William John Beaucage

Full Report

Key Points

• William John Beaucage, an Ontario Certified Teacher (OCT Registration No: 256681), was reprimanded by the OCT Discipline Committee on November 7, 2016, for professional misconduct as a principal.

• The misconduct involved repeatedly abusing his position of trust and authority, with actions described as “deplorable” for embarrassing and belittling students.

• Sanctions included a reprimand and mandatory completion of a course on professional boundaries and cultural sensitivity; his teaching certificate was not revoked.

• No criminal charges were associated with this case, focusing solely on ethical breaches in an educational context.

• There is no evidence linking this Beaucage to criminal activities, such as fraud or historical events like the 1971 Kingston Penitentiary Riot, which involved a different individual (Brian Beaucage).

Overview

William John Beaucage, certified to teach in June 1987, served as a principal at an Ontario school board (specific board not disclosed). His role required overseeing school operations, managing staff, and ensuring student welfare, demanding high ethical standards. On November 7, 2016, the OCT Discipline Committee found him guilty of professional misconduct for abusing his authority, with actions that harmed students emotionally. Beaucage attended the hearing with legal counsel, and the sanctions—a reprimand and mandatory retraining—indicate the misconduct was serious but not severe enough to warrant certificate revocation, unlike cases involving criminal convictions. This case is unrelated to any criminal fraud or identity theft allegations, which pertain to a different individual with the same name.

Allegations and Concerns

• Professional Misconduct (2016): Beaucage was found guilty of repeatedly abusing his position, with the OCT panel describing his actions as “deplorable” for embarrassing and belittling students. The specific incidents are not detailed, but the focus on professional boundaries and cultural sensitivity suggests inappropriate conduct or decisions, possibly involving interactions with students or staff.

• Impact on Students: The panel’s description implies emotional harm to students, likely eroding trust within the school community. The exact nature of the embarrassment or belittlement remains undisclosed, limiting full assessment.

• No Criminal Allegations: The case involves no legal charges, distinguishing it from criminal activities like fraud or violence associated with another William John Beaucage.

• Limited Transparency: The OCT summary’s brevity, typical for privacy protection, restricts public understanding of the misconduct’s scope, raising concerns for stakeholders seeking clarity.

• Potential for Misidentification: The shared name with a known fraudster in Ontario could lead to confusion, though no evidence links the two profiles.

Customer Feedback

As a principal, Beaucage’s “customers” include students, parents, and staff, but no direct feedback is available due to the disciplinary context:

• Negative Feedback (Implied): The OCT’s finding of guilt and the panel’s harsh language (“deplorable”) suggest disapproval from the school community, likely from students, parents, or staff affected by his actions. The retraining requirement highlights deficiencies in his professional conduct.

• No Specific Testimonies: The summary omits victim statements, likely to maintain confidentiality, obscuring the full extent of the impact.

• No Positive Feedback: The disciplinary focus precludes endorsements of Beaucage’s leadership or performance.

• Professional Reputation: The public reprimand, published in Professionally Speaking, likely damaged Beaucage’s standing among educators, parents, and the broader educational community.

Risk Considerations

• Reputational Risks: The OCT reprimand marks Beaucage as a professional with a documented ethical lapse, potentially deterring future employers in education and harming his community standing.

• Professional Risks: Conditions on his certificate (e.g., completing a boundaries course) impose ongoing scrutiny. Non-compliance could lead to further sanctions, such as suspension or revocation of his teaching certificate.

• Legal Risks: No criminal charges or legal issues are tied to this case, reducing legal exposure compared to criminal profiles.

• Financial Risks: Reputational damage may limit Beaucage’s earning potential in educational roles, though no direct financial misconduct is documented.

• Name Confusion Risk: The shared name with a fraudster increases the risk of misidentification, potentially affecting professional opportunities or personal interactions.

Business Relations and Associations

• Ontario School Board: Beaucage was employed as a principal, interacting with teachers, students, parents, and administrative staff. The specific board is not named, limiting insight into his professional network.

• Ontario College of Teachers: As a certified member, Beaucage is regulated by the OCT, subject to its ethical standards and disciplinary oversight.

• No External Affiliations: No evidence suggests involvement in businesses, organizations, or activities outside the education sector.

• No Criminal Associations: There are no connections to criminal networks, fraudsters, or historical figures like Brian Beaucage, who was involved in unrelated events.

Legal and Financial Concerns

• OCT Disciplinary Action (2016): Beaucage was reprimanded and ordered to complete a course on professional boundaries and cultural sensitivity within six months. His teaching certificate remains active, indicating eligibility to teach or hold administrative roles if he complies with OCT conditions.

• No Financial Penalties: Unlike some OCT cases (e.g., another teacher ordered to pay $5,000 in costs), Beaucage faced no fines or restitution.

• No Criminal Record: The misconduct was ethical/administrative, with no legal charges or convictions noted.

• No Fraud or Historical Involvement: This Beaucage has no documented connection to fraud, identity theft, or historical events like the 1971 Kingston Penitentiary Riot, which involved Brian Beaucage.

• Current Status Unknown: No post-2016 OCT updates are available, leaving Beaucage’s compliance with conditions and current professional status unclear.

Risk Assessment Table

William John Beaucage’s professional misconduct as a principal involved abusing his authority, resulting in emotional harm to students and a public reprimand from the OCT. The sanctions—reprimand and mandatory retraining—reflect a serious but redeemable ethical lapse, allowing him to retain his teaching certificate. The case underscores the critical need for professional boundaries and cultural sensitivity in educational leadership. Importantly, this Beaucage is distinct from a fraudster with the same name, with no evidence of criminal activity, fraud, or involvement in historical events like the 1971 Kingston Penitentiary Riot. The shared name poses a risk of confusion, but the OCT case is confined to educational ethics, not cybercrime. Before hiring or engaging Beaucage in educational roles, verify his current OCT status via the Public Register at www.oct.ca to confirm compliance with disciplinary conditions. Conduct thorough background checks, including criminal record searches, to rule out any confusion with the fraudster sharing his name. Schools or boards should disclose his disciplinary history to stakeholders to maintain transparency and trust. If considering Beaucage for a role, request evidence of course completion and assess his commitment to ethical standards through references or interviews.