The ruling forces a rethink of how regulators discipline off-duty speech
On February 26, 2026, the Ontario Divisional Court, in a unanimous decision penned by Justice D.L. Corbett, set aside the certificate revocation of a Toronto teacher who had pleaded guilty to professional misconduct over offensive social media posts. The court ruled that even an admission of wrongdoing does not excuse a disciplinary body from conducting a context-specific balancing of a member's Charter right to free expression — known as a Doré analysis — before making findings on both liability and penalty.
For HR professionals overseeing regulated workforces, the ruling cuts to the core: a solid misconduct file is not enough to guarantee a defensible outcome.
Cheryl Catharine Gould, a Visual Arts and English teacher at the Toronto Catholic District School Board, maintained a Facebook page under the pseudonym "Harvey C Catherine" in 2020 and 2021, identifying herself as a teacher of at-risk youth in the publicly funded Catholic system without naming her school or board.
The school, the Midland campus of Monsignor Fraser Alternative Learning Centre in Scarborough, Ontario, served a student population that was 87% visible minority, with the highest proportion being Black students. Many were new immigrants, some lived in shelters or had experienced violence, and two to three students were in the process of transitioning each year. The Discipline Committee found Gould's posts were "discriminatory, rude, racist, and offensive," including calling someone "inbred Ahmed" and referring to Islam as an "enemy ideology," a "sick death cult" and a "shamefully backward religion."
It was not the employer who uncovered the posts. Gould's colleagues reported both her Facebook activity and comments she made at a union meeting of School staff to school authorities. The board investigated and terminated her employment for cause, a termination that was the subject of an ongoing grievance at the time of the court hearing.
The duty that follows you home
The Discipline Committee found Gould violated s. 264(1)(c) of the Education Act, which requires teachers "to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion... and the highest regard for justice, ... humanity, benevolence, ... temperance and all other virtues." The Committee held that this duty "extends to the [Appellant's] conduct outside of school."
She was also found in breach of s. 264(1)(d), which requires teachers to assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school. Her posts "expressed views that are opposed to these efforts and can be seen as undermining the School's efforts to meet these objectives." The Committee found "ample evidence that the [Appellant's] conduct had a detrimental impact on her relationships with her colleagues and on the school community."
The Committee also noted that Gould "admits to having removed content that she did not want in her online space, such as anti-Semitic or misogynist content." The Committee found "this selective screening is indicative of an intentionality in the [Appellant's] actions that puts the [Appellant's] misconduct on the highest level of seriousness."
A guilty plea is not a green light
Gould pleaded guilty, but through counsel during the hearing, the Committee noted she "appeared to resile from this agreement and instead advanced her alternate position, namely, that her posts promoted truth and freedom and that some of them were intended to be ironic and satirical." The Committee dismissed this, ruling that her "right to freedom of speech on her social media was therefore limited by her professional obligations as a member of a regulated profession."
Justice Corbett found that reasoning legally insufficient. A context-specific balancing of Charter rights against professional obligations — known as a Doré analysis — is required in every case, he held, both on the question of liability and on penalty, even after a guilty plea. As the court noted, Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario "did not hold, and should not be taken to have held, that regulated professionals are subject to any and all restrictions on their freedom of speech on the basis of their regulator's views of what professionalism may require of them."
The court set aside the decision and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Discipline Committee for a fresh hearing, with costs of $20,000, inclusive, payable by the College to Gould. Revocation remains a possible outcome. But the court was unequivocal: "failing to conduct a Doré analysis in respect to the contested liability issues and in respect to penalty is a fatal error of law in this case."
