) ) MICHAEL KEN FUCHIGAMI ) Martin Zatovkanuk , for the Applicant ) Applicant ) ) – v. –, 2024 ONSC 106

CITATION : Fuchigami v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2024 ONSC 106 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 239/22 DATE: 20240109 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT D.L. Corbett, Fitzpatrick and Hebner JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) MICHAEL KEN FUCHIGAMI ) Martin Zatovkanuk , for the Applicant ) Applicant ) ) – and – ) ) INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE OF THE ) Christine L. Lonsdale and Christine Windsor ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for the Respondent ) Respondent ) HEARD at Toronto (by ZOOM): ) May 18, 2023 REASONS FOR DECISION D.L.

Corbett J. [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of three decisions of the Investigation Committee of the College of Teachers (the “Respondent”) not to refer complaints made by him about three of his colleagues (the “respondent Members”) to the Discipline Committee of the College of Teachers. [ 2 ] As explained below, the Applicant does not have standing to challenge the substantive reasonableness of the Respondent’s decisions, and in any event those decisions are reasonable. The Applicant does have standing to raise issues of procedural fairness, but the process below was fair to the Applicant.

Therefore, for the following reasons, this application is dismissed. Background Facts [ 3 ] The complaints concern a play presented to Grade 8 students on themes of bullying and school violence. The Applicant takes the position that the play ought not to have been presented as it was, or at all, and that in any event the communication to and consent sought from parents about the play did not meet professional standards.

He further argues that, in the aftermath, when school officials learned that the Applicant had been “triggered” by the play, outreach to students, staff and families was insufficient. [ 4 ] These complaints were made against (

a) Liza Latoya Wilson, the drama teacher who selected, produced and directed the play; (

b) Mark Andrew Harris, the school principal who approved and was active in the organization and presentation of the play; and (

c) Shawn James Lehman, a superintendent employed by the School Board, who did not require Principal Harris to notify parents of the “violent and sensitive nature of the play” once it became known that it had “triggered a traumatic response for at least one member of the audience.” The “one member of the audience” was the Applicant, who was a Grade 8 teacher employed at the school and watched the play with his students. The Impugned Decisions (

a) The Factual Basis of the Complaints [ 5 ] The Applicant’s allegations were as follows: (

i) the Respondent Wilson selected, produced and directed, and the respondent Harris allowed the production of a play entitled “The Bullying Connection” (the “play”) a. which made the Applicant suicidal and depressed; b. which was shown to Grade 8 students and teachers during a school instructional day which sensationalized

an act of school

violence which may have led to vulnerable students misinterpreting its message without adult or parental support to help navigate the play’s meaning. (ii) the Respondent Harris a. failed to provide sufficient information to teachers and students so that they could make informed decisions about attending the play; and b. did not adequately communicate with parents / guardians of children of Grade 8 students brought to watch the play about the risk of suicidal ideation to which they were exposed. (iii) the Respondent Lehman a. Allowed the production of the play; and b.

Failed to require the school to communicate adequately with parents / guardians of Grade 8 students who watched the play about the risk of suicidal ideation to which the students were exposed once it became known that an audience member suffered a traumatic mental health crisis / suicidal ideation triggered in response to the play. (

b) The Respondents’ Findings [ 6 ] The Respondent found that it was “neither competent nor equipped to assess a potential link between a member’s alleged conduct and the psychological consequences it may have had on others.” The Respondent went on to conclude: The Panel is of the view that while the deterioration of the Complainant’s mental health in the months following the showing of the play is unfortunate, this could not be linked with any certainty to the [Members’] conduct and would, in any event, not fall under the [Members’] professional responsibility .

Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that it is not appropriate to take any action against the [Members] regarding this allegation. (Wilson Decision, p. 37) ( emphasis added ) [ 7 ] In terms of the allegations of professional misconduct, the Respondent found: There is insufficient information to suggest professional misconduct on the part of the [Members].

On the contrary, the Panel notes that it appears that the [Members] acted appropriately and within the scope of [their] professional responsibility. (Wilson Decision, p. 37) [ 8 ] The Respondent concluded, in regard to Ms Wilson (the drama teacher), as follows: … the Member appears to have appropriately followed the School Board policy in place at the time of the events and mounted the play with the informed consent and permission of the School Principal.

Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that it is not appropriate to take any further action against the Member regarding these allegations. (Wilson Decision, p. 38) [ 9 ] In respect to Mr Harris (the Principal), the Respondent found as follows: … the Panel notes that it is not its role to assess instructional material content (unless it is clearly outside the curriculum), it does not appear that the Member’s approval of the play to be shown to students during instructional time was contrary to his professional obligations.… [T]he play was purchased from Playscripts [a reputable educational supplier], and… is dedicated to being performed by students and relates to sensitive but important subjects for teenagers. … [T]here was no explicit violence in the play. … [T]he play appears to be renowned and has garnered positive critical reviews, including from student critics. … [T]he Member discussed the play with Ms Wilson, the Drama teacher…, prior to giving his approval to it being shown to Grade 8 students. … [T]he Panel is of the opinion that it was the Member’s responsibility, as the School Principal, to approve the showing of the play and that it was not unreasonable of the Member to believe that the subjects covered in the play were age appropriate and fit with the Grade 8 Health and Physical Education curriculum (e.g. personal safety, injury prevention and mental health issues). … [T]he Panel is of the opinion that the Member was entitled to exercise his personal judgement and that he did so. … [T]he Panel is of the opinion that the Member acted appropriately when communicating about the play and its sensitive content. [In addition to discussing it with the Drama teacher], the Member emailed all Grade 8 teachers… to alert them to the sensitive nature of the subjects dealt with in the play (e.g. bullying, teenage suicide and a school shooting) and to advise them to address it with their students to prepare them and offer them the possibility to opt out if they did not want to view the play. … [I]t appears that no students opted out of the viewing of the play and… no concerns were raised with the School administration in relation to the play… with the exception of the Complainant’s concerns. … [[T]he Member was entitled to exercise his professional judgement regarding the degree of communication with parents/guardians…. [T]he Panel is of the opinion that the Member acted appropriately regarding these allegations.

The Panel is of the view that when informed of the Complainant’s concerns regarding the play having a potential negative impact on students’ and teachers’ mental wellbeing, the Member took immediate and appropriate action to investigate and address the concerns, and to provide adequate support to those who may have been in need of such support. …[F]eedback from the students was mostly positive while mixed for the teachers. … [T]he Member took action to ensure that students… received [that is, were offered] support. … [N]o students came forward for… follow-up assistance and the School… received no calls from parents or students regarding the content of the play. … [T]he Panel notes that the Member cooperated with the Superintendent to address the Complainant’s concerns… immediately after the showing of the play and took further steps in the future. … [G]uest speakers and presentations were discussed on several occasions following April 2018, and… guidance was provided regarding the manner in which sensitive topics were to be introduced going

forward… as well as guidance for staff to keep an eye on vulnerable individuals and those who may be triggered following the presentation of topics. … [T]he Panel is of the view that the Member acted appropriately, in line with his professional responsibility and within the range of what was reasonably expected from administrators…. (Harris Decision, pp. 36-38) [ 10 ] In respect to Mr Lehman (the superintendent), the Panel found as follows: … [T]he Member was not involved in the choice of the play and… when made aware of the concerns raised by the Complainant… he took immediate actions to address the Complainant’s concerns and provide support for the School community. [After consultation with the School Social Worker and the District Mental Health Lead, and feedback was obtained following this consultation]… in the days and weeks following the showing of the play, no Grade 8 student or parent contacted the School to express concerns about the play or its content…. [T]he mental heath team did not feel it was necessary or appropriate to send a widespread communication regarding the play. … [T]he Panel is of the opinion that the Member took appropriate steps to address the concerns regarding the School community’s mental wellbeing and… did so in a timely fashion and in consultation with the proper school staff and external expert. … [The Member] was entitled to exercise his professional judgement regarding the appropriate strategies to adopt.

