DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Ludkin, 2012 ONOCT 23
Date: 2012-12-14
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
Geoffrey Richard Ludkin, a member of the Ontario College of
Teachers.
PANEL: John Tucker, Chair Christine Bellini, OCT
Hanno Weinberger, OCT
BETWEEN: ) ) Eric Block,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Litigation Paraprofessional )
- and – )
) Geoffrey Richard Ludkin was not
) present, nor was he represented
GEOFFREY RICHARD LUDKIN )
(CERTIFICATE #536455) )
) Rebecca Durcan,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: November 7, 2012
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION, AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 7, 2012 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated March 15, 2012 was served on Geoffrey Richard Ludkin, requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on April 17, 2012 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 7, 2012.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Geoffrey Richard Ludkin (the “Member”) in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Geoffrey Richard Ludkin 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 Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under those Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(c) 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);
(d) he contravened a law, the contravention of which has caused or may cause a student or students who is under the Member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);
(e) 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); and
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Geoffrey Richard Ludkin (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Northeastern Catholic District School Board and the District School Board Ontario North East (the “Boards”) as an occasional teacher at various elementary schools within the Boards.
On or about December 16, 2009, the Member was criminally charged in that he, between the approximate dates of November 1, 2009 and December 5, 2009, at the Township of Coleman in the said region, by means of a computer:
(a) did lure a child under the age of eighteen for the purpose of sexually assaulting that child contrary to Section 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada);
(b) did lure a child under the age of eighteen for the purposes of procuring that child contrary to Section 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada).
On or about September 6, 2011, the Member pleaded guilty to the charges described in paragraph 3 above and was sentenced to a twelve (12) month conditional sentence and two (2) years of probation.
The Member has not appealed the conviction and/or sentence.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was neither present nor represented by counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.
THE EVIDENCE
Counsel for the College entered into evidence the following additional documents:
Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo-Sworn November 1, 2012 (Exhibit 2);
Registered Member Information (Exhibit 3);
Brief of Court Documents-Her Majesty The Queen v. Geoffrey Richard Ludkin (Exhibit 4);
The Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 4) with respect to the criminal proceedings against the Member submitted into evidence consisted of:
Certified Copy of Information dated December 16, 2009 (Found at Tab A);
Certified Copy of Conditional Sentence Order dated September 6, 2011 (Found at Tab B);
Certified Copy of Probation Order dated September 6, 2011 (Found at Tab C);
Certified Copy of Prohibition Order dated September 6, 2011 (Found at Tab D); and
Transcript of Proceedings before Mr. Justice M.J. Rocheleau at Haileybury dated September 6, 2011 (Found at Tab E).
The evidence presented in the Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 4) confirmed that on September 6, 2011, the Member pled guilty to the charges that he, between the 1st day of November 2009 and the 5th day of December 2009, by means of a computer, lured a child under the age of eighteen (18) for the purposes of sexually assaulting and procuring that child contrary to section 172.1(1) (a) of the Criminal Code (Canada). Further, the Member was convicted and sentenced on September 6, 2011 to a twelve (12) month conditional sentence order, two (2) years of probation and prohibited for a period of five (5) years from:
a) attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of sixteen years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, school ground, playground or community centre; or
b) seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of sixteen years; or
c) using a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) for the purpose of communicating with a person under the age of sixteen years.
The Member has not appealed the conviction or sentence.
PUBLICATION BAN
A non-publication order was issued under subsection 486.4 of the Criminal Code (Canada), in the proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice. The Committee is required and therefore affirmed to uphold this publication ban imposed in the matter of Her Majesty The Queen v. Geoffrey Richard Ludkin by the Ontario Court of Justice. There shall be no publication of any information that might tend to identify the victims involved in this matter.
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 Geoffrey Richard Ludkin committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
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 accepts as fact, as detailed in the court documents contained within Exhibit 4, that the Member was convicted of Luring for the purposes of sexual assault and Luring for the purposes of Procuring, contrary to section 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada). The conviction was entered on September 6, 2011.
The Member was subsequently sentenced to a twelve (12) month conditional sentence order and two (2) years of probation. In addition, the Court imposed an Order prohibiting the Member from being in the presence of any person under sixteen (16) years of age in a public area, as defined in section 161 (a) of the Criminal Code (Canada); being in a position of trust or authority towards a person under the age of sixteen, either through employment or in a volunteer capacity or communicating through the use of a computer system with a person under the age of sixteen years for a period of five (5) years.
The Member did not appeal the conviction or the sentence.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
As the member was not present or represented by counsel, the Committee treated the matter of penalty as contested. There were no submissions on penalty on behalf of the Member.
Counsel for the College submitted that a penalty which included immediate revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration and publication with name was the only appropriate penalty to communicate to the Member, the profession and the public that this type of behaviour is not tolerated. Counsel stated that imposing any penalty less than immediate revocation would result in the failure to protect the public interest and confidence in the College.
Counsel submitted that full publication was appropriate as it signals to the community that committing acts of this nature will result in the most serious of consequences.
Counsel for the College provided one case for review by the Committee, which demonstrated the degree of penalty application for similar misconduct.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
a) the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member; and
b) 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 DECISION
The Committee agreed that the College Counsel’s submissions on penalty were appropriate given the severity of the Member’s conduct.
The Committee determined that no member of the Ontario College of Teachers should be engaged in this type of egregious behaviour. It is particularly disgraceful that the Member was a teacher, someone who was entrusted with the protection of children, and identified himself as such to the Student. The Committee found the Member’s offences to be very disturbing. Children are vulnerable members of society and must be safeguarded against predators who use the internet to lure them into a situation where they can be sexually exploited and abused.
The Member’s actions were criminal and warrant revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
Publication of the findings and order of the Committee, in summary, along with the name of the Member, provides a specific deterrent to the Member, and a general deterrent to the profession and for the public, by identifying the nature of his misconduct and the consequences for such behaviour. Finally, publication serves the public interest by reassuring and informing the community that the profession acts decisively when matters of this nature are brought to its attention.
The Committee is confident that the penalty serves the interests of the public and the profession.
Dated: December 14, 2012
______________________________ John Tucker, Chair
Chair, Discipline Panel ______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Hanno Weinberger, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel