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 Hugues Joseph Marcel Latour, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair
Monika Ferenczy, OCT
Darlene Mead, OCT
BETWEEN: )
) Christine Lonsdale,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
) Hugues Joseph Marcel Latour
HUGUES JOSEPH MARCEL LATOUR ) was not present nor was he
(CERTIFICATE #510227) ) represented by counsel.
) Paul Marshall,
) Emond Harnden LLP,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: January 22 and June 3, 2013
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on January 22, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated March 30, 2012, was served on Hugues Joseph Marcel Latour (the “Member”) requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on May 10, 2012 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for January 22, 2013.
At the hearing, however, a motion for adjournment was put forward by Counsel for the College. The Notice of Hearing became Exhibit 1 and the Committee was seized of the matter and granted the adjournment. The hearing continued on June 3, 2013.
The Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was he represented by legal counsel.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated March 30, 2012, are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Hugues Joseph Marcel Latour is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1) of the Act in that:
he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and as described in section 1 of the Act;
he failed to comply with the Act or the Regulations, or Bylaws, made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
he failed to comply with the Education Act or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
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);
he contravened a law, the contravention of which has caused a student under the Member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);
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
he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED that Hugues Joseph Marcel Latour is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 437/97, section 2, in that a finding of professional misconduct or a similar finding against Hughes Joseph Marcel Latour was made by the governing authority of the teaching profession in the Northwest Territories that is based on facts that would, in the Committee’s opinion, constitute professional misconduct as defined in section 1, in particular the aforementioned subsections.
At the hearing, the Committee agreed to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of subsections 1(7.1) and 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 made under the Act, as set out in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Notice of Hearing.
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Hugues Joseph Marcel Latour (the “Member”) is a member of the College.
The Member had an interim teaching certificate issued by the Northwest Territories (“N.W.T.”).
At all material times, the Member was employed by the [XXX] as a teacher.
Following a hearing on August 6, 2010 into allegations of unprofessional conduct against the Member, the Ministry of Education of the Northwest Territories (the “Ministry”) cancelled the Member’s teaching certificate, effective September 24, 2010.
The Hearing Committee of the Northwest Territories Ministry of Education [the “N.W.T. Committee”], which is the governing authority of the teaching profession in N.W.T., found the following facts in finding the Member guilty of unprofessional conduct:
(a) The Member was a teacher at [XXX] School;
(b) Student “A” was a student in Grade [XXX] at [XXX] School;
(c) The student turned [XXX] years old on April 2, 2009 and she graduated from [XXX] School at the end of June 2009;
(d) The Member was “grooming” Student “A”;
(e) The Member encouraged Student “A” to join the [XXX] which he supervised;
(f) The Member helped Student “A” to find a partner so that the [XXX] could continue and would be able to compete in the [XXX] competition;
(g) The Member gave Student “A” private tutorials and assistance with [XXX] editing;
(h) The Member allowed Student “A” to work alone in his classroom;
(i) The Member invited Student “A” to his home;
(j) The Member sublet his apartment to Student “A”;
(k) The Member gave wine to Student “A” on the night that he began a sexual relationship with her;
(l) The Member invited Student “A” to go with him to [XXX] because she could [XXX] a whale hunt from the boat whereas the Member could not;
(m) During the three or four nights of the trip, the Member and Student “A” slept together in the same tent with others;
(n) Two weeks after Student “A”s graduation from high school, she and the Member began a sexual relationship;
(o) Student “A” gave birth to the Member’s son;
(p) The Member lied about his relationship with Student “A” during the first and second interviews with the Ministry on September 29 and October 16, 2009;
(q) Even during the third interview, the Member gave the false impression that his sexual relationship with Student “A” had ended;
(r) The Member took Student “A” to [XXX] for his own benefit so he [sic] could [XXX] a whale hunt, which the Member could not do;
(s) The Member served alcohol to students who were legally unable to drink;
(t) The Member invited some [XXX]-year-old female students and former students to his apartment to watch the movie “True Blood”;
(u) The Member invited some former students who were now [XXX] years old to his apartment to colour his hair;
(v) The Member allowed a [XXX]-year-old student to visit his apartment unaccompanied by another adult.
MEMBER’S PLEA
Because the Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was he represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the assumption that he denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE
Counsel for the College referred to the charges set out in the Notice of Hearing, to the effect that the Member was guilty of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 (Professional Misconduct) made under the Act.
Counsel for the College confined herself to one piece of evidence, the testimony of the Registrar of N.W.T., and produced 10 supporting documents.
Counsel for the College produced the following documents at the hearing:
Exhibit 1 – Notice of Hearing dated March 30, 2012
Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of Annie Lacroix (sworn January 18, 2013)
Exhibit 3 – Affidavit of Annie Lacroix (sworn May 29, 2013)
Exhibit 4 – Affidavit of service of [XXX], dated May 30, 2013
Exhibit 5 – The Member’s information from the College’s public register (accessed June 3, 2013)
Exhibit 6 – Decision of Hearing Committee concerning Mr. H. Latour, decision dated August 6, 2010 [N.B.: only the last 8 pages of this decision were produced; i.e., pages 31 to 37.]
Exhibit 7 – Hand-written letter from the Member to the Ministry dated December 28, 2012 (an English translation of this letter is included)
Exhibit 8 – Response from the Minister, dated February 22, 2013, to the Member’s letter (an English translation of this letter is included)
Exhibit 9 – Statement of Professional Standing – Letter dated March 8, 2012
Exhibit 10 – Letter from Joyce McLean, Registrar of the Northwest Territories to Ontario College of Teachers, RE: Cancelled NWT Teaching Certificate. Letter dated October 7, 2010.
The Member’s Absence from the Hearing
After reading the affidavits of Annie Lacroix and [XXX], the Committee is satisfied that every possible attempt was made to notify the Member:
A telephone conversation (Exhibit 2) between Ms. Filgiano, Counsel for the College, and the Member indicated that he wished to plead not guilty at the hearing. After several attempts to communicate with the Member through the Member’s criminology social worker (“the Social Worker”), however, the Member further indicated that he did not wish to proceed with his case until his release from prison. Ms. Lonsdale, Counsel for the College, therefore advised the Member in writing that the College had decided to proceed to a hearing on January 22, 2013, and that if the Member objected to this hearing date, he should send her a written request for adjournment (Exhibit 2, Tab H). In response to this letter, the Member refused to set the hearing for January 22, 2013, his position being that the hearing should not proceed until after the criminal process for which he was currently imprisoned had been completed. On December 18, 2012, the lawyer wrote to the Member to inform him that the College would agree to the adjournment, but required that a date be set. She also informed the Member, however, that the College would not agree to defer this hearing until his incarceration was over. Counsel for the College received no response, and the hearing went ahead on the scheduled date. In view of the Member’s incarceration, however, and to avoid significant prejudice to the Member, it was held in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (holding a hearing electronically), and a motion was brought before the Committee requesting an adjournment of the hearing. While the motion was proceeding, the Social Worker contacted Counsel for the College to inform them that the Member would not attend at this hearing on the motion. