Ontario College of Teachers v Cameron, 2008 ONOCT 11

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Cameron, 2008 ONOCT 11

Date: 2008-05-12

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

George Albert Cameron, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: John Wells, Chair Danny Anckle

Jacques Tremblay

BETWEEN: ) ) David Leonard,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Trevor Evans,

) Senior Law Clerk

• and - )

GEORGE ALBERT CAMERON ) Iain Donnell,

(CERTIFICATE #221223) ) on behalf of George Albert Cameron

) Luisa Ritacca,

) Stockwoods LLP, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: May 7, 2008

REASONS FOR DECISION, DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on May 7, 2008 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing, dated March 7, 2008 (Exhibit 1) was served on George Albert Cameron (the “Member”), providing him with notice that the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers would meet on April 1, 2008 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The member did not attend on April 1, 2008. The Discipline Committee set May 7, 2008 as the date for the hearing on the merits.

George Albert Cameron was in attendance at the hearing on May 7, 2008.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against George Albert Cameron in the Notice of Hearing, (Exhibit 1) dated March 7, 2008 are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that George Albert Cameron is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in section 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”) in that:

(a) he failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to Section 13 of the Regulation made under Section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1970, Chapter 361, as amended;

(b) he failed to comply with Section 22.1(c) of the Schools Administration Act, R.S.O. 1960, Chapter 361 and amendments thereto;

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

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

(e) he contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);

(f) he contravened a law, the contravention of which has caused students under the member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);

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

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

At the hearing on May 7, 2008, College counsel sought to withdraw the allegation of professional misconduct in paragraph (c) above, namely that the Member breached Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5). The Committee agrees that this allegation shall be withdrawn.

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. George Albert Cameron (the “Member”) is a Member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member was employed as a teacher in the Province of Ontario from approximately September 1990 to June 2004.

3. Between the approximate dates of 1 January 1970 and 31 December 1970, the Member committed an act of gross indecency with Victim No. 1, a female person.

4. Between the approximate dates of 1 January 1971 and 1 September 1971, the Member committed an act of gross indecency with Victim No. 1, a female person.

5. Between the approximate dates of 1 January 1971 and 1 December 1976, the Member indecently assaulted Victim No. 1, a female person.

6. Between the approximate dates of 1 January 1971 and 1 December 1976, the Member indecently assaulted Victim No. 1, a female person.

7. Between the approximate dates of 1 January 1975 and 1 December 1976, the Member attempted to have sexual intercourse with Victim No. 1, a female person who was not his wife.

8. Between the approximate dates of 1 January 1970 and 31 December 1971, the Member indecently assaulted Victim No. 1, a female person.

9. Between the approximate dates of 1 January 1973 and 31 December 1973, the Member committed an act of gross indecency with Victim No. 2.

10. Between the approximate dates of 5 August 2003 and 6 August 2003, the Member sexually assaulted Victim No. 3.

11. Victims No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 were persons in relation to whom the Member held a position of trust.

12. On or about 30 September 2004 [] Province of New Brunswick, the Member was convicted of the following offences, to which he had pleaded guilty:

(a) that he between 1 January 1970 and 31 December 1970 at [] Province of New Brunswick, did commit an act of gross indecency with Victim No. 1 contrary to Section 149 of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(b) between 1 January 1971 and 1 September 1971 at [] Province of New Brunswick did commit an act of gross indecency with Victim No. 1 contrary to Section 157 of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(c) between 1 January 1971 and 1 December 1976 at [] Province of New Brunswick did indecently assault Victim No. 1, a female person, contrary to Section 149 of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(d) between 1 January 1971 and 1 December 1976 at [] Province of New Brunswick, did indecently assault Victim No. 1, a female person, contrary to Section 149 of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(e) between 1 January 1975 and 1 December 1976 at [] Province of New Brunswick, did attempt to have sexual intercourse with Victim No. 1, a female person who was not his wife, contrary to Section 145 of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(f) between 1 January 1970 and 31 December 1971 at [] Province of Nova Scotia, did indecently assault Victim No. 1;

(g) between 1 January 1973 and 31 December 1973 at [] Province of New Brunswick, did commit an act of gross indecency with Victim No. 2 contrary to Section 149(1) of the Criminal Code (Canada); and

(h) between 5 August 2003 and 6 August 2003 at [] Province of New Brunswick, did commit a sexual assault on Victim No. 3, contrary to Section 271(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada).

13. On or about 30 September 2004 the following sentences were imposed on the Member in respect of each of the convictions referred to in paragraph 12;

(a) jail for three months consecutive;

(b) jail for three months consecutive;

(c) jail for three months consecutive;

(d) jail for three months concurrent;

(e) jail for one year consecutive;

(f) jail for three months consecutive;

(g) jail for three months consecutive; and

(h) jail for one month consecutive.

