Communication and Conduct in Education - Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Ontario Superior Court, in an April 24, 2026 decision, considered the revocation of an elementary school teacher's license. (Bujacz v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2026 ONSC 1265 (CanLII), Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court))

Bujacz was an elementary school teacher in Ontario who was the subject of professional discipline proceedings before the Ontario College of Teachers. Allegations against Bujacz included consumption of alcohol on a school field trip, inappropriate classroom discussions involving sexual topics, and inappropriate Facebook messages to a former student characterized as sexually aggressive.

After a hearing, the Ontario College of Teachers concluded that the Facebook messages constituted "remarks of a sexual nature" directed toward a student, falling within the statutory definition of "sexual abuse" of a student under the Ontario College of Teachers Act. The Discipline Panel ordered revocation of Bujacz's teaching certificate based upon a finding of sexual abuse of a student and as required under Ontario law.

Bujacz challenged both the finding of sexual abuse and the constitutionality of the mandatory revocation provisions. He asserted that the required revocation under Ontario law was a violation of his freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His arguments were rejected by the Discipline Panel which found that any infringement of Bujacz's rights was justified.

Upon appeal to the Divisional Court, the Court determined that the inquiry was objective and proper and upheld the findings of the Discipline Panel. The Divisional Court noted that the statutory test did not require evidence of subjective intent and in finding Bujacz's testimony unreliable, the assertion that he lacked sexual purpose was unsupported.

However, the Court disagreed with the analysis and conclusion of the Discipline Panel that any infringement was justified under the Charter. Rather the Discipline Panel should have conducted an analysis under Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1S.C.R. 395. Under that analysis, the Court determined the objective of the law was to protect students from sexual abuse and to ensure safe educational environments. These stated objectives were sufficiently important to justify limits on expression. The Court further determined that any limitation of freedom of expression was minimal given it was restricted speech that involved sexual remarks directed at students and was entitled to relatively weak constitutional protection. However, even though the Discipline Panel conducted the wrong balancing test, there was no substantial harm, and the result would have been the same.

The Divisional Court also held mandatory revocation under the Ontario College of Teachers Act was constitutional and represented a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under section 1 of the Charter.

Appeal dismissed.

This is a free article from the May/June 2026 edition of Professional Licensing Report (PLR). Subscribe to Professional Licensing Report (PLR) to access the full edition today.