ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Dungey, 2003 ONOCT 11

Date: 2003-01-29

in the matter of the ontario college of teachers act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder:

and in the matter of discipline proceedings against Charles Edward Dungey.

The Discipline Committee held a hearing on December 16, 2002,

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

- and -

CHARLES EDWARD DUNGEY

CERTIFICATE #252534

REASONS FOR DECISION, DECISION AND ORDERS

PRESENT:

Members of the Panel

Janet Cornwall (Chair)

Douglas Carter

George Merrett

Nancy Spies, Independent Counsel to the Panel

Carol Jenkins, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Counsel for the Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Jennifer Robinson, Law Clerk

Ian Fellows, Green & Chercover, Counsel for the member

Charles Edward Dungey did not attend.

A Notice of Hearing, dated December 21, 2001, was served on Charles Edward Dungey, requesting attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on February 11, 2002 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. It is alleged that Mr. Dungey is guilty of professional misconduct in that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1 (5);

(b) he failed to comply with the Act and Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, Chapter E. 2 and particularly section 264 (1) (c) thereof, and the Regulations made under those Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1 (14) and (15);

(c) he contravened a law or laws and that contravention is relevant to his suitability to hold a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1 (16);

(d) he performed an act or acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as being disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1 (18); and

(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1 (19).

On December 16, 2002, the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers conducted a hearing into whether Charles Edward Dungey was guilty of professional misconduct.

Charles Edward Dungey was not in attendance at the hearing. Proof of service of the Notice of Hearing was presented and accepted by the panel.

EVIDENCE:

Counsel for the Ontario College of Teachers referred to the charges set out in the Notice of Hearing, alleging that Charles Edward Dungey is guilty of professional misconduct in that his acts were contrary to the Professional Misconduct Regulation made under the Ontario College of Teachers Act and filed as Regulation 437/97 on December 4, 1997, in particular, subsections 1 (5), (14), (15), (16), (18) and (19). Particulars of the alleged misconduct are set out in the Notice of Hearing. An Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea was filed as Exhibit 1. That statement has been signed by Carol Jenkins of McCarthy Tétrault LLP and the member, Charles Edward Dungey.

FINDINGS OF FACT:

Based on the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, the panel finds the following facts:

1. Charles Edward Dungey, (the “Member”), is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was hired by the Thames Valley District School Board (“the Board”) and taught business studies at Westminster Secondary School (“the school”).

3. On or about the 28 November, 2000, the Member was arrested and charged by the London Police Service that he did unlawfully possess, produce for trafficking, and avail himself of the proceeds from such trafficking of a controlled substance (marijuana), contrary to Section 5, subsection (3), Section 7, subsection (2); and Section 8, subsection (2), clause (b) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

4. On or about 30 June 2001, the Member pleaded guilty and was convicted under Section 5, subsection (3), and Section 7, subsection (2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Member was fined on both counts, and given time to pay.

5. The charges against the Member as referred to in paragraph 3 above, are public knowledge through media coverage in the local newspaper.