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 Marc Paul J. Bourgon, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Danny Anckle, Chair
Christine Bellini, OCT
Annilee Jarvis, OCT
BETWEEN: )
) Shane D’Souza,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Litigation Paraprofessional
-and- )
) Marc Paul J. Bourgon was not
) present, nor was he represented
MARC PAUL J. BOURGON )
(CERTIFICATE #161609) )
) Julie Maciura,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: November 20, 2012
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 20, 2012 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated August 6, 2009 was served on Marc Paul J. Bourgon (the “Member”), requesting his presence on September 21, 2009 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was initially set for February 2 and 3, 2010. The hearing finally occurred on November 20, 2012.
The Member was not present or represented.
College Counsel advised the Committee that the Member was seeking an adjournment of the hearing. College counsel provided an Affidavit and a Supplementary Affidavit of Annie Lacroix, litigation paraprofessional with McCarthy Tétrault detailing the chronology of communication with the Member from August 7, 2009 to November 19, 2012.
On November 9, 2009, College counsel notified the Member that this matter was scheduled for hearing on February 2 and 3, 2010. By way of a letter dated January 6, 2010 and received at the College on January 14, 2009, the Member made his first request for an adjournment of the hearing. On January 15, 2010, the manager of Intake & Hearings wrote to the Member requesting that, in support of his request for an adjournment, that the Member have his treating physician(s) provide a sufficiently detailed medical report verifying his diagnosis, treatment and prognosis and, specifically his inability to attend at the hearing of this matter. Medical records received on January 22, 2010 did not provide the requested information.
On January 29, 2010, via teleconference, the Chair of the Panel of the Discipline Committee considered the written request from the Member regarding the adjournment of the hearing based on medical reasons. The Member was aware of the teleconference but did not participate. At the request of the Member, and on consent of Counsel for the College, the Committee granted the Member’s request for an adjournment. In granting the adjournment, the Panel ordered that the Member provide by facsimile no later than 4:00 p.m. Monday February 1, 2010, additional medical documentation to substantiate the reasons why he could not proceed with the hearing scheduled February 2 and 3, 2010.
On February 24, 2010, by mutual agreement, the hearing was scheduled for May 26, 2010. The Member was further reminded to provide additional medical documentation which was to have been provided by February 1, 2010. In a letter dated May 14, 2010, the Member made a request for a second adjournment as he was awaiting surgery. This was supported by a doctor’s note. On May 21, 2010, the Chair of the Discipline Panel granted the adjournment on the conditions that the parties attend for a set date hearing on September 15, 2010 to set a date for the hearing of the matter. If the parties were unable to agree on September 15, 2010 to a date for the hearing, the Member needed to provide medical documentation to the Discipline Panel from his treating physician verifying his diagnosis, treatment and prognosis and a clear indication of when he might be able to attend a hearing. On September 4, 2010, the Member requested a postponement of the previously scheduled September 15th set date hearing. Included with this request was a doctor’s note which was similar to the note previously received. In light of this request the College agreed to reschedule the set date hearing, by teleconference, to October 18, 2010. By letter dated October 12, 2010, the Member indicated that he would not be available for a teleconference on October 18, 2010. As a result, the teleconference did not occur.
On March 17, 2011, the College advised the Member that given the number of postponements, the matter would be set for a hearing on October 3, 2011. The Member was advised that if he was unable to attend, he could authorize someone to act on his behalf and attend the hearing. On August 12, 2011, the College advised the Member that the hearing was rescheduled to October 12, 2011. On September 23, 2011, the College wrote a letter, sent by courier and by e-mail, to confirm the date of the hearing. On September 26, 2011, the Member requested a third adjournment and enclosed a doctor’s note identical to the one previously received with a new date. The College consented to this adjournment in a letter dated October 6, 2011.
On April 26, 2012, by e-mail, the College advised the Member that a set date hearing would be held by teleconference on May 23, 2012. On May 21, 2012 the College received an e-mail from the Member stating that he was in Buffalo receiving treatments. Counsel for the College persisted in attempting to reschedule this set date hearing. A teleconference was held on June 25, 2012, without the Member’s participation, resulting in a directive by the Chair of the Panel, for the Member to contact the Hearings Coordinator to set a date to schedule a teleconference. This teleconference was to take place prior to the end of September 2012 in order to set a hearing date. The Member did not respond. The set date teleconference was held on September 27, 2012 and the Chair of the Panel directed the Hearings Coordinator to schedule the hearing for November 20 and 21, 2012 and the Member was so notified.
On October 26, 2012 the Member’s representative wrote to the College seeking a further adjournment with a copy of a doctor’s note dated October 11, 2012. A second note dated October 11, 2012 was received from the same doctor containing slightly different information. On November 14, 2012, College Counsel informed the Member that the hearing would proceed on November 20 and 21, 2012 and that if he was seeking an adjournment he should do so formally, supported with up-to-date medical information from his current treating physicians, sent directly by the physicians to the College.
The hearing commenced on November 20, 2012 and the Committee considered the request for an adjournment of the hearing. The Committee considered the request and decided not to grant a fifth adjournment. Based on the terms of the Committee’s previous orders and directives and submissions from College Counsel, the Committee determined that there were insufficient reasons to grant another adjournment. In granting the previous adjournments, the Committee considered the health issues of the Member and his right to participate in the hearing.
The Committee attached specific conditions, including timelines, to the granting of each adjournment and the Member had indicated his agreement to these terms. These conditions were not met. The medical notes received from the Member did not provide a link between the Member’s medical condition and his ability to attend the hearing, and did not state when the Member might be able to attend a hearing. Further, the doctor’s notes did not provide confirmation of the medical events which the Member stated he has undergone.
College Counsel submitted that the College has made reasonable efforts on four occasions to ensure that the Member has a fair opportunity to provide his side of the story. The Member has not complied with the Orders set by the Discipline Committee, to provide medical documentation explaining why he could not attend or when he would be able to attend a hearing. The Member did not participate in any of the set date hearing teleconferences and the Member was advised he could participate in the November 20, 2012 hearing by teleconference.
The allegations against the Member date back to 2004 and the Notice of Hearing in this matter was issued on August 6, 2009. College Counsel stated that it was in the public interest to proceed in a timely manner. Numerous requests for postponement of the hearing were initiated by the Member and agreed to by the College as outlined in the Affidavit of Annie Lacroix (Exhibit 1 to the Adjournment Motion).
The Committee determined that there were not sufficient reasons, as detailed above, to grant a further adjournment and the Committee proceeded with the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Marc Paul J. Bourgon in the Notice of Hearing dated August 6, 2009 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Marc Paul J. Bourgon 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 section 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made thereunder, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(c) 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);
(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and
(e) he practised the profession while in a conflict of interest, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(26).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Marc Paul J. Bourgon (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (the “Board”) and taught English and Geography at the Secondary level at South Carleton High School in Richmond, Ontario and at Earl of March High School in Ottawa, Ontario (the “Schools”).
From in or about 2004 and through to the summer of 2007 and while employed by the Board, the Member personally and/or through companies owned, operated and/or controlled by him:
(a) promoted the sale of outdoor adventure trips to students at the Schools where he was employed;
(b) failed to provide refunds for cancelled trips;
(c) advised students that they could earn credits on the trips but failed to make the necessary arrangements to allow them to do so;
(d) stated that a student or students had completed academic work required for a credit when he knew or should have known that they had not satisfactorily done so;
(e) promised to provide an on-line credited course in exchange for payment, which course the Member knew or should have known did not have either the School or Board approval;
(f) as a result of the improper activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) above, subjected the Board to civil litigation.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was not present or represented by Counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
THE EVIDENCE
The College called two witnesses, Barry Bickerton and Martha Fox.
Evidence of Barry Bickerton
Barry Bickerton testified that he began as principal of South Carleton High School in September 2005. He confirmed that Marc Bourgon was a full-time teacher in the 2005-2006 school year. Mr. Bickerton stated that on September 19, 2005, the Member was assigned to fill in for an absent teacher. He stated the teacher left explicit instructions for that period and discovered the following day that the work had not been assigned. Instead, the Member brought and showed a promotional video to the class which featured the “western experience”, an outdoor program offered to students by Educational Tectonic Adventures Inc. (ETA).
Mr. Bickerton spoke with the Member and set up a meeting for September 29, 2005 and was advised he could have federation representation. At the meeting, the Member stated he had showed the video because there were students in the class who had older siblings who had attended the western experience. Mr. Bickerton stressed to the Member that this was a conflict of interest. However, the Member said he had no affiliation with ETA and suggested that the principal could confirm this by checking the ETA website.
Mr. Bickerton was aware of the ETA western experience program as it had been brought to his attention in January 2004 by a Superintendent in a letter indicating that neither ETA nor the western experience outdoor program was affiliated with or sanctioned by the Board.
Mr. Bickerton received two separate complaints from a student and a parent about money being owed for cancelled western experience trips. The parent sent e-mail communication from October 3 to November 28, 2005 showing the member’s affiliation with western experience and his use of the Board e-mail to conduct ETA business. On December 19, 2005, Mr. Bickerton forwarded this e-mail to the Member with a request to meet to discuss his affiliation with Western Experience. The principal met with the Member on January 12, 2006. In a follow-up e-mail dated January 12, 2006 (Exhibit 3), Mr. Bickerton sought input from Board personnel with respect to the situation. In the e-mail the principal states that the Member “does not believe he has done anything wrong in including the school’s name on the website, advertising pick-up/drop off at the school or running the Western Experience video in a class where he had been assigned an on call”. The principal further stated that the Member said he was reaffiliated with the company to assist in the transition to new ownership. The Member inquired about disciplinary action and was advised that a letter would be placed in his file. In this e-mail the Principal states that while he was writing the e-mail on January 12, 2006, he received a call from another family calling about monies paid to ETA, Inc. which had not been refunded even though their son wasn’t able to participate in the summer 2005 experience.
By way of a letter dated January 23, 2006, Mr. Bickerton wrote to the Member (Exhibit 4) outlining their previous conversations and detailing the issues raised regarding ETA and the Member’s conflict of interest. Mr. Bickerton wrote “I found your brief explanations to be illogical, poorly aligned with detailed information posted on the Company website, and contradictory”. He goes on to state “Your behaviour is a breach of professional ethics and of your duties and obligations as a teacher”. The letter advises the Member of his responsibilities relative to Board policies and procedures, requirements in the Education Act and the Teaching Profession Act. The letter directs the Member that no reference to South Carleton High School could appear on the ETA company website and he was no longer to accept phone calls at school regarding this company.
Mr. Bickerton testified that the Member was not present for Meet the Teacher night on February 9, 2006. The principal believes that the Member went on medical leave in February 2006 and did return to work for the remainder of the school year.
On February 27 and 28, 2006, Mr. Bickerton e-mailed the Member to inform him that two parents had contacted him regarding monies owed to them from ETA. (Exhibit 6) The February 28, 2006 e-mail from a parent also expressed concern that her step son might not be able to complete the academic workload for the curriculum credit offered by Western Experience. The parent was surprised to learn that Western Experience was neither school sanctioned nor board sanctioned as “Mr. Bourgon led us to believe that it was school sanctioned because we learned that J.R. would get a credit. I was surprised [Mr. Bickerton] when I learned from your email that it is not school or board sanctioned.”
On March 1, 2006, the parent faxed a package to Mr. Bickerton (Exhibit 7) of Western Experience 2006 information. This information package was presented at a video presentation made by the Member in a classroom at South Carleton High School. The package advised students, “We have been given permission by the Ontario Ministry of Education to certify this course as being acceptable for the granting of a Senior Social Science credit. Students who would like to complete the requirements for this grade 11 university streamed credit should contact our office for further information.”
The principal testified that one student did not graduate in June 2006 because he was one credit short for the OSSD. The missing credit was for the Western Experience social science credit. On June 27, 2006, the Member stated via telephone to the guidance counselor that the student had just earned his credit from Western Experience 2004 and that he had given him a mark of 77 per cent. The principal did not allow the credit because credits couldn’t be taken over the phone and because he was concerned about the quality of the work. This student did not graduate and had to return to school in September 2006 to earn the required credit. The principal further testified that prior to his arrival at the school, another student was not able to graduate in June 2005, due to a missing Western Experience credit.
Mr. Bickerton stated that there was a systemic, profound level of concern in the parental community, which he made significant efforts to address. “I think of parents a lot, I think of students a lot.” He commented on the feelings of those who could not graduate with their peers. He specifically commented on the Ministry of Education’s goal to increase public confidence in education and said that the Member’s actions had compromised this goal. Mr. Bickerton confirmed that as a result of the Member’s actions the school board was a defendant in a class action lawsuit involving 79 parents (Exhibit 9) who were seeking refunds for monies paid to Educational Adventures and ETA.
Mr. Bickerton stated he was aware of a further class action law suit against the Member. The Committee was presented with a Statement of Claim against the Member and Educational Adventures and ETA (Exhibit 10).
Evidence of Martha Fox
Martha Fox testified she is a parent of a student who attended a video presentation during school hours, given by the Member in the spring of 2006 at a Catholic secondary school. She provided the Committee with a copy of the brochure entitled Western Experience 2007 (Exhibit 11) that was handed out by the Member at the presentation. The introductory letter is dated April 1, 2006 and is signed by Marc Bourgon, Program Director.
Mrs. Fox was enthused about the opportunity for her daughter to go on this trip. She went to the ETA website, discussed this with her husband and made payment in full to take advantage of the Early Payment Discount Program outlined in the brochure. Mrs. Fox presented the website materials which showed the Member to be C.E.O. and Company Director of Educational Tectonic Adventures (Exhibit 12). She tendered copies of two cheques that she had paid to ETA, one for $1,750.00 which covered the cost of the trip and one for $149.00 which the Member had requested for a fuel surcharge (Exhibit 13).
Mrs. Fox stated that she attended a presentation at the AMC theatre in Kanata on November 18, 2006 where she estimated 150 people were present, both students and parents. She indicated that this was an inspirational slide presentation given by the Member. Mrs. Fox inquired about the grade 11 credit being offered and the Member told her to e-mail him at the ETA website. There were many e-mails and voice mails regarding the credit, most of which were unanswered. She eventually was told by James McIntyre (the Program Director of Western Experience) that the credit was not allowed. She stated that she was disappointed but nonetheless she still wanted her daughter to take the trip scheduled for July 2007.
Mrs. Fox testified that at the beginning of June 2007 she learned that the trip was postponed until August 2007. The reason given for the postponement was flooding in Banff and the trails were not safe. However Mrs. Fox stated that she was in Banff on business on June 20, 2007 and did not observe any signs of flooding.
Mrs. Fox stated that as her daughter had a summer job lined up, she could not attend the Western Experience rescheduled to August. On June 23, 2007, Mr. Fox completed an Educational Adventures Intent Form requesting a refund of monies paid (Exhibit 15).
