In Gould v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2026 ONSC 1095, the Ontario Divisional Court reminded regulators that, even where misconduct by way of social media statements is admitted, Charter values like freedom of expression cannot be ignored. Thus, despite a teacher admitting to engaging in misconduct, the court found on appeal that a discipline panel’s failure to conduct a Doré analysis regarding contested liability issues and penalty constituted a fatal error. The court remitted the matter to the regulator for a fresh hearing. In its decision, the court signals constraint on the expanding reach of professional regulation over off-duty expression.
Background and facts: The appellant, Cheryl Gould, was a teacher employed by the Toronto Catholic District School Board. While employed, she maintained a Facebook page under a pseudonym and made posts described by the Discipline Committee as “discriminatory, rude, racist, and offensive”, including specific comments about Islam. She identified herself on the page as a teacher working with at-risk youth in the publicly funded Catholic system, but did not identify any specific school or school board. The school where she taught was predominantly attended by visible minority students, including Muslim students, and was designed to provide an alternative educational program for vulnerable, high-needs students who had difficulty in a traditional high school environment.
At a union meeting, the teacher objected to a book given to school staff by the school board entitled So You Want To Talk About Race? Colleagues took issue with her statements and reported them alongside her Facebook page to school authorities. The school board ultimately terminated the teacher and reported the matter to the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”), where it was referred to the Discipline Committee.
Agreed facts, but an outstanding dispute: The teacher and the College later entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, in which she admitted to making comments on her social media accounts that were “inappropriate, unprofessional, disrespectful, and offensive and provided a forum for others to agree or post their own opinions” (para. 27). The Committee found that the admitted facts constituted professional misconduct and revoked her teaching certificate.
While the teacher had admitted to “conduct unbecoming” – that is, acts or omissions that would reasonably be regarded as “disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional” – she submitted that her impugned actions were no more serious than “unprofessional”. She argued that while some of her remarks “crossed the line”, much of what she published fit under protected speech. The Committee found that her misconduct was properly characterized by all three descriptions – i.e., that it was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.
The Divisional Court’s holding: On appeal, the court found that, in making its findings with respect to this contested issue of liability, the Committee was required to conduct a Doré analysis and balance her Charter-protected right to freedom of expression with the College’s statutory objectives.
The court held that a Doré analysis is mandatory in every case engaging Charter values, including where there has been a guilty plea. The Committee was not entitled to treat the teacher’s admission as being effectively dispositive.
Distinguishing the Peterson case: The court also criticized the Committee’s reliance on the decision in Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685 (“Peterson”) as being insufficient to fully address the circumstances of this case. Where freedom of speech is raised, professional discipline tribunals may not forego a case-specific Doré analysis simply because the court upheld the analysis as conducted in Peterson.
In distinguishing Peterson, the court noted that the Doré analysis in that matter was undertaken by a screening body (an inquiry committee), whereas the discipline decision in Gould required more formal and detailed reasons expected from an adjudicative body after a full hearing. Furthermore, while Peterson held that regulated professionals are limited by standards of professionalism in their public expression, it should not be taken to have held that they are subject to any and all restrictions on their freedom of speech based on their regulator’s views of what professionalism may require.
Despite these criticisms, the court did not absolve the teacher – it remarked that revocation remained an available penalty if, following a proper Doré analysis, the Discipline Committee is satisfied that her misconduct was more serious than how she had characterized it.
BC colleges under the HPOA: Under the newly enacted Health Professions and Occupations Act discipline panels in BC do not have jurisdiction over constitutional questions (see HPOA s. 172, which engages s. 44(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act). However, this does not alleviate them of the duty to balance the objective of the statutory scheme under the HPOA with Charter rights when making statutory decisions. Where regulators are making decisions involving the interpterion and application of their constituent statute, a Doré analysis is still necessary where a party’s Charter rights are engaged.
Takeaway: In summary, regulators cannot rely on admissions or guilty pleas to bypass constitutional scrutiny where freedom of speech remains relevant. The process matters as much as the outcome, and a failure to conduct a proper balancing when Charter values are engaged will invalidate the decision even if the underlying misconduct was factually admitted. While professionalism remains a core regulatory concern, it also cannot become a catch-all justification for suppressing controversial or unpopular speech without rigorous justification. The severity of sanctions must be demonstrably proportionate in a context-specific analysis. Admissions may resolve the facts, but not the law.
Gould v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2026 ONSC 1095
Sabrina Zhu