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
Thomas Paul Karrow, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Danny Anckle Monika Ferenczy, OCT
Darlene Mead, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Shane D’Souza
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Bev Hodsdon,
) Law Clerk
- and – )
THOMAS PAUL KARROW ) Victoria Réaume,
(CERTIFICATE #452996) ) Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton
) McIntyre & Cornish LLP,
) for Thomas Paul Karrow
) Marc Spector
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: May 23, 2012
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on May 23, 2012 at the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated March 21, 2011 was served on Thomas Paul Karrow, requesting his presence on May 3, 2011 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for May 23, 2012.
Thomas Paul Karrow was in attendance.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Thomas Paul Karrow in the Notice of Hearing, (Exhibit 1) dated March 21, 2011 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Thomas Paul Karrow is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in section 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1 (7.2);
(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); and
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member contrary, to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
At the hearing on May 23, 2012 there was disagreement as to whether the Member was pleading no contest to Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsection 1(15) since it was alleged in the Notice of Hearing but omitted from the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. Submissions were presented by both parties on this issue. In the public interest and out of respect for the Committee’s time and the discipline process, College counsel agreed to withdraw the allegation of professional misconduct in paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member 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). College Counsel submitted that there were sufficient facts to support a finding of professional misconduct without inclusion of the allegation in paragraph (c). After hearing the submissions from the parties, and upon the advice of Independent Legal Counsel, the Committee agreed that this allegation be withdrawn from the Notice of Hearing.
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 3), which provides as follows:
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Thomas Paul Karrow (the “Member”) is 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 Bluewater District School Board (the “Board”) as a Principal at an elementary school in Ontario.
Student #1 was an [XXX] year old Grade [XXX] student at the School during the 2009/2010 academic year.
In or about November 2009, the Member provided assistance to Student #1 in relation to bullying she had experienced at School. He communicated to Student #1 and her mother about his intervention and both were grateful for his assistance.
Thereafter, the Member had frequent contact with Student #1, including attempting to reassure her with respect to ongoing bullying and calling the police to report that the student had disclosed abuse by a relative.
From mid November 2009 until January 2010, the Member:
(a) sent personal e-mails to Student #1 which included, inter alia, terms of endearment such as “sweety” and “you need to know that you are special, safe at school and very much cared for” and “Time with you is the best gift possible”. Copies of such e-mails are attached hereto as Exhibit “B”;
(b) took Student #1 on two separate occasions to a restaurant for dinner alone, with the permission of her mother;
(c) exchanged notes with Student #1 including those attached hereto as Exhibit “C”;
(d) gave gifts to Student #1 and received gifts in return;
(e) accepted money from her on one occasion to pay for text messages. A copy of a note from Student #1 concerning this is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”;
(f) invited Student #1 and her mother to stay overnight at his home, an invitation they accepted;
(g) loaned Student #1 a Board-owned computer so that he could communicate with Student #1 via Skype while he was away in Mexico during the Christmas school break. The Member and Student #1 did in fact communicate by Skype several times over a ten day period, as well as talking on the phone several times while the Member was away in Mexico;
(h) sat alone in his car with Student #1;
(i) during a school event in the School gym, lay on a mat with Student #1 to watch a movie. Other students were also laying on mats to watch the movie;
(j) on numerous occasions was alone in his office with Student #1 for extended periods of time;
(k) provided his iPod to Student #1 to use in School, despite the School policy banning such devices.
The Member admitted that his conduct towards Student #1 was in violation of professional boundaries. The Member resigned from his employment with the Board on February 26, 2010 and has not taught students or supervised teachers since that time.
Following his resignation, on his own initiative, the Member undertook seven sessions of counselling between February 12, 2010 and August 13, 2010. A copy of a report of that counselling from Dr. Shari Geller is attached as Exhibit “E”.
In September 2010, the Member successfully completed a training course in Ethical Practices and Boundaries. A copy of the Certificate of Completion and course outline is attached as Exhibit “F”.
In addition, in January and February of 2010 the Member undertook an additional 5 sessions of telephone counselling provided through the Board’s Employee Assistance Program. A copy of a letter from Shepell fgi confirming these sessions is attached as Exhibit “G”.
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 10 above (the “uncontested facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the uncontested facts referred to in paragraph 6, constitute conduct that is unprofessional and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 1(5), 1(7.2), (18 - unprofessional) and 1(19).
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 and Counsel for the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Thomas Paul Karrow committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(18 - unprofessional) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 (the “uncontested facts”) of the Statement of Uncontested Facts, and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 3). He acknowledged that the uncontested facts referred to in paragraph 6 above constitute conduct that is unprofessional and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct. The Committee accepted the Member’s plea of no contest and the facts in the Statement of Uncontested Facts, and Plea of No Contest.
The Member, who was a principal of an elementary school, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with an [XXX]-year old student from mid November 2009 until January 2010. His actions included loaning a Board-owned computer to the Student, engaging in ongoing electronic communications of a personal nature with the Student, meeting with the Student outside of the school context including in his own home, exchanging notes and gifts and accepting money from the Student. On numerous occasions the Member was alone in his office with the Student for extended periods of time, took her out for dinner alone to a restaurant and also sat alone in his car with the Student.
