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
Michael Wayne Plews, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair Danny Anckle
Irene Dembek, OCT
BETWEEN: ) David Leonard,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Litigation Paraprofessional
- and – )
MICHAEL WAYNE PLEWS ) Victoria Réaume,
(CERTIFICATE #253860) ) Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton
) McIntyre & Cornish LLP,
) for Michael Wayne Plews
) Richard Steinecke,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: November 1, 2011
REASONS FOR DECISION, DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 1, 2011 at the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated June 1, 2011 was served on Michael Wayne Plews, requesting his presence on June 21, 2011 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 1, 2011.
Michael Wayne Plews was not in attendance.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Michael Wayne Plews in the Notice of Hearing, (Exhibit 1) dated June 1, 2011 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Michael Wayne Plews is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (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 abused a student physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(d) he contravened a law and the contravention is relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);
(e) he contravened a law and the contravention has caused or may cause a student who is under his professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);
(f) he committed acts 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);
(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
At all material times, the Member was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
The Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) at all times material hereto and was an Elementary teacher at a Senior Public School (the “School”) in Brampton, Ontario.
Between September 2004 and June 2006, Student #1, Student #2 and Student #3 were female students at the School.
In April 2007, criminal charges were laid against the Member by Peel Regional police, and following a lengthy trial before the Honourable Mr. Justice Casey Hill, the Member was found guilty of three (3) counts of assault against three students. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Casey Hill dated November 18, 2010.
On January 31, 2011, the Member was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment to be served on a conditional basis. Attached as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Sentencing Judgment of Hill, J. dated January 31, 2011. The conduct for which the Member was found guilty is summarized at pages 2 to 4 of Exhibit C, as follows:
(a) With respect to Student #1:
(i) spinning her around and pulling one of her arms up behind her back, causing pain and subsisting problems with her shoulder;
(ii) placing her in headlocks or placing one of her arms up behind her back; wrestling with her, pinning her to the floor and sitting across her stomach;
(iii) rough housing or horse-play;
(iv) shoving her into a chair;
(v) “manhandling” her;
(b) with Student #2:
(i) touching her on multiple occasions without her consent in the stage and gym storage rooms and at a music room location in the school;
(ii) hard tickling of her sides, stomach area and hip;
(iii) wrestling her to the floor and pinning her there at times roughly;
(iv) a bear hug from behind lifting the student from the floor;
(c) with Student #3:
(i) tickling of the torso and thigh areas;
(ii) touching the student’s upper leg;
(iii) taking her to the floor from behind;
(iv) pinning her against a floor mat while tickling her.
- The Member resigned from his employment with the Board effective April 13, 2011.
PUBLICATION BAN
An non-publication and non-broadcast order was issued by Mr. Justice Hill in the criminal proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice. The Committee is required to uphold this publication ban imposed in the matter of Her Majesty the Queen and Michael Plews. There shall be no publication of any information that might tend to identify the students and witnesses involved in this matter.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member does not contest that the facts referred to in paragraph 5 above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that he:
(a) understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) understands that depending on the penalty ordered by the Discipline Committee, the decision of the Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, may be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
DECISION
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 Michael Wayne Plews committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 (the “uncontested facts”) of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2). He acknowledged that the uncontested facts referred to in paragraph 5 above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Committee accepted the Member’s plea of no contest and the facts in the Statement of Uncontested Fact and Plea of No Contest.
Between September of 2004 and September of 2006, the Member engaged in inappropriate physical conduct with three female students between the ages of [XXX]. The conduct included with respect to Student #1: spinning her around and pulling one of her arms up behind her back, causing pain and subsisting problems with her shoulder, placing her in headlocks or placing one of her arms behind her back; wrestling with her, pinning her to the floor and sitting across her stomach. With respect to Student #2: touching her on multiple occasions without her consent in the stage and gym storage rooms and at a music room location in the school; wrestling her to the floor and pinning her there, at times roughly. And, with respect to Student #3: tickling of the torso and thigh areas; touching the student’s upper leg; and, pinning her against a floor mat while tickling her.
The Committee accepts as fact, as detailed in the court transcripts, Exhibit 2, Tabs B & C, that following a lengthy trial, the Member was convicted of three counts of common assault against three students and sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment to be served on a conditional basis.
The law of evidence and Rules 13.03 and 13.04 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise 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.
The Committee finds that by these actions, the Member committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19). The resulting criminal convictions of the Member for the assaults of three of his students support this finding.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Counsel for the Member took no position with respect to penalty.
Counsel for the College submitted that an appropriate penalty in this type of case is revocation with publication of the order and findings of the Committee, with the name of the Member. Counsel stated that the Member’s conduct was a serious breach of trust. Counsel stated that the Member denied the allegations throughout the criminal proceedings. College Counsel submitted two previous similar decisions of the Discipline Committee for consideration.
PENALTY
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Registrar is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member; and
The Committee directs that there be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The Committee, in reaching a decision to revoke the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration, took into consideration the admitted facts, the criminal convictions of common assault of three students, the Member’s plea of no contest and the evidence presented by counsel.
The Member engaged in inappropriate physical contact with three female students which resulted in subsisting physical injuries and long term emotional harm as evidenced by the victim impact statements. The conduct included tickling, wrestling, inappropriate touching without consent, rough housing, “manhandling” and shoving these students. In his reasons for judgment, Mr. Justice Hill, in referring to the victim impact statements, noted that the students spoke collectively of “broken trust, anger, humiliation, self-blame and manipulation” (Exhibit 2, Tab C).
Teachers are inextricably linked to the integrity of the school system. Teachers occupy positions of trust and confidence and exert considerable influence over their students as a result of their positions. The conduct of a teacher bears directly upon the community’s perception of the ability of the teacher to fulfill such a position of trust and influence. The conduct of the Member is a serious breach of this trust.
The Committee finds that revocation of the Member’s certificate and publication of his name is necessary due to the fact that this pattern of unacceptable misconduct was repeated over a number of years and involved three students resulting in physical and emotional harm.
Revocation and publication with name is a specific and general deterrent in that it informs the profession that members are expected to act professionally with students at all times. Further, such serious misconduct has far reaching effects on students and the community and will result in the most serious penalty.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty serves the public interest.
Date: November 14, 2011
______________________________ Hanno Weinberger, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Danny Anckle
Member, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel