Marie-Gabrielle Balan brought an application for variation under s. 33(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, asking the Discipline Committee panel to remove terms, conditions and limitations which were placed on her teaching certificate following previous findings of professional misconduct against her (requiring her to complete coursework), to remove information from the College’s Public Register regarding three previous discipline decisions and penalties against her, and to waive the $10,000 costs order imposed on her in one of these earlier discipline proceedings. The panel denied all of these requests as well as Balan’s request during the hearing for the College to provide her with a letter explaining the steps she had taken to have the terms, conditions and limitations on her certificate lifted.
Balan, who was certified in October 2004, attended the hearing on September 11, 2025, and was self-represented.
Balan’s earlier misconduct, which occurred at several schools, over several years, and involved several students, included failing to support a student with an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and to provide the accommodations specified in the IEP, failing to adequately supervise students, making inappropriate remarks to students, and having inappropriate exchanges with the principal and staff members. She also failed to provide adequate instructions to students and arrived late for her duties at school.
The Discipline Committee panel found that Balan had not acknowledged her mistakes, accepted responsibility for her misconduct, recognized the authority of the College, or taken steps to rehabilitate herself. As such, it concluded that it was not appropriate to amend or remove the terms, conditions and limitations on Balan’s certificate. It also held that it did not have the authority to order the removal or amendment of information on the College’s Public Register, to remove or amend a costs order imposed by another panel, or to order the College to draft a letter for a member.
In their written decision, the panel stated that removing the restrictions and granting the application for variation “would undermine public confidence in the profession and would be contrary to the public interest.”
