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
Gavin John Bradford, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Danny Anckle, Chair Robert Ryan, OCT
Hanno Weinberger, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Caroline Zayid,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Litigation Paraprofessional
- and – )
GAVIN JOHN BRADFORD ) Gavin John Bradford
(CERTIFICATE #472405) ) was not present or represented
) Julie Maciura,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: November 24, 2011
REASONS FOR DECISION, DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 24, 2011 at the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated March 21, 2011 was served on Gavin John Bradford, requesting his presence on May 3, 2011 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 24, 2011.
Gavin John Bradford was not in attendance.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Gavin John Bradford in the Notice of Hearing, (Exhibit 1) dated March 21, 2011 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Gavin John Bradford is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) and section 40(1.1) 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 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);
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and
(f) he engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students of a nature defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.
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 4), which provides as follows:
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Gavin John Bradford (the “Member”) was at all material times, 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Halton District School Board as a Grade [XXX] teacher and Grade [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) between the approximate dates of January 2006 to April 2008.
During the 2006-2007 academic year, Students A to U were female students in the Member’s [XXX] class and/or [XXX] class.
During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN messenger with Students A to U which also included on several occasions with several students communication via webcam.
During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically with Student A via MSN Messenger. Attached as Exhibit “B” is an excerpt of the MSN Messenger communication. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her what were her “silly ambitions,” and telling her, “I like the silly ones in case I can make them come true;”
(b) told her his “silly ambition” was to “pie someone in the face” and that he would rather “pie someone who’d like to be pied;”
(c) asked her if he could “dump a bowl of stuff over her head;”
(d) asked her to “pie him” and asked if he could “pie her;”
(e) asked her how she would feel if gooey stuff spilled on her shirt;
(f) asked if she would help him achieve his “dream” of “pieing her;”
(g) told her that she would get a perfect mark if she were “pied;”
(h) told her he’d “take delight in slowly pushing a gooey pie in her face;”
(i) referred to her as “pie girl;”
(j) asked her if she would rather be “slimed with spaghetti…with or without sauce;”
(k) asked her if she could fill a bathtub with something messy, what would it be;
(l) asked her to play a game, “would you rather,” and asked her if she were in a bathtub, would she rather fill it with spaghetti and meatballs or whipped cream;
(m) complimented her athletic and [XXX] abilities and told her she was “pretty,” “beautiful,” “super-cool,” and made him laugh;
(n) signed off conversations with her with “XX,” which Student A understood to mean kisses.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically with Student B via MSN Messenger, including communication via webcam. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her to pour water on her t-shirt in front of the webcam while he watched her do so;
(b) swore;
(c) asked her what were her favourite fruits and asked where on her body she would want him to place the fruits;
(d) told her he was visiting her Principal who was her next door neighbour and asked if he could come to her house to visit afterwards;
(e) told her she was pretty;
(f) told her a story about urinating in his pants when he was a young child;
(g) requested that she and her sister have an egg fight on the webcam.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student C, including communication via webcam. Attached as Exhibit “C” is an excerpt of the MSN Messenger communication. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her if she could dance after pouring water over herself or he would try to clean it up off of her;
(b) spoke with her about “pieing” someone;
(c) requested on many occasions that she turn on her webcam while they were chatting;
(d) asked her to put food on her body and asked her where on his body she would put the food;
(e) told her his favourite swear words were, “fuck, bitch, shit and ass;”
(f) told her he loved to swear and made a sentence using his favourite words, “This slut is such a bitch and her tits are so big;”
(g) repeatedly asked her to wear a white shirt and pour or spill water on herself;
(h) asked her to make a video-tape “getting messy,” “showing a strange part of her body;” and pouring water over herself, while she was on webcam;
(i) requested while Student C and Student Q were on webcam that they make a video “peeing” their pants;
(j) suggested that he wanted to pour coffee on her in class;
(k) asked her on at least one occasion if she was home alone.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student D. His communication included that he:
(a) stated repeatedly that he wanted her to go on webcam while they were chatting;
(b) remarked about her photo on MSN that he wished it were larger so he could see her whole body;
(c) asked her to tell him what her “secret ambition” was and then told her his “secret ambition” was to throw a pie in a girl’s face and let it drop while the girl was wearing a white shirt;
(d) asked her if she could throw a pie anywhere on his body, where it might be;
(e) told her that he wanted to pour mud on girls;
(f) told her he loved to swear and made a sentence using his favourite swear words, “This slut is such a bitch and her tits are so big;”
(g) stated to her, “that girl with those big tits is hot.”