Mrs. Fox provided an e-mail chain of her communications with the Member starting on June 21, 2007 to September 11, 2007 regarding the refund (Exhibits 16, 17 & 18). No response was received until September 11, 2007 when she received an e-mail informing her that a letter was being sent to all parents. Mrs. Fox phoned the Member on September 17, 2007 to say that she had not yet received this letter. In this phone call, he assured her that the letter had been mailed out on September 13th and that all details were included in the letter. The Member further stated that refunds should be received by the end of September. Mrs. Fox relayed this information in an e-mail dated September 17, 2017, to other parents. (Exhibit 20)
On September 22, 2007, Mrs. Fox filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau against Educational Adventures (formerly Educational Tectonic Adventures). (Exhibit 21)
Mrs. Fox did receive a form letter from the Member as Program Director of ETA, post-marked September 24, 2007 indicating that the company was confident they could proceed with refunds “at the earliest possible opportunity”. (Exhibit 19) Mrs. Fox responded to the letter by e-mail on October 1st requesting a date for the refund. She followed up on October 3rd, by phoning the Member’s new school and was informed by staff that the Member “does not return voice mails or e-mails”. (Exhibit 19)
Mrs. Fox attended a meeting with other parents regarding starting a class action law suit but decided not to participate because the lawyers wanted money up front and would only process five claims at a time. Instead, she decided to go to Small Claims Court. On November 9, 2007, she filed a Plaintiff’s Claim against Marc Bourgon and Educational Tectonic Adventures Inc., a copy of which she personally delivered to the Member at his home. Mrs. Fox testified that she received a judgment for the amount claimed but was not able to recover any funds. She eventually abandoned her efforts to obtain the funds.
DECISION
Having considered the evidence and onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and information received on behalf of the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Marc Paul J. Bourgon committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19) and 1(26).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Based on the evidence and testimony of Mr. Bickerton and Mrs. Fox, and exhibits filed, the Committee finds that the Member, while employed by the Board, personally and/or through companies owned, operated and/or controlled by him:
(a) promoted the sale of outdoor adventure trips to students at the schools where he was employed;
(b) failed to provide refunds for cancelled trips;
(c) advised students that they could earn credits on the trips but failed to make the necessary arrangements to allow them to do so;
(d) stated that a student or students had completed academic work required for a credit when he knew or should have known that they had not satisfactorily done so;
(f) as a result of the improper activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above, subjected the Board to civil litigation.
The Member’s behaviour negatively impacted students and parents and brought disrepute to the profession. Trips were promoted over several years to his own and other schools, sometimes during class. The Member used his school e-mail and phone to communicate information about trips. Promotional materials on the website referenced the school as a marshaling point for pick-up and drop-off for ETA related activities. This misled the community to believe that the school board had endorsed the ETA programs. The Member ignored warnings from administration not to conduct ETA business through the school, and that this was a conflict of interest. By promoting his private business and soliciting clients using school resources, the Member was in a conflict of interest while practicing the profession.
The Committee heard evidence that the Member promised trips that he failed to deliver, and when parents sought to get a refund, the Member failed to provide refunds. The Member placed school administrators in the difficult position of having to respond to parental complaints, which they had no ability to resolve. This resulted in a small claims suit being filed by Mrs. Fox, and two class action law suits, filed by members of the parent community against the Member and the Board. By this behaviour, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. His actions were unprofessional and reflect conduct unbecoming a member.
The Member promised students that they could earn credits for their participation in the trips organized by his company but he failed to make the necessary arrangements to allow them to do so. The Committee accepted the evidence of Mr. Bickerton that at least two students relied on these credits to graduate but were unable to do so. In one case, the member attempted to submit the course mark over the phone for work assigned two years prior. This was not an acceptable method of reporting students’ marks. The Principal also was concerned about the quality of work submitted after such a lapse in time and did not award the credit. These students were under the assumption that they had received the credit and did not find out until graduation day that they had not. This failure on the Member’s part to make the necessary arrangements to award these credits caused these students to not graduate. Parents send their children to school with the expectation that they can trust their teachers and that students are properly educated. The Member abused this trust and his behaviour is both disgraceful and dishonourable. By his actions, the Member failed to teach diligently and faithfully and therefore did not comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act.
