Queensland College of Teachers v EJC [2026] QCAT 105

[1] On 4 August 2025, the Tribunal made an Order prohibiting the identification of the respondent, any relevant student, witness or school. These reasons for decision have, therefore, been deidentified. To prevent any confusion, we have restated the Order in this decision.

[2] This matter was referred to the Tribunal by the applicant pursuant to sections 92 and 97 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ('the Act').

(a) EJC is a "former approved teacher", and a "relevant teacher" pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Act; and

(b) The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the matter.[1]

[4] While employed as a teacher, EJC engaged in behaviour which the applicant submits, and EJC accepts, amounts to grounds for disciplinary action.

[5] The Tribunal must itself determine whether a ground for disciplinary action against EJC has been established.[2] The Tribunal must determine, pursuant to s 92(1)(h) of the Act, whether EJC behaved "in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher".

[6] The Tribunal has been provided with material including:

(a) A transcript of an interview with a student; and

(b) Statements given to police by the student's family members.

[7] On 10 March 2023, EJC was charged with the following criminal offences:

(a) Indecent treatment of a child under 16; and

(b) Grooming child under 16 or parent or carer of child under 16 to facilitate procurement of a child to engage in sexual acts.

[8] The Tribunal notes that neither of the charges proceeded to trial, and EJC does not have a criminal conviction. The charges have now been dealt with, pursuant to section 92(2) of the Act.

[9] In general terms, it seems uncontroversial between the parties that:

(a) The respondent was a teacher at the student's school, and taught him in year 7 and year 10.

(b) In 2022, when the student was in year 10, the teacher joined a gym attended by the student and his mother. She developed a friendship and social relationship with the student's mother.

(c) In late 2022, the teacher and the student developed a personal relationship which progressed to a sexual relationship while the student was in year 10, and was a student in the teacher's class.

[10] The respondent, through her legal representative, denies that she engaged in any criminal activity. The respondent also does not concede that, as alleged by the applicant, she sent explicit images and videos of herself to the student. The parties have made submissions about whether the Tribunal should take into account the evidence of a police officer who details photographs and videos allegedly found on the student's telephone. The Tribunal finds that it is not necessary to determine whether the photographs and videos depicted the respondent as described by the police officer. The other evidence discussed in these reasons for decision is sufficient for the Tribunal to make a finding that EJC behaved in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.

[11] In February 2023, the student told police officers that:

(a) He and the teacher commenced a sexual relationship during late 2022;

(b) The first time they had sex was in her car in the morning prior to a school day;

(c) He had communicated with the teacher via text message and SnapChat;

(d) The teacher was worried about people becoming suspicious of their relationship; and

(e) The relationship continued until discovered by his parents.

[12] The student's evidence is not disputed by the respondent and is accepted by the Tribunal. It is supported by the evidence of other family members.

[13] The respondent concedes that it is open for the Tribunal to find:

(a) The respondent engaged in inappropriate communication with the student between October 2022 and January 2023 on the basis that they discussed feelings for each other and exchanged text messages; and

(b) Between October 2022 and January 2023, the respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with the student.

[14] As she did not provide any evidence in the form of an affidavit or statement, and did not take part in an oral hearing, the Tribunal has been denied the opportunity to hear from EJC, and there has been no opportunity for cross-examination.

[15] In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that the relationship between the student and the teacher was as described by the student.

(a) to uphold the standards of the teaching profession; and

(b) to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and

(c) to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers,

it is clear to the Tribunal that EJC behaved in a way that "does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher", and that a ground for disciplinary action has been established.

[17] The Tribunal must proceed to determine the sanction appropriate in these circumstances. EJC's registration has now lapsed, and so she is a "former approved teacher". Section 161 of the Act sets out (relevantly) that:

(2) If QCAT decides a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established, QCAT may do 1 or more of the following -

(a) decide to take no further action in relation to the matter;

(b) make an order requiring the teacher to pay to the college, by way of costs, an amount QCAT considers appropriate having regard to -

(i) any expenses incurred by the college in investigating the matter; and

(ii) the expenses incurred by the college in the proceedings before QCAT;

(c) if QCAT would have made an order cancelling the teacher's registration or permission to teach if the teacher had been an approved teacher - make an order prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely;

Note -

See also section 352 (Decision about disciplinary action against former approved teacher).

(d) make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.

[18] In determining sanction, we note that the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding is not to punish the teacher, but to promote the objects of the Act.[3] In summary, these relevantly involve upholding standards in the profession, maintaining public confidence in the profession, and protecting the public by ensuring that education is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.

(a) EJC entered into a close personal and sexual relationship with a student in her year 10 class.

(b) EJC's behaviour was unprofessional and harmful. The student was vulnerable due to his age.

(c) EJC was in a position of authority and there was a power imbalance between her and the student when she engaged in the behaviour.

(d) The behaviour damaged the reputation of the profession.

(e) The seriousness of the behaviour, and the sexual nature of the relationship, raises grave concerns regarding EJC's capacity to work as a teacher in an appropriate and professional manner.

(f) EJC has not provided any explanation for her behaviour or evidence of mitigating factors.

[20] EJC has provided no evidence to the Tribunal to indicate that she has reflected upon her conduct or recognised the potential harm to the student. It is self-evident that teachers must not pursue or engage in romantic or sexual relations with students, and teachers receive explicit and ongoing training in this regard. The applicant has provided copies of certificates as evidence that EJC undertook training in the year in which the behaviour occurred including:

(a) Working ethically, working safely, working together, protecting our information (1 February 2022); and

(b) Student protection training (21 January 2022).

[21] Overall, we are of the view that EJC's behaviour showed serious boundary violations over an extended period, aggravated by lack of evidence of insight and remorse. She failed to uphold standards and maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. The community expects a teacher to have sufficient insight to know that this behaviour can harm young people.

[22] In this case, we are satisfied that we would have made an order cancelling

EJC's registration if she had been an approved teacher. We therefore have the power to prohibit her from reapplying for registration or permission to teach "for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely". In our view, the objects of the Act are met by prohibiting EJC from reapplying for registration indefinitely. Her behaviour demonstrated a shocking disregard for the welfare of her students.

[23] The confidentiality order made previously by the Tribunal will remain in place. We do not consider it to be in the interests of justice to publicly identify the student. Publication of identifying details of the teacher could harm the student, his family, and the broader school community. The confidentiality order will prohibit the publication of any information in these proceedings that could identify the student in any way, including by naming the teacher and the schools involved.

[24] The Tribunal's basis for making the confidentiality order rests solely with a concern for the student.

[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 9; the Act s 111A(2).