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student E. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her to tell him what her “silly ambition” was;
(b) requested that she post a display photo on MSN of her swimming.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student F. His communication included that he:
(a) told her she was perfect and so was another student;
(b) remarked that he would like to throw a pie in her face on the last day of school.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student G. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her if she would let him put a pie down her pants;
(b) asked her if she would put a pie down his pants;
(c) asked her what were her “silly ambitions” and “if she likes getting messy;”
(d) requested that she turn on her webcam if she had one.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student H. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her what were her “silly ambitions” and if she liked “getting messy;”
(b) discussed pie throwing;
(c) requested that she use a webcam when they communicated if she had one.
During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student I. His communication included that he stated that he wanted to dump spaghetti and pie on her.
During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student J. His communication included that he:
(a) stated to her that he would “let her put mud down his pants;”
(b) asked her about “getting messy;”
(c) asked her to use her webcam when they communicated;
(d) requested that she send photos to him.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student K, including communication via webcam. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her to use a webcam when they were chatting;
(b) asked her to tell her brother to dance for him when she used a webcam that pointed at her brother, and her brother did so.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student L. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her what was her “silly ambition” and told her his “silly ambition” was to “have a pie thrown in his face;”
(b) asked her if she would like to “slime him.”
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student M. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her to pour sour milk down her pants;
(b) requested that she make a video pouring ketchup over her head.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student N. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her to tell him “seven sticky things she would like to spill on herself;”
(b) asked her what were her “silly ambitions;”
(c) told her he “would like to throw a pie on her shirt and get her clothes messy or even throw a pie in her lap.”
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student O. His communication included that he:
(a) asked her what were her silly ambitions and when she responded, “filling the Jacuzzi with bubbles,” he asked her if “she would be wearing clothes;”
(b) discussed “getting messy” and “pie-throwing,” and asked her if she would put a pie down his pants and top.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student P. Attached as Exhibit “D” is an excerpt of the MSN Messenger communication. His communication included that he:
(a) requested that she use a webcam during their first communication;
(b) remarked that she had a nice display photo;
(c) responded to her remark that they were chatting late at night, “yeah, that’s why MSN is so great we chat with our webcams;”
(d) asked her what were her “silly ambitions.”
During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student Q. His communication was inappropriate in that he asked her what were her “silly ambitions.”
During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student R. His communication was inappropriate in that he told her his “silly ambition” was to have a pie thrown in his face.
During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with Student S, including communication via webcam. His communication included that he:
(a) requested repeatedly that she use a webcam during their chats;
(b) requested that she and Student P “go crazy” while communicating with him on webcam.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN Messenger with a female student, including communication via webcam. His communication included that he:
(a) remarked to the student, “you have nice tits;”
(b) told her that he was going to be in her neighbourhood for lunch and would like to come to her house for dinner and would like to meet her family;
(c) requested she pour water over herself;
(d) requested her younger sister to crack three eggs over her head while he watched on webcam.
- During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated inappropriately while at School when he:
(a) remarked in class, “I’m so sexy” and flexed his muscles;
(b) commented to several female students outside the classroom, including Student T, that he “loved to cuddle;”
(c) remarked to Student U outside of the classroom, “I know where you live and if you are ever late again, I will knock down your door and drag you out of bed;”
(d) remarked to Student O that he, “would love to see her wet in that;” when she wore a red shirt to School;
(e) discussed “pieing” people in class as a “silly ambition” and stated in class he knew Student C’s “secret ambition;”
(f) drew diagrams on the board in class and referred to the drawings as boobs;
(g) complied with the requests of Student P and Student R, when he used the word “feather” or “feathers” in class to confirm that he was the person they had chatted with on MSN Messenger on previous occasions, and then winked at them when they laughed at his use of the word.
