Dispute Resolution

The College uses Dispute Resolution (DR) to facilitate the resolution of suitable complaints regarding members of the profession. DR is voluntary and without prejudice to the parties. The results of the DR process are similar to those that would be expected following a full investigation and/or contested hearing.

The members in the cases reported here have consented to the publication of a summary of the complaint and its resolution.

Member: Not identified
Decision: Caution with conditions

The Registrar initiated a complaint against a member who acted in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner and failed to maintain the standards of the profession when telling students that if they didn’t behave they would spend time with a pedophile, and that if their behaviour persisted it would be without Vaseline. As well, the member told sexual jokes to the students and made inappropriate remarks.

On April 23, 2009, the Investigation Committee ratified an MOA between the member and the College in which the member:

• admitted to the conduct described above
• agreed to be cautioned in writing by the Investigation Committee
• agreed to provide the Registrar with a written report from a pre-approved course provider attesting that he has successfully completed a course in professional boundaries.

The committee issued a caution and reminded the member that teachers are significant role models in our society.

Member: Not identified
Decision: Admonished with conditions

The Registrar initiated a complaint against a member of the College who acted in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner and failed to maintain the standards of the profession. The member provided her own prescription medicine to a kindergarten student. While the child was prescribed the same medicine in the same dosage, the member failed to obtain the parent’s consent and ensure that the child’s medical requirements had not changed. Although well intentioned, the member put the child at risk.

On May 20, 2009, the Discipline Committee ratified an MOA between the College and the member in which the member:

• admitted to the conduct described above
• agreed to be admonished by the Discipline Committee
• agreed to provide the Registrar with a written report from a pre-approved course provider attesting that she has successfully completed a course relating to professional standards.

Member: Not identified
Decision: Admonished with conditions

Following notification from a law enforcement agency, the Registrar initiated a complaint against a member of the College. The complaint pertained to allegations that the member had sexually assaulted a store clerk while impaired due to the consumption of alcohol.

On April 23, 2009, the Investigation Committee ratified an MOA between the member and the College in which the member:

• admitted to the conduct described above
• agreed to be admonished in writing by the Investigation Committee
• agreed to provide the Registrar with a written report from the practitioner treating him for alcohol abuse, confirming that the member continues to successfully engage in his treatment.

Member: Not identified
Decision: Admonished with conditions

The Registrar initiated a complaint against a member who acted in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner and failed to maintain the standards of the profession by procuring, possessing and giving to a colleague 1.5 grams of cannabis.

On April 23, 2009, the Investigation Committee ratified an MOA between the member and the College in which the member:

• admitted to the conduct described above
• agreed to be admonished in writing by the Investigation Committee
• agreed to provide the Registrar with a written report from a pre-approved course provider attesting that he has successfully completed a course on professional ethics.

The Committee issued a caution, noting that, even though the member’s actions occurred outside the school, the member remains a role model for students.

When the Discipline Committee finds a member guilty of professional misconduct, the member’s name may be published in Professionally Speaking. If a similar matter is disposed of by the Investigation Committee or DR at the investigation stage, and the result is a caution, the name of the member is not published. The College monitors compliance with all agreements reached through DR.