Nothing in the information gathered during the investigation indicates that the Member failed to fulfill his professional obligations when he decided not to instruct the Principal to communicate with Grade 8 students’ parents/guardians. Issues for Review [ 11 ] Although the Applicant raises five issues, it is only necessary to deal with two of them: (

a) Does the Applicant have standing to bring this application for judicial review? Answer: the Applicant has standing to raise procedural fairness issues, but he does not have standing to challenge the substantive reasonableness of the impugned decisions. (

b) Did the Respondent comply with the duty of procedural fairness? Answer: Yes. The Applicant has not identified an arguable instance of procedural unfairness in the process below. [ 12 ] I would note, in preface, that this application appears motivated by the Applicant’s desire to have his personal experience vindicated. His personal experience – and his understanding of it – are part of the context of the issues before the Respondent. It does not establish that the play was unsuitable for Grade 8 students or that further precautions were required before the play was mounted or after it was viewed.

Rather, the conduct of the respondent Members was assessed objectively by the Respondent, on the basis of the information they had and applicable professional standards. The fact that the Applicant told respondent Members that he was triggered by the play was taken into account and informed the respondent Members’ actions in the aftermath. [ 13 ] I would also note that there were some minor infelicitous expressions in the Respondent’s reasons.

Had the Applicant had standing to seek judicial review of the substantive decisions, these infelicitous expressions would not have provided a basis to interfere with the decisions below. Judicial review is not a “treasure hunt” for error, and the reasons, taken as a whole, provide a sufficient explanation for the Respondent’s decisions. Viewed objectively, the respondent Members acted reasonably and within the scope of their professional responsibilities.

The Applicant’s reaction to viewing the play could have been a product of his own mental health challenges, which predated the production of the play, and the respondent Members were not responsible for the Applicant’s subjective reaction to the play in any event.

Part I – Standing and Procedural Fairness Issue (a): Does the Applicant have standing to bring this application for judicial review? [ 14 ] The Applicant was the Complainant. Unless a statute expressly provides otherwise, a complainant in a professional discipline case has no standing to challenge the substantive reasonableness of a decision not to refer a complaint to a discipline hearing.

The Applicant does have limited standing to challenge this kind of discipline decision on grounds of procedural fairness: The Act makes it clear that the disciplinary process is a matter between the Association and the individual member whose conduct has been questioned. The Act is directed solely to the Association and its members; the rights, duties and responsibilities contained in the Act relate only to them. Under the investigative process contained in

Part 5, a complainant is not made a party either to the investigation or the disciplinary process itself. The only parties are the Association and the member whose conduct is under investigation. Council's decision to terminate the investigation of the Engineers could have no detrimental impact on either FOR or Opron. It did not affect their personal or economic rights or obligations. They have no more interest in the conduct of the Engineers than any other member of the public. There is no lis inter partes between FOR and Opron, on the one hand, and the Association or the Engineers, on the other.

Judicial review is not available in these circumstances. ( Friends of the Old Man River Society v. Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta , 2001 ABCA 107 , para. 41 ; leave to appeal refused [2001] SCCA No 366). [ 15 ] As found by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, this principle has been widely recognized in Canadian jurisdictions: The issue of whether a complainant in a professional disciplinary matter has standing to apply for judicial review has been considered in a number of cases: Friends of the Old Man River Society v.

Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta , 2001 ABCA 107 , leave to appeal refused [2001] SCCA No 366; Berg v. British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner) , [2006] B.C.J. No. 1027 (BCCA) , leave to appeal refused [2006] SCCA No 300); M.H. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta , 2006 ABQB 395 ; Pound v. Lunney , 2007 BCSC 85 ; Allen v. College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia , 2007 BCCA 75 ; Metropolitan Centre Inc. v. Abugov Kaspar Architecture, Engineering, Interior Design , 2007 ABQB 419 ; Emerman v.

Assn. of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia , 2008 BCSC 1186 ; Mitten v. College of Alberta Psychologists , 2010

ABCA 159; Robichaud v. College of Registered Nurses of Nova Scotia, 2011 NSSC 379. These authorities appear to be in agreementthat a non-party does not have standing to seek judicial review of the merits of a disciplinary body's decision. Where judicial review hasbeen found to be available, it has been limited to issues relating to procedural fairness. (Tupper v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, 2013NSSC 290, para. 31) [16] This principle has long been the law of Ontario, has been followed consistently in this court and has been applied, inparticular, in cases emanating from the Respondent: Cowan v.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, (ON CA), [1966]2 OR 309 at 311 (CA); Pieters v. Ontario College of Teachers, , para. 4 (Ont. Div. Ct.); Kipiniak v. Ontario JudicialCouncil, 2012 ONSC 5866 (Div. Ct.); Bouragba v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2018 ONCA 6940, para. 3 (Div. Ct.). [17] The Applicant argues that he has a “special and sufficient interest” that gives him standing in this case. He says this is sobecause he decided to leave his teaching position and he decided that he will not return to teaching unless and until his complaints areheard by a Discipline Panel.

With respect, the Applicant cannot create a “special and sufficient interest” by deciding to leave hisprofession – effectively by delivering an ultimatum that, until his view of this matter prevails, he will not teach again, and because he hasmade that decision for himself, he has a personal interest and party standing to pursue discipline of the respondent Members.

TheApplicant has not cited any authority for the proposition that a complainant may create a “special and sufficient interest” giving themparty standing by making a unilateral decision about what they will or will not do as a consequence. [18] Professional discipline proceedings are not for the purpose of providing therapy to a complainant. If the Applicant wishes toreturn to teaching, and if he requires accommodation in the workplace because of his health issues, that is a matter for him to pursue withhis employer, and not a justification for professional discipline proceedings.

Issue (b): Procedural Fairness [19] The Applicant raises one allegation of procedural unfairness: “specifically that the Applicant’s complaints would beforwarded to the Discipline Committee if the Investigation Committee [did] not find that anything in the complaint was untrue.” TheApplicant argues that this expectation arose because, during intake of his complaint, the complaint was referred to investigation on thebasis that “the allegations, if proven true, [relate] to professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity on the part of the Member[s]and are not frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, manifestly without substance or made for an improper purpose.” [20] There are three reasons why this argument cannot prevail.

First, as found by the Respondent, the allegations of misconductwere not found to be proven true. Second, the decision on intake is a screening process to cull unmeritorious complaints withoutinvestigation. Once an investigation is undertaken, the Respondent determines whether the complaint should be referred to a disciplinehearing – based on the results of the investigation, and not just the initial materials available during intake. A decision to refer acomplaint to investigation does not create a presumption that the complaint will proceed to a hearing. Third, this is not an allegation ofprocedural unfairness.

It is an allegation of substantive unreasonableness: in substance, the Applicant argues that the investigation“proved” the allegations underlying the complaint, and thus the matter should have been referred to a discipline hearing. [21] In terms of the process followed below, the Respondent received and reviewed extensive materials provided by theApplicant. It disclosed those materials to respondent Members and then received responding materials from them. It disclosed thoseresponding submissions to the Applicant and received and considered reply submissions from the Applicant.

The Applicant does notraise an issue with these steps followed by the Respondent. I see no issue of procedural fairness with the process followed by theRespondent.

Part II – Reasonableness of the Decision [22] The Applicant appears to have brought this application, at least in part, to obtain confirmation of the injuries he hasexperienced from watching the play. It bears making this point to the Applicant firmly: this is not a claim, by him, for a remedy for hisinjuries. The subject-matter of the complaints was the conduct of the respondent Members, and whether that conduct met professionalstandards, and not about whether the Applicant was “triggered” by the play and suffered as a result.

The subjective impact of the playon the Applicant was a question of fact the Respondent could consider, together with all the other facts presented, but the focus of theRespondent’s decision was, and had to be, an objective assessment of the respondent Members’ conduct, and not the subjectiveexperience of the Applicant. [23] The reasons below must be read with this observation in mind.

The Respondent found that the play was within the range ofcurriculum offerings for Grade 8 students, and that the respondent Members exercised their reasonable professional judgment inconnection with the play and issues arising after its performance. The Respondent made no finding as to whether the play “triggered”the Applicant, but rather, in effect, concluded that even if it did, this unfortunate result was not the professional responsibility of therespondent Members.

These conclusions were reasonable and borne out by the record before the Respondent, and there would be nobasis for this court to intervene, even if the Applicant had standing to raise these issues. [24] The substantive issues raised by the Applicant are as follows: (

a) Is the standard of review reasonableness or correctness? Answer: the standard of review of the Respondent’s substantive decisions is reasonableness. (

b) Did the Respondent err in law in coming to the conclusion that it was not competent or equipped to assess the potential causal linkbetween the Members’ alleged conduct and the psychological consequences it may have on others, and that it was not appropriate for theCommittee to take any action against the Members with regard to the Members’ conduct? Answer: This issue is reviewed on a standard of reasonableness, not correctness. The Applicant mischaracterizes the Respondent’sfinding when he casts it as an objective assessment.

The finding was that the Respondent was not competent to decide whether the playdid, in fact, trigger the Applicant. This finding could have been expressed better, but when examined in context, it is clear that the

Respondent concluded that, objectively, the play was within the curriculum for Grade 8 students, and that the respondent Membersexercised reasonable professional judgment in connection with the production of the play and its aftermath. (

c) Did the Respondent err by making contradictory decisions, namely first by concluding that if the allegations are true, that the conductwould amount to professional misconduct, and subsequently by arriving at a decision which failed to send the matter to the DisciplineCommittee, despite there being no indication that any of the allegations had not been made out or were somewhere untrue? Answer: This argument is without merit. The Respondent’s intake decision was that the Applicant’s complaints should not besummarily rejected, but rather they should be investigated.

The Respondent’s later decisions not to refer the decisions to a DisciplinePanel were based on all of the materials before the Respondent from the investigation. An intake decision to investigate does not createa presumption that a matter will be referred to a hearing after investigation. Substantive Issue (a): Standard of Review [25] The Applicant argues that the standard of review is correctness in respect to all of the issues he raises on judicial review. As Inoted above, the standard of review on issues of procedural fairness is correctness: Earhart v. Canada (A.G.), 2019 ONCA 980; MissionInstitution v.

Khela, 2014 SCC 24; Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29. [26] Other issues are subject to the presumptive standard of review of reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. [27] The Applicant argues that the statutory right of appeal from decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Respondent impliesa correctness standard for decisions of the Respondent not to refer a complaint to a hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee. This argument is simply wrong.

First, the Legislature expressly provided for an appeal from the Discipline Committee, while providingno appeal for referral decisions. This is a common statutory structure for professional discipline bodies affording deference to intake andreferral decisions and rights of appeal from final decisions of a Discipline Committee (see, for example, Lengyel v. Tucker, 2021 ONSC8110 (Div. Ct.); Montour v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2019 ONSC 3451 (Div. Ct.); Schilthuis v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario, , 193 OAC 351, 23 Admin LR (4th) 80 (Div. Ct.); Gao v.

Health Profession Appeal andReview Board, 2023 ONSC 742. Consistent authority is inconsistent with the Applicant’s argument on this point, none of which wasaddressed in the Applicant’s factum: Léger-Legault v. Ontario College of Teachers, , 242 OAC 126 (Div. Ct.); DeSantis v Ontario College of Teachers, 2019 ONSC 1344 (Div. Ct.); Bouragba v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2018 ONSC 6935 (Div.Ct.). The Applicant argues that the decision of Toutsaint v.

Investigation Committee of the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Association,2021 SKQB 315, stands for the proposition that referral decisions of a complaints committee are judicially reviewable on a standard ofcorrectness. That is not the principle in Toutsaint. Rather, in Toutsaint the court found that it was deciding an issue of proceduralfairness, and therefore that the standard of review was correctness. [28] With respect, it is trite law that a decision to refer a complaint – or not to refer a complaint – to a panel of the DisciplineTribunal is reviewable in this court on a standard of reasonableness.

Substantive Issue (b) “Did the Respondent err in law in coming to the conclusion that it was not competent or equipped to assessthe potential causal link between the Members’ alleged conduct and the psychological consequences it may have on others, andthat it was not appropriate for the Committee to take any action against the Members with regard to the Members’ conduct?” [29] I list this “issue” verbatim because it contains within it at least two separate issues: (

i) Did the Respondent err in law in coming to the conclusion that it was not competent or equipped to assess the potentialcausal link between the Members’ alleged conduct and the psychological consequences it may have on others? (ii) Was it “not appropriate” for the Committee to fail to take any action against the Members with regard to the Members’conduct? (i): Did the Respondent err in law in coming to the conclusion that it was not competent or equipped to assess the potential causallink between the Members’ alleged conduct and the psychological consequences it may have on others? [30] The Panel’s findings in respect to this issue are quoted above, at paragraph 6.

