Ontario College of Teachers v Forrest, 2013 ONOCT 22

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Forrest, 2013 ONOCT 22

Date: 2013-07-25

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

Christopher Andrew Forrest, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Stefanie Achkewich, OCT, Chair Mel Greif

Vicki Shannon, OCT

BETWEEN: ) ) Eli Mogil,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,

) Litigation Paraprofessional )

• and – )

) Christopher Andrew Forrest was not ) present or represented

CHRISTOPHER ANDREW FORREST )

(CERTIFICATE #433214) )

) Marc Spector,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: July 25, 2013

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on July 25, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated April 4, 2013 was served on Christopher Andrew Forrest, requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on May 6, 2013 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for July 25, 2013.

The Member was not present nor was he represented.

College Counsel submitted into evidence an Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo, sworn July 19, 2013 (Exhibit 3). The Affidavit confirmed that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and Disclosure Brief on or about April 10, 2013.

In a telephone conversation on April 16, 2013, the Member confirmed that he had received the package, and advised Ms. De Bartolo that he would not be contesting the allegations and he knew that he could no longer teach again.

By letter of June 24, 2013, the Member was made aware that the College would be seeking revocation of his Certificate and would be seeking publication of the decision with the name of the Member in the official publication of the College.

The Committee was satisfied that the Member was duly informed of the date and time of the hearing, and failing response from the Member, proceeded with the hearing in his absence.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against Christopher Andrew Forrest (the “Member”) in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Christopher Andrew Forrest is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1) 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 abused a student physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(c) he abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) he abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) 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);

(g) he contravened a law, the contravention of which may cause a student to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);

(h) 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

(i) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Christopher Andrew Forrest (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the District School Board of Niagara (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher, [XXX] tutor and [XXX] at [XXX] District Secondary School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. The Student was a [XXX] year old student at the School.

4. During the 2010-2011 academic year, the Member:

(a) had sexual contact with the Student;

(b) had an inappropriate personal relationship with the Student.

5. During the 2010-2011 academic year, the Member had a sexual relationship with the Student which included but was not limited to:

(a) touching the Student’s breasts;

(b) oral sex;

(c) sexual intercourse.

6. On or about August 7, 2012, the Member was found guilty of the following charge:

(a) that he between the 1st day of January in the year 2011 and the 17th day of June in the year 2011 at the Town of [XXX] in the Central West Region, being a person who was in a position of trust and authority towards a young person, with a part of his body, for a sexual purpose, directly touch the body of that young person, namely the Student, contrary to Section 153, subsection (1.1) of the Criminal Code (Canada).

7. On or about August 20, 2012, the Member was sentenced to one (1) year of incarceration and two (2) years’ probation.

8. The Member has not appealed the conviction and/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 therefore required to uphold this publication ban imposed in the matter of Her Majesty The Queen v. Christopher Andrew Forrest 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.

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 Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.

THE EVIDENCE

College Counsel entered into evidence the following additional documents:

Registered Member Information (Exhibit 2); and

Brief of Court Documents - Her Majesty The Queen v. Christopher Andrew Forrest (Exhibit 4).

The Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 4) with respect to the criminal proceedings against the Member submitted into evidence consisted of:

1. Certified Copy of Information (Found at Tab A);

2. Certified Copy of Probation Order dated August 20, 2012 (Found at Tab B);

3. Transcript of Proceedings at Guilty Plea before Madam Justice A.J. Watson at St. Catharines dated August 7, 2012 (Found at Tab C);

4. Transcript of Sentencing before Madam Justice A.J. Watson at St. Catharines dated August 20, 2012 (Found at Tab D).

The evidence presented in the Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 4) confirmed that on August 7, 2012, the Member pleaded and was found guilty of the charge: that he, between the 1st day of January and the 17th day of June in the year 2011, being a person who was in a position of trust and authority towards a young person, with a part of his body, for a sexual purpose, directly touch the body of that young person, namely the Student, contrary to section 153 (1.1) of the Criminal Code (Canada). The count of sexual assault was withdrawn at the request of the Crown Attorney.

On August 20, 2012, the Member was sentenced to twelve (12) months in jail to be followed by two (2) years of probation.

SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING

College Counsel submitted the Brief of Court documents (Exhibit 4) in support of the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. The Member was represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings, where he pled guilty to the charge of sexual exploitation.

College Counsel submitted that by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts in the criminal proceedings, and the fact that the allegations in the Notice of Hearing mirror that Agreed Statement, the Member has thereby admitted to the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing.

College Counsel stated that there was a gross breach of trust whereby the Member engaged in professional misconduct. Specifically over a 6-month period, the Member had an inappropriate personal relationship with a Student which included sexual contact. This behaviour resulted in the Member pleading to and being convicted of sexual exploitation.

College Counsel submitted that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of professional misconduct under all the heads of misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

DECISION

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by College Counsel, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Christopher Andrew Forrest committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1 (15), 1(16), 1 (17), 1(18) and 1(19).

The Committee further finds that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 and subsection 40(1.1) of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee accepts as fact, as detailed in the Brief of Court Documents contained within Exhibit 4 that on August 7, 2012, the Member was convicted of sexual exploitation.

On August 20, 2012 the Member was sentenced to twelve (12) months in jail to be followed by two (2) years of probation.

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 a certificate of conviction 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 Member has not appealed the conviction or the sentence.

During 2010-2011 academic year, the Member had sexual contact with a [XXX] year old student and had an inappropriate relationship with the Student. During the same academic year the Member had a sexual relationship with the Student which included but was not limited to: touching the Student’s breasts, oral sex and sexual intercourse.

The Committee finds that the Member’s actions and attendant criminal conviction for sexual exploitation constitute acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1 (15), 1(16), 1 (17), 1(18) and 1(19).

SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

College Counsel submitted that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and publication with name was the appropriate penalty for the gravity of the misconduct and was in line with previous decisions of the Discipline Committee with similar misconduct. Counsel presented several recent decisions in support of the penalty.

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) There shall 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 Committee finds the Member engaged in an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with a student while she was under his care and supervision. The Member was found to have contravened section 153 (1.1) of the Criminal Code in that he was in a position of trust and authority towards a young person (namely the student), with a part of his body, and for a sexual purpose, directly touch the body of that young person.

The six-month relationship began through chatting on Facebook, progressed to intimate conversations, followed by kissing and touching, oral sex, and culminated in sexual intercourse on three occasions. All incidents occurred in the Member’s classroom before the start of the school day. The student was [XXX] XXX when these offences occurred.

The Committee concurs with the submissions on penalty by College Counsel. The Committee finds that the Member engaged in reprehensible conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. This conduct is unacceptable and betrays the teacher’s obligation to protect his students. The Member abused the public trust in an egregious manner and has therefore lost the right to teach. Revocation is the penalty that is required in this case.

Revocation serves as both a specific and general deterrent as removing the Member from the classroom protects students and restores public confidence in the profession. Publication with name advises the profession that misconduct which breaches the teacher-student boundary, and violates the trust and authority vested in teachers, will result in significant consequences.

The Committee is satisfied that the finding and penalty protect the public interest and uphold the standards of the teaching profession.

Dated: July 25, 2013

______________________________ Stefanie Achkewich, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel ______________________________ Mel Greif Member, Discipline Panel

Vicki Shannon, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel