|
Professionals - Freedom of Expression (3). Bujacz v. Ontario College of Teachers
In Bujacz v. Ontario College of Teachers (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed appeals, here brought against "the decisions of the Ontario College of Teachers .... (the Discipline Decision), .... (the Penalty Decision) and .... (the Charter Decision)" - these respecting "remarks of a sexual nature to a student on Facebook" that invoked "mandatory revocation of the teacher’s certificate of qualification and registration".
Here the court considered Charter s.2(b) ['freedom of expression'] and the 'mandatory revocation' provisions of OCTA:(ii) Constitutionality of ss. 30.2(a), 30.2(2), 30.03 and 33(4.1) of the Act
[74] On this appeal, there is no issue that the mandatory revocation provisions, as applied to the appellant, infringed the appellant’s s. 2(b) right to freedom of expression. The appeal issues relate to s. 1 of the Charter.
[75] There is also no issue that the Oakes test applies to this aspect of the appeal.
[76] To begin with, the challenged provisions must have a pressing and substantial objective sufficient to override the protected right. The parties agree that there is a pressing and substantial objective here, specifically to protect students from all forms of sexual abuse. However, the appellant submits that the Panel ought not to have also found a secondary objective of denunciation. Yet both the legislative record and the evidence from the College showed that denunciation is a valid secondary purpose for the challenged provisions. The message to teachers is zero tolerance for all forms of sexual abuse.
[77] The issue is therefore whether the impugned provisions are reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified under the proportionality analysis in the Oakes test, which requires that the College/Attorney General show as follows:(i) the limit to freedom of expression must be rationally connected to the objective;
(ii) the limit must minimally impair freedom of expression; and,
(iii) the deleterious effects of the limit must not be disproportionate when weighed against the statutory objectives. [78] The appellant challenges the Discipline Panel’s decision on all three parts of the Oakes proportionality test. The College supports the Charter Decision, as does the Attorney General, who begins quite simply by saying that sexual remarks made by teachers to students have no place in the teaching profession. At paras 79-100 the court walks through the conventional Charter s.1 Oakes test.[101] We conclude that the Panel did not err in finding that the challenged provisions are reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
|
