student be allowed to abstain from participation in soccer, part of the curriculum, but were advised by the member that the student could not earn the course credit in the absence of full course participation. The student was subsequently placed in a geography class in place of the gym class.

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