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 Alexander Wood, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Pauline Smart, Chair Christine Bellini, OCT Annilee Jarvis, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS David Leonard, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Daniela De Bartolo, Litigation Paraprofessional
- and –
MICHAEL ALEXANDER WOOD (CERTIFICATE #196227) Michael Alexander Wood on his own behalf, in person
Rebecca Durcan, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: October 31, 2012
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION, AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on October 31, 2012 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated March 8, 2012 was served on Michael Alexander Wood, requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on April 2, 2012 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for October 31, 2012.
THE ALLEGATIONS
IT IS ALLEGED that Michael Alexander Wood 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, 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 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).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Michael Alexander Wood (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] (the “School”) in Peterborough, Ontario.
On or about April 14, 2009, the Member was criminally charged in that he on or about June 14, 2008, at the Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, in the County of Peterborough, unlawfully did commit a sexual assault on a female person, contrary to provisions of Section 271 of the Criminal Code (Canada).
On or about February 4, 2011, the Member was found guilty of the charge described in paragraph 3 above.
On or about May 16, 2011, the Member was sentenced to two (2) years less one day of imprisonment and three (3) years of probation.
The Member has not appealed the conviction and/or sentence.
MEMBER’S PLEA
The Member entered a plea of no contest to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1).
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
The Member provided 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.
THE EVIDENCE
Counsel for the College entered into evidence the following additional documents:
Registered Member Information (Exhibit 2);
Brief of Court Documents-Her Majesty The Queen v. Michael Alexander Wood (Exhibit 3);
The Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 3) with respect to the criminal proceedings against the Member submitted into evidence consisted of:
Certified Copy of Information dated April 14, 2009 (Found at Tab A);
Certified Copy of Indictment dated April 22, 2010 (Found at Tab B);
Certified Copy of Certificate of Conviction dated May 18, 2011 (Found at Tab C);
Certified Copy of Probation Order dated May 16, 2011 (Found at Tab D);
Certified Copy of Prohibition Order dated May 16, 2011 (Found at Tab E);
Transcript of Reasons for Judgment and Ruling on Application before Mr. Justice B.G. MacDougall at Peterborough dated February 4, 2011 (Found at Tab F); and
Transcript of Reasons for Sentence before Mr. Justice B.G. MacDougall at Peterborough dated May 16, 2011 (Found at Tab G);
The evidence presented in the Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 3) confirmed that on February 4, 2011, the Member was convicted of the charge of sexual assault by intercourse and/or touching of a sexual nature without consent, contrary to section 271, of the Criminal Code (Canada). Further, the Member was sentenced on May 16, 2011 to two (2) years less one day in custody and three (3) years of probation.
The Member has not appealed the conviction or sentence.
PUBLICATION BAN
A non-publication, non-broadcast and non-transmission order was issued under subsection 486.4 of the Criminal Code (Canada), in the 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 v. Michael Alexander Wood by the Superior 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 and the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Michael Alexander Wood committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
In June 2008 the Member and the victim were at a cottage for a retirement party for a [XXX], along with several other [XXX]. The Member and two male [XXX] had planned to leave the cottage and return home that evening. However, having consumed alcohol, they decided to stay over. The sleeping arrangement was that the victim was to share one bed with another female [XXX] in a bunkie. Sometime after the victim had fallen asleep, she was awakened to a “rocking motion” and felt someone behind her. She realized a male person was in bed with her and engaging in sexual intercourse without her consent. She made repeated attempts to have the person stop; however he persisted. As a result of DNA testing, the Member was arrested and charged and convicted of sexual assault against the victim. (Exhibit 3, Tab F)
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 3, that the Member was convicted of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code (Canada). The conviction was entered on February 4, 2011.
The Member was sentenced on May 16, 2011 to two (2) years less one day in custody and three (3) years of probation. The Member did not appeal the conviction or sentence.
The Member’s plea of no contest, in accordance with Rule 3.02(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, allows the Committee to accept as correct the facts referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 in the “Particulars of the Allegations” in the Notice of Hearing, for the purposes of this proceeding only. The Committee is also permitted to accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct for the purposes of this proceeding only and that such finding can be made without a hearing.
The Committee finds the Member’s actions towards a [XXX] to be unprofessional, disgraceful, dishonourable and conduct unbecoming a member. Further, he failed to maintain the standards of the profession by showing disregard and disrespect for another person’s safety and well-being. The Member’s conviction for sexual assault of a [XXX] is a contravention of a law, the contravention of which is relevant to his suitability to hold a Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY-COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE
Counsel for the College submitted that the Member’s certificate be revoked and that his name be published in the official publication of the College. Counsel stated that revocation was the only penalty that is appropriate, given the gravity of the offence. Counsel reiterated that the sexual assault was against a [XXX] and that the Member had been criminally convicted. Counsel reinforced that any penalty less than revocation would erode public confidence in the profession. Counsel submitted that this hearing was open to the public and therefore publication with name should follow in order to strengthen transparency of the discipline process.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY-THE MEMBER
The Member did not want revocation of his certificate. He indicated he loved teaching and had started at a young age. While incarcerated, he tutored inmates to help them get their high school diplomas. He indicated that throughout the criminal process, he had support from family, former students and staff and the community. The Member submitted that he had paid his dues while incarcerated and wanted a second chance so he could teach. He suggested that he could keep his certificate but with limitations placed on it so that he would not be able to teach in the public school system. The Member felt that he could make a contribution to society if allowed to teach in correctional facilities. In addition, the Member presented a letter from an instructor in the facility in which he was incarcerated (Exhibit 4) attesting to the Member’s contributions.
When asked, the Member indicated he was not opposed to publication with name.
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 Member was charged and convicted of sexual assault of a [XXX]. He was sentenced to two years less a day and placed on probation for three years. The Member contravened a criminal law and his conduct constitutes a serious error in judgment and is unbecoming a member of the profession. The Committee agrees with Justice MacDougall (Exhibit 3, Tab G), in his reasons for sentencing, that
“…our law considers serious sexual assaults such as non-consensual sexual intercourse to be a crime of violence. This act of violence causes harm particularly to the victim but also to society. It is a crime that constitutes a serious violation of a person’s body and an equally serious violation of their sexual autonomy and freedom of choice. There is also, intrinsic to this violation, the likelihood of other very real psychological or emotional harm to the victim.”
Justice MacDougall also stated that the Member “took advantage of a very vulnerable victim” and “engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with all of its inherent risks to the victim.”
Further, the Member and the victim were not only [XXX] but also [XXX]. The Member violated the trust of this [XXX] in order to satisfy his own sexual needs.
The Committee noted Justice MacDougall’s statement that the Member had two prior criminal convictions involving alcohol and that after being charged he continued to show a lack of judgment by breaching his bail terms on two occasions. The Committee agrees that the Member’s actions constitute a serious lack of judgment.
As a result of his shameful conduct, the Member has forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession. The Committee determined that revocation is the appropriate penalty for conduct of this severity. The Committee considered the submissions of College Counsel and the Member with respect to publication and orders publication of the findings, in summary, with the name of the Member. Publication acts as a specific and general deterrent and informs the profession that such conduct will not be countenanced and will result in revocation.
In conclusion, the Committee is confident that the penalty serves the interest of the public and the profession.
Dated: November 29, 2012
Pauline Smart, Chair Chair, Discipline Panel
Christine Bellini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Annilee Jarvis, OCT Member, Discipline Panel