- The Member resigned as a teacher from the Board on or about 22 April 2008.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 26 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts referred to in paragraphs 5 to 25 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(18) and 1(19). The Member also acknowledges that he engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students of a nature defined in Sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he 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) he 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) he 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) he understands that any agreement between his counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he 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 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.
In light of the uncontested facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Gavin John Bradford committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). Further, the Committee finds that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students of a nature defined in Sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 26 (the “uncontested facts”) of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 4). He acknowledged that the uncontested facts referred to in paragraph 5 to 25 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, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also acknowledged that he engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students of a nature defined in Sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.
The Committee accepted the Member’s plea of no contest and the facts in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest.
During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member communicated electronically via MSN messenger with at least twenty-one Grade [XXX] female students. On several occasions, there was additional communication via webcam. The Member also communicated inappropriately with students while at School. The inappropriate behaviour of the Member included but was not limited to:
telling students his favourite swear words which were “fuck, bitch, shit and ass”; telling the student he loved to swear and making a sentence using his favourite words, “This slut is such a bitch and her tits are so big”;
repeatedly asking a student to wear a white shirt and pour or spill water on herself and in at least one instance asking the student to do so in front of the webcam while he watched;
asking a student if she would let him put a pie down her pants and if she would put a pie down his pants;
stating to another student that he would “let her put mud down his pants”;
remarking to another student, “you have nice tits;”
requesting while two students were on webcam that they make a video “peeing” their pants.
The Committee finds that based on the Member’s aforementioned inappropriate communication with students, the Member committed acts of professional misconduct, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Committee also finds that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students of a nature defined in Sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the appropriate penalty and introduced a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 5), which provides as follows:
The Ontario College of Teachers and the Member jointly submit that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
(a) directs the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which Certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar; and
(b) directs that there be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. The parties have not agreed to whether or not the Member’s name should be included and submissions will be made on that issue.
SUBMISSIONS ON PUBLICATION
Counsel for the College requested that the findings and order of the Committee be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, with the name of the Member. Counsel submitted that while there was no sexual touching of the students, there was an extensive record of inappropriate communication with many students. The communications in this case were of a serious nature, starting out innocently and escalating. Counsel indicated that there was something improper in what the Member was suggesting to the students; the Member made explicit sexual comments and used vulgar language. Counsel submitted that the fact that the Member does not intend to return to Canada is immaterial; there is nothing that prevents him from returning to Canada or from teaching in Canada. Therefore this is a proper case for revocation and for publication of the Member’s name.
The Committee received a letter from the Member dated October 13, 2011 requesting that his name not be published. He indicated that he has been fully co-operative with the College throughout this prolonged investigation since April 2007, that he signed the plea of no contest and has no intention of living or working in Canada again. He also stated that he wished to protect the good reputation of his ex-wife, who is a member of the College.
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 Member engaged in inappropriate communications over many months with more than twenty grade [XXX] female students whom he taught. The behaviour may have started out innocently but escalated to the point of using vulgar language and making improper suggestions of an explicit sexual nature. The communications were not school related and the majority of these communications occurred outside of the school, some as late as 10:36 p.m.
Despite the fact that the Member co-operated with the College and indicated that he has no intention of working in Canada, the Committee finds that this serious breach of trust constitutes professional misconduct to the extent that warrants revocation of his certificate and publication of his name.
Revocation and publication with name is a specific and general deterrent in that it informs the profession that members are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students at all times. Further, such serious misconduct will result in the most serious penalty.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty serves the public interest.
Date: December 12, 2011
______________________________ Danny Anckle
Chair, Discipline Panel
Robert Ryan, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Hanno Weinberger, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel