The Ontario College of Teachers must get on with the job of protecting the public by tossing out bad teachers, putting an end to secret rulings and stopping union connections from clouding discipline judgments, a report recommends.

The review by retired justice Patrick LeSage was released Thursday. Both the provincial Education Ministry and the college have vowed to move quickly on the recommendations. Education Minister Laurel Broten is expected to introduce legislation that will, among other fixes, ensure teachers guilty of sexual misconduct lose their licences.

A Toronto Star investigation first raised the issues that led to Broten's actions and those of the college.

College registrar Michael Salvatori told a brief news conference his organization has failed the public in some respects.

“We have not been as open and transparent as the public expects.” In a previous letter to the Star complaining of its investigative stories, Salvatori called it “substandard journalism.”

The report cost the college, and the teachers whose teacher dues fund it, $500,000.

LeSage, who is a counsel to Toronto law firm Gowlings, did the report with fellow firm lawyer K. Lynn Mahoney.

“Public interest” must “underlie each and every decision made by Councillors of the College,” the report states. That comes in a section of the 76-page report that notes the college's three-person, nonteacher Public Interest Committee is treated “more like an appendage of the College rather than its foundation.”

A Toronto Star investigation last year found serious problems with the self-regulating college's disciplinary system. In December, Broten responded to the Star's stories by making some fast changes. The big change involved releasing the identities and full decisions related to many bad teachers. The college called in the judge after the Star brought a series of issues to the college's attention.

In some cases the Star probed, teachers found to have committed sexual misconduct or physically and emotionally abusive behaviour kept their licence. Some were transferred to other schools, a practice good teachers call “passing the trash.” Those found guilty of sexual abuse in criminal courts also kept their licence, some for years, until the college held a hearing.

It also found that teachers facing charges of sexually abusive behaviour were allowed to avoid a formal public hearing at the college and plead guilty, often to lesser offences, and receive a minor penalty using a dispute resolution process. The Star's ongoing coverage has noted that only a minority of teachers are rogue or bad teachers, but that the college had difficulty dealing with them.

LeSage issued a firm reminder to the college: “It is a privilege to self-regulate.” The college issues teaching licences and has the power to pull the licence in cases of misconduct, criminal action or incompetence. He has encouraged a wide range of changes in 49 recommendations that will protect students, parents and teachers themselves.

Missing from LeSage's report were real-life case examples, though college registrar Michael Salvatori said the retired justice reviewed numerous cases as part of his nine-month probe. The Star's review found many problem teachers are shielded from the public; until the Star's stories, that practice was increasing.

LeSage said “transparency” was key to improving the regulator's image. He found not only that some decisions were not made public, some hearings were closed to the public. He said the reason was found in the legislation that governs the college, which allows for secrecy. LeSage, a veteran judge, noted that courts deal with “sensitive issues each and every day, yet it is extremely rare” that they are closed to the public.

“The overriding principle must be transparency and openness,” LeSage wrote in his report. At the direction of the minister, the college has already begun releasing full decisions, including teacher identity, on its website.

LeSage recommended this be done for both decisions from the discipline committee and a “dispute resolution” committee that also probes misconduct. The Star found the latter committee often hid teacher identity.

Justice LeSage found the college had a low profile among the public and the teachers it regulates. “The College should better explain its role to its membership as well as the public,” LeSage said.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

LeSage examined several different ways teachers are disciplined and the composition of panels that mete out rulings. He looked at teachers found guilty of charges of sexual misconduct and sexual abuse and recommended the penalty should “almost invariably be revocation of the (teacher's) teaching certificate.”

The Star found this was not always the case and, in cases of a criminal conviction for serious sexual abuse, the college sometimes waited years to strip a teacher of his licence.

Provincial government sources said this recommendation by LeSage will be top on Broten's list.

When LeSage tackled the college's discipline committees, he found serious problems. With a busy case list and a backlog, there are currently only three college members on the committee.

“This is clearly inadequate,” he said, noting the college has more than 300 open investigations.

The college estimates that 60 per cent of LeSage's recommendations will require change in provincial legislation.

One of those changes involves giving the college permission to pass on information about a rogue teacher to police, and also for a discipline panel to consider previous decisions involving a teacher.

Speaking to reporters at Queen's Park, Broten called LeSage's report “thorough” and said the government will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure students are safe.

“We are committed to working closely with the OCT on the implementation of Justice LeSage's recommendations because parents have the right to know about teachers who have been disciplined.”

She said “parents need to be reassured that the educators in their school are upholding the highest standards of the profession and, when that is not the case, we all expect action to be taken and the outcome made public.”