No evidence was heard on 3. (e) in the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member promised to provide an on-line credited course in exchange for payment, which course the Member knew or should have known did not have either the School or Board approval. The Committee therefore makes no finding with respect to this allegation.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration; and
Pursuant to subsection 30 (5) paragraph 3 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the findings and order of the Committee shall be published in summary, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Member’s misconduct occurred over several years in the face of repeated warnings from administration. It involved many schools, including schools where the Member was not instructing. His actions were deliberate and reckless. The Member denied any affiliation with ETA despite information to the contrary on the website, and in brochures and presentations. He knew how his strategies for promoting the ETA programs would be received by students and parents. He knew that conducting ETA business during school hours, soliciting participants and promoting ETA using school resources was a conflict of interest.
Further, the Member put his own interests above those of his students by taking their money, their hopes and their dreams. He promised great adventures that did not materialize and for which students were not refunded. By the Member’s actions, at least two students failed to graduate when they should have. The memories the students have are not the ones they signed up for.
The Member brought the profession into disrepute through his actions. He lied to his administrator; he disregarded clear directions regarding the conflict of interest between his company, ETA, and the profession; he used his position as a teacher to exploit students and their families for his own personal financial gain; he was deliberately evasive when parents started inquiring about refunds for cancelled trips; he showed disrespect for colleagues by putting them in the position of having to answer for his actions and lack of accountability; and he placed the Board in a vulnerable position which ultimately resulted in parents initiating a class action law suit against the Board.
In summary, the Member jeopardized the reputation of the profession and compromised public confidence in the public education system. He brought the profession into disrepute.
The Committee finds the Member’s conduct to be disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unbecoming a member of the profession. The Member abused the authority and trust vested in him in his role as a teacher, without regard for the well-being of students. The conduct of the Member was unacceptable and in conflict with his duties as a teacher. The Committee noted that even while on medical leave from his teaching responsibilities, the Member proceeded to solicit ETA business in a neighbouring school board, during school hours, as evidenced by his brochure and website (Exhibits 11 & 12). Despite numerous warnings and complaints, the Member was not dissuaded from his behaviour. He persisted in disregarding his professional responsibilities and continued to cause harm to students, the school community and his employer. The Committee believes revocation of this Member’s certificate is necessary as a specific deterrent in order to prevent him from continuing professional misconduct. The Committee concludes that if this Member retains a teaching certificate, he will continue to take advantage of both students and the profession for his personal and financial gain, as he has repeatedly demonstrated.
The Committee orders publication of the finding and order with the name of the Member. Publication, in summary serves to act as a general deterrent by making members of the profession aware that when a teacher crosses the line and takes advantage of students, such actions are not taken lightly. Publication further reinforces for members the importance of understanding conflict of interest and its consequences. Publication of the findings enhances the transparency of the discipline process and demonstrates the College’s commitment to holding errant members accountable for their actions.
Publication of the findings and order of the Committee, in summary, along with the name of the Member, in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession advises the profession of the nature of the Member’s misconduct and the consequences for such grievous behaviour. The Committee finds there are compelling reasons to publish this Member’s name. Parents and students expect teachers to be trustworthy and responsible. This Member did not meet these expectations and his actions created a serious breach of trust. The consequences of his misconduct had both a financial and emotional impact on students and their families. Publication, with the Member’s name is warranted and necessary to demonstrate to him that his conduct is unacceptable in the eyes of the profession and the public. Publication serves the public interest by informing and assuring the community that the profession acts decisively when matters of this nature are brought to its attention. The College cannot restore public confidence in this Member, but can show that it is accountable and transparent.
In conclusion, the Committee is confident that the finding and penalty order serves and protects the interests of the public and the profession.
Date: December 7, 2012 ______________________________
Danny Anckle
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Annilee Jarvis, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel