DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Peter Michael Speckner, Member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Rosemary Fontaine, Chair Dean Favero
Lynne Mastin
BETWEEN: ) )
) Nadine Carpenter,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) Dispute Resolution Administrator, ) for Ontario College of Teachers )
- and – ) Gary Hopkinson,
) Green & Chercover,
PETER MICHAEL SPECKNER ) for Peter Michael Speckner
(CERTIFICATE #482923) )
) Scott Hutchison,
) Stockwoods LLP, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: February 6, 2007
REASONS FOR DECISION, DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on February 6, 2007 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
Peter Michael Speckner (the “Member”) was in attendance at the hearing.
A Notice of Hearing dated October 18, 2006 was served on the Member, requesting attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers February 2, 2007 for the hearing of this matter. The hearing was subsequently set for February 6, 2007.
THE ALLEGATIONS
IT WAS ALLEGED that Peter Michael Speckner is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”), 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, the regulations or the bylaws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(c) he committed an act that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that subject to ratification by the Committee, agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), (Exhibit 3) which provides as follows:
Agreed Statement of Facts
The parties hereby agree to the truth and accuracy of the facts that are hereinafter expressed and agree to the receipt of this document by the Discipline Committee.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Waterloo Region District School Board (the “Board”) as an instructor at the [**] (the “School”). The Member worked in the Board’s Adult and Continuing Education Department.
In September 2002, [], then a []-year-old female student, began attending the School [] to earn a school credit. The Member was one of [] teachers.
During the 2002 / 2003 academic school year, the Member and [] spent time talking in the classroom after class each week about various issues raised by [] while [**] waited for her bus and the Member got ready to leave.
On or about June 4, 2004, [] and a friend attended a graduation ceremony for the School. The Member drove [] and her friend home after the ceremony. The Member dropped [] friend off first and then drove [] home.
On June 14, 2004, [] sought the Member out at another school where the Member was working as a secretary for summer school. [] visit was unannounced and uninvited by the Member. The Member told [] she could not visit him in this way but had lunch with her in order to make sure the student was okay. At lunch, the Member reiterated to [] that they had a teacher/student relationship and that this relationship would only resume in September at school. However, at the lunch the Member did listen to [**] tell him about various issues in her life at the time.
[**] and the Member did not have contact again until classes started on September 11, 2004.
During the fall of 2005, [] started to date one of the Member’s close friends who had formerly been a student teacher at the school and the Member began to see [] in his social circle as a result.
On two occasions, once in December, and again on or about January 4, 2006, the Member visited [] alone at her apartment, at []’s request to discuss issues she had in her relationship with his friend.
On September 22, 2006, as a result of the incidents described above, the Board disciplined the Member as follows:
(a) placed a letter of discipline on his personnel file; and
(b) suspended him for three days, without pay.
- The Member voluntarily admits the above particulars against him and understands that by doing so, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to a contested hearing.
Joint Submission on Resolution
The parties agree to resolve the matter as follows:
By this document, the Member pleads guilty to professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing, attached as Appendix “A”, and in so doing, accepts as true the particulars set out in this section of the MOA.
The Member agrees and understands that for the purpose of considering this matter, the Discipline Committee will be provided with this MOA and the Notice of Hearing, which will be marked as Exhibits and will constitute the evidence upon which the guilty plea will be accepted, the finding of guilt will be made, and the penalty will be imposed.
The Member agrees and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, the Discipline Committee shall find him guilty of professional misconduct and, pursuant to subsection 30(5) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, shall immediately reprimand him, in person, with respect to the above particulars.
The Member agrees and understands that within 90 calendar days of ratification of this MOA, he shall successfully complete a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, regarding maintaining appropriate boundaries with students.
The Member agrees and undertakes that within 120 calendar days of ratification of this MOA, the Registrar shall be provided with a written report, prepared by the course practitioner, indicating whether the Member appreciates the need to maintain appropriate boundaries with students.
The Member agrees and understands that should the Registrar receive a report that the Member does not appreciate the need to maintain appropriate boundaries with students, the Registrar shall consider whether further action is necessary.
The Member agrees and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, a notation on the public register maintained by the Registrar, in accordance with section 23 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, shall include the following information:
on February 6, 2007, the Member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct. Reprimand.
The Member agrees and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, the College shall publish his name with a summary of the complaint and its resolution as contained in this MOA. Such publication shall be made: in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession; on the College web site; in the Margaret Wilson Library; on Quicklaw (an online legal research database); and in such other manner as deemed appropriate by the Registrar.
The parties agree and understand that if any phrase or paragraph of this MOA is deemed null and void, the MOA shall be read as though the phrase or paragraph was stricken from the MOA and the amended MOA shall remain in force and effect.
The Member agrees and understands that this MOA is the entire agreement between himself and the College and that there have been no oral or written representations made by the College as an inducement or threat to enter into this MOA.
The Member agrees and understands that, in the event he breaches a term of this MOA, he is estopped from alleging, by way of defence, that the College failed to investigate or dispose of the complaint in a timely manner with respect to the period between the resolution of the complaint and the date on which the College becomes aware of such a breach.
The Member agrees and understands that, in the event he breaches a term of this MOA, the College may provide the Investigation, Executive, Discipline or Fitness to Practise Committee with all the information necessary to fulfil its statutory mandate.
The parties agree and undertake that upon ratification of this MOA, there shall be no further action taken, no appeal to any forum, and no application for judicial review of the terms of the MOA.
DECISION
Having examined the Exhibits filed, and based on the Memorandum of Agreement, the plea of guilt, and the submissions made by counsel, the Committee accepts the plea of guilt and finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Peter Michael Speckner committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19) of the Act.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member on two occasions visited a female student, alone at her apartment, at her request to discuss issues she had in her relationship with a friend of the Member. The Committee finds that by his failure to observe appropriate student/teacher boundaries, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession and failed to comply with the Act. This was conduct unbecoming a member and an act that would be reasonably regarded by members as unprofessional.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty and makes the following order
as to penalty:
The Member is required to appear before the Committee to be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand will be recorded on the Register; and
The Committee further orders that pursuant to Section 30 (5) (3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the findings and Order of the Committee be published in summary, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/ Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty. The Committee recognized that the Member had initially made attempts to maintain the student/teacher boundary, but failed to continue to set the limits. He has undertaken to complete a course of instruction regarding maintaining appropriate boundaries with students. The Member has co-operated with the College, and by agreeing to the facts and a proposed penalty, has accepted responsibility for his actions.
The Committee is satisfied that the undertaking and successful completion of the boundaries course, pre-approved by the Registrar, will serve to remediate the Member.
For these reasons, the Committee finds that a penalty of reprimand is appropriate under the circumstances and is proportional to the misconduct.
The decision to publish the Member’s name with details of the misconduct in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession serves as a specific deterrent to the Member and as a general deterrent to the profession.
The Committee concludes that the penalty is reasonable, serves the purpose of general deterrence and protects the public interest.
Date: February 6, 2007
Rosemary Fontaine
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Dean Favero
Member, Discipline Panel ______________________________
Lynne Mastin
Member, Discipline Panel