16 years' experience and clean record didn't change immediate dismissal
A teacher acquitted of criminal sexual assault charges was rightfully terminated for the same conduct, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled February 10, 2026, finding that workplace standards for sexual misconduct operate independently from criminal law. The three-judge panel dismissed Teri Edwards' appeal after she sat on a 15-year-old student's lap, bounced up and down, and ground her buttocks against him for 44 seconds.
The decision clarifies that adjudicators can characterize workplace conduct as sexual assault even when employers avoid using that term in termination letters, and that employees cannot hide behind criminal acquittals to challenge dismissals for cause.
Pembina Hills School Division terminated Edwards in March 2020 for "gross misconduct, a serious breach of her employment contract, and a serious transgression of the normal student/teacher boundaries," but never explicitly called it sexual assault in its termination letter. The Board of Reference, however, concluded that "the Appellant sat as close to [S's] body as she could and ground around on his lap, without his consent. That constitutes sexual assault."
Video evidence captured classroom incident
On November 12, 2019, a classroom camera recorded Edwards entering a room where student S was working quietly with a program assistant. The Board found that S "was not being disruptive and was working well" when Edwards "marched in without saying anything," placed her hand on his arm, straddled his legs, "sat on his lap very close to his body," and "bounced up and down on his butt and ground her buttocks around on his lap twice."
The program assistant testified that "my first thought was he just had a lap dance in class" and that Edwards "was bouncing from side to side initially and saying, Isn't my butt bony, and -- she did a few circular motions and got up and left." S told investigators that "She -- she was trying to use her body to get me to do my work. And she started wiggling her ass, and I -- it was extremely uncomfortable."
The incident directly violated S's individual program plan, which instructed staff to "Keep your distance when talking to him as he feels threatened if you are too close." Police charged Edwards with three Criminal Code offences including sexual assault. At trial in November 2020, the Crown withdrew all charges and Edwards was acquitted.
Employer characterization doesn't limit tribunal analysis
Edwards argued the school division expanded the grounds for termination by characterizing her conduct as sexual in written submissions to the Board, creating procedural unfairness. The Court rejected this argument, finding Edwards "ought to have understood from the beginning that the respondent viewed her conduct as sexual in nature" given that police laid sexual assault charges and the superintendent's suspension letter stated "it is alleged that you gyrated your bottom on a student's lap."
The Board had ruled it is "not only entitled to consider the nature of a particular form of misconduct and assess its seriousness for itself – including whether it constitutes sexual harassment or sexual assault – but it is required to do so." The Board emphasized that "an adjudicator cannot abrogate its assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct by limiting itself to the employer's use of terminology to describe what occurred."
Edwards claimed she had no sexual intent, testifying she was trying to "change the trajectory of the -- of the mood, of his -- of the atmosphere" using humour as a classroom management strategy. The Board rejected this defense, stating "it is difficult for this Board to accept that a female teacher sitting and grinding on the lap of a 15-year-old minor male student has no sexual intention."
Progressive discipline not required for serious misconduct
Despite Edwards' 16 years of teaching experience and clean disciplinary record, the Court upheld immediate termination without progressive discipline. The Board had found "there is no requirement that all disciplinary steps proceed in a linear order, nor must the appropriateness of all lesser forms of discipline be considered in cases of serious and significant misconduct."
The termination letter explained that continued employment was untenable because Edwards had "breached the position of trust and authority that teachers hold and ... engaged in behaviour which would undermine public confidence in the education system." Applying section 237(2) of Alberta's Education Act, the Board concluded "reinstating the appellant would risk student safety, allow for the possibility of recidivism, and undermine Albertans' confidence in the public education system."
The Court ultimately found the appellant's dismissal was "a just and reasonable response for this egregious conduct" and confirmed the respondent's decision.