These findings could have been expressedbetter. But they must be read in the context of the entire reasons of the Panel. The Panel reviewed the extensive evidence provided bythe Applicant of his mental health issues prior to and after viewing the play. The Panel was satisfied that the play was selected fromavailable dramatic offerings from a reputable educational supplier, had been performed in school settings many times before, hadreceived favourable reviews in the past and from the students who watched this performance of the play.

The Panel was satisfied that noone other than the Applicant reported trauma associated with viewing the play. The Panel concluded that the play was within thecurriculum for Grade 8 students. These findings were all available on the record. [31] In its reasons, the Panel set out in detail the Applicant’s prior serious mental health issues, including depression and suicidalideation.

It is in this context that the Panel found “that it was not competent or equipped to assess the potential causal link between theMembers’ alleged conduct and the psychological consequences it may have had on others.” The Applicant’s factum subtly restates thisfinding, omitting the word “had” that is underlined in the quotation.

It is evident from the context, and the words actually used by thePanel, that it was stating that it was unable to determine whether the Applicant’s subsequent mental health problems were “caused” byviewing the play. [32] The import of these findings is made clear in the next paragraph of the Panel’s reasons, quoted in full at paragraph 6 above. The consequences for the Applicant do not raise issues of professional responsibility because, objectively, the play was an acceptableproduction for a Grade 8 class.

If the play “caused” or contributed to the Applicant’s subsequent distress, that arose because of his pre-existing condition, and not because the play was unsuitable for a school setting.

[ 33 ] I appreciate that the Panel may have been trying to spare the Applicant’s feelings by expressing their findings as they did. It would have been better to state – clearly and unambiguously – that the Applicant’s subjective reaction to the play was not the focus of inquiry. He reported being triggered, and his mental health challenges were real – these facts put school authorities on notice that they should make inquiries to ensure that others who watched the play were not at risk.

They did these things, and no other person reported a problem. (ii) Was it “not appropriate” for the Committee to fail to take any action against the Members with regard to the Members’ conduct? [ 34 ] This issue is not stated properly as a legal issue. It is unrelated to the first issue. It “inappropriately” suggests that this court assesses the “appropriateness” of decisions. And in substance, it asks no more than whether the impugned decisions should stand – without stating any substantive basis on which to doubt them. Substantive Issue (

c) Did the Respondent err by making contradictory decisions, namely first by concluding that if the allegations are true, that the conduct would amount to professional misconduct, and subsequently by arriving at a decision which failed to send the matter to the Discipline Committee, despite there being no indication that any of the allegations had not been made out or were somewhere untrue? [ 35 ] This is a restatement of the Applicant’s procedural fairness argument as an alleged error of law. It has no more merit as an alleged error of law than it did as an allegation of procedural unfairness. (

d) Conclusion to

Part II [ 36 ] The Panel reviewed the record before it thoroughly and was satisfied that the play was within the Grade 8 curriculum, and that the Members exercised reasonable professional judgment in producing the play for Grade 8 students. In the aftermath of the production, when the Applicant reported being triggered, the Panel was satisfied that the respondent Members took reasonable steps to determine whether others might be at risk of negative consequences. [ 37 ] The Applicant believes that he was “triggered” by the play. He may well have been.

But that does not mean the respondent Members committed professional misconduct: they were not responsible for the consequences to the Applicant of viewing a play that was – objectively – suitable for a Grade 8 audience. Disposition [ 38 ] I would conclude that the Applicant lacks standing except in respect to issues of procedural fairness. I would find that the process below was procedurally fair. In any event I would conclude that the decisions below were reasonable. Accordingly, I would dismiss the application for judicial review, with costs in the agreed amount of $5,000.00. “D.L. Corbett J.

I agree: “Fitzpatrick J.” I agree: “Hebner J.” Date of Release: January 9, 2024 CITATION : Fuchigami v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2024 ONSC 106 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 239/22 DATE: 20240109 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

D.L. Corbett, Fitzpatrick and Hebner JJ. BETWEEN: Michael Ken Fuchigami Applicant – and – Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers Respondent REASONS FOR DECISION D.L. Corbett J. Date of Release: January 09, 2024