14. The Member has not appealed either the conviction or sentence imposed on him.

MEMBER’S PLEA

An oral plea inquiry was conducted and the Member entered a plea of no contest to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

PUBLICATION BAN

An Order was made by the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick that any information that could identify the complainants or witnesses shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. The Committee honours this ban and orders that there be no publication of any information that may disclose the identity of the victims involved in this matter.

THE EVIDENCE

Counsel for the College entered into evidence a Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 2) with respect to the criminal proceedings against the Member as alleged in paragraphs 12 through 13 above, was submitted into evidence.

The evidence presented in these Court Documents confirms that on or about September 30, 2004, the Member pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of 8 charges in total. Seven of these convictions were for conduct during the years 1970 to 1976, being 3 charges of gross indecency, 3 charges of indecent assault, and 1 charge of attempt to have sexual intercourse with respect to two victims. A further charge of sexual assault against 1 victim occurred in August 2003. The Member was sentenced to be incarcerated for a total sentence of two years and 4 months. There was also a [XXX] issued against the Member.

The Member has not appealed the sentence imposed on him.

DECISION

(i) Onus and Standard of Proof

The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in Re Bernstein and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (1977) 15 O.R. (2d) 477. The standard of proof applied by the Committee, in accordance with the Bernstein decision, was a balance of probabilities with the qualification that the proof must be “clear and convincing” and based upon “cogent evidence” accepted by the Committee. The Committee also recognized that the more serious the allegation to be proved, the more cogent must be the evidence. The Committee considered the allegations in this case to be very serious and assessed the evidence on that basis.

(ii) Oral Decision Rendered on May 7, 2008

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that George Albert Cameron committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19). Further, the Committee finds that he failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to Section 13 of the Regulation made under Section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1970, Chapter 361, as amended; and that he failed to comply with Section 22.1(c) of the Schools Administration Act, 1960, Chapter 361 and amendments thereto.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Rules 13.05 and 13.06 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers allow the Committee to accept as proof that an offence was committed by a person, where there is a finding of guilt and conviction in a Canadian court, provided that there is no evidence to the contrary and that no appeal has been granted.

Having no evidence to the contrary, pursuant to Rules 13(05) and 13(06) of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee, the Committee accepts as proof that the Member on or about September 30, 2004, pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, eight separate criminal charges as previously enunciated above, with a sentence of 2 years and 4 months imposed. The Member has not appealed the conviction.

The Committee finds that the Member failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to Section 13 of the Regulation made under Section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1970, Chapter 361, as amended; and he failed to comply with Section 22.1(c) of the Schools Administration Act, R.S.O. 1960, Chapter 361 and amendments thereto, by virtue of his convictions, paragraph 12 (a) through (g).

The Committee finds that the Member failed to conduct himself in accordance with 264 (1) (c) of the Education Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14), 1(15) by failing to act with integrity and trust as expected of a Member of the teaching profession. The Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unbecoming a member contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97. There is no question that the Member’s convictions contravened a law which is relevant to his suitability to hold a Certificate of Qualification and Registration and has caused students to be put at risk.

SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO PENALTY

Counsel for the College submitted that the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration should be revoked and that publication, with the name of the Member should follow. He indicated that publication serves as a specific and general deterrence. He submitted that the hearing was open to the public; therefore the Committee has an obligation, in the interest of transparency, to communicate its findings to the public. Publication with the Member’s name reflects the gravity of his actions and provides reassurance that this type of conduct is not consistent with membership in the College.

Counsel for the Member indicated that the Member was willing to resign his certificate of qualification and registration and submitted that the Member’s name not be published because to do so would necessarily identify the victims. He argued that the Member had already endured sufficient punishment and did not want to cause further harm to the victims. Counsel advised that the Member was 70 years old, had been out of the classroom for five years and had no intention of returning to teaching, so there was no need for publication with respect to specific deterrence.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which Certificate the Member is to surrender immediately to the Registrar; of the Ontario College of Teachers; and

2. Pursuant to Section 30 (5) (3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the findings and order of the Committee shall 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 Member was convicted and pleaded guilty to gross indecency, indecent assault and sexual assault and attempt to have sexual intercourse with minors. He was incarcerated and ordered to [XXX].

Sexual assault of a child is among the most reprehensible and egregious acts that any member of society can commit. When a sexual assault involves minors and the person committing the assault is a member of the teaching profession, a profession that is entrusted with the care and protection of children, revocation is the only appropriate penalty.

The serious nature of the criminal convictions against the Member require that his Certificate of Qualification and Registration be revoked to ensure that he does not have an opportunity to take advantage of students. Revocation demonstrates that the Member’s conduct is unacceptable to the profession and to the public, whose interests the Committee is bound to serve.

Publication of the Committee’s order is necessary as a general deterrent to guide members of the profession and to inform the public that conduct of this nature will not be tolerated and will result in revocation.

Dated: May 12, 2008

______________________________John Wells

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________Danny Anckle

Member, Discipline Panel

______________________________Jacques Tremblay

Member, Discipline Panel