The Committee finds that the Member’s actions outlined herein, constitute acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(18 - unprofessional) and 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
- 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 that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to be reprimanded and the fact of the reprimand to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;
(b) directs the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such term, conditions and limitations to be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as they are fulfilled:
(i) prior to returning to any employment for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, and no less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of any such return, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from a certified psychologist or psychiatrist, approved in advance by the Registrar, stating that he or she has:
A. examined the Member, at the Member’s expense, no earlier than ninety (90) days before the intended date of return to work, and found that the Member is able to return to full-time classroom duties and other professional duties as a teacher or administrator without any undue risk of harm or injury to students; and
B. received and reviewed a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(c) 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 on whether or not the Member’s name is to be published and submissions will be made to the Committee on that issue.
SUBMISSIONS ON PUBLICATION
The Committee received submissions from Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member with respect to publication of the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
Counsel for the College argued that the Member’s name should be published. The Committee needs to send a clear message that boundary violations such as these are treated seriously and will not be tolerated. Counsel further stated that publication with name sends a strong message to the Member and reinforces this fact to the profession. He indicated that specific and general deterrence must be met in such cases. It is only through publication with the name that the Committee will ensure the transparency and openness demanded by the public. Counsel stated that taken collectively, the conditions placed on the Member’s certificate and publication with name are reasonable and in the public interest.
While Counsel for the Member generally agreed with Counsel for the College regarding the need for specific and general deterrence, she felt that in this case, publication of the Member’s name would be an additional and severe penalty. Counsel pointed out that the Member is a teacher who shows every indication of pursuing excellence. The Member acknowledged that he has transgressed boundaries and has undertaken remedial measures, including counselling and a course on ethical practices and appropriate boundaries. Counsel asked the Committee to take into account that the Member had resigned from his employment and that there were no previous sanctions from the College. Member’s counsel indicated that the Member has already paid a high price in terms of the loss of employment and difficulties he has experienced since these events. Counsel submitted that publishing the Member’s name amounts to shaming and may lead to further inappropriate discussion in the community, affecting the Member’s and the Student’s families. Publication may also inadvertently identify the Student, who still lives in the small community.
Counsel for the Member stated that the Member agreed to publication of the findings and this provides a general deterrence which notifies the profession that this type of conduct constitutes a boundary violation. Counsel further stated that adding the Member’s name to the publication does not increase general deterrence and does not serve the public interest.
PENALTY
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
(a) The Member is to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to be reprimanded and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such term, conditions and limitations to be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as they are fulfilled:
(i) prior to returning to any employment for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, and no less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of any such return, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from a certified psychologist or psychiatrist, approved in advance by the Registrar, stating that he or she has:
A. examined the Member, at the Member’s expense, no earlier than ninety (90) days before the intended date of return to work, and found that the Member is able to return to full-time classroom duties and other professional duties as a teacher or administrator without any undue risk of harm or injury to students; and
B. received and reviewed a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Member, who was a principal of an elementary school, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with an [XXX]-year old student from mid November 2009 until January 2010. His actions included loaning a Board-owned computer to the Student, engaging in ongoing electronic communications of a personal nature with the Student, meeting with the Student outside of the school context including in his own home, exchanging notes and gifts and accepting money from the Student. On numerous occasions the Member was alone in his office with the Student for extended periods of time, took her out for dinner alone to a restaurant and also sat alone with her in his car.
By his own admission, the Member acknowledged that his conduct towards the Student was in violation of professional boundaries. While the Member stated that he was providing assistance to the Student in relation to bullying she was experiencing, the Committee finds the Member’s conduct as described in the Statement of Uncontested Facts to be very serious; the Member’s response to the Student is incongruent with how a professional would address bullying. By engaging in an inappropriate personal relationship with a student, the Member showed a serious lack of judgment. As a teacher, and particularly in the role of principal, the Member held a position of trust and authority. Given that the Member had recently completed the Principal’s Qualification Program, which outlines the responsibilities of an administrator entrusted with the care and protection of students, his actions are especially troubling to the Committee.
The Committee finds that the actions of the Member were transgressions of a serious nature as it is essential for members of the profession to respect and model the boundaries of a student/teacher relationship.
The Committee determined that the reprimand was appropriate to remind the Member of his professional responsibilities and the need to maintain appropriate boundaries in order to uphold the standards of the profession. The Committee also determined that prior to returning to any employment for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member must provide a written certificate from a certified psychologist or psychiatrist, stating that he or she has examined the Member, at the Member’s expense, no earlier than ninety (90) days before the intended date of return to work, and found that
the Member is able to return to full-time classroom duties and other professional duties as a teacher or administrator without any undue risk of harm or injury to students.
The Committee acknowledged that the Member undertook seven sessions of counselling, and an additional five sessions of counselling by telephone. The Committee also considered the fact that the Member completed a training course in Ethical Practices and Boundaries. Had the Member not completed this course previously, the Committee would have recommended that he complete such a course.
The Committee orders publication of the findings and order with the name of the Member. The Committee felt there were compelling reasons to publish the Member’s name. In his role as an advocate for this vulnerable student, the public would expect that he would intervene with an appropriate strategy and behave in a responsible and respectful manner. Instead, the Member initiated an inappropriate personal relationship with the Student, which increased the emotional and psychological stress on the Student, putting her at greater risk for victimization. The Member’s actions comprised a serious breach of trust and showed a blatant lack of professional judgment. Publication with name is warranted and appropriate. The Committee determined that publication with the Member’s name is necessary in order to provide general deterrence to the teaching profession and specific deterrence to the Member. Publication also 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.
In conclusion, the Committee denounces such behaviour and is confident that the penalty serves the interest of the public and the profession.
Date: July 23, 2012
______________________________ Danny Anckle
Chair, Discipline Panel
Monika Ferenczy, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Darlene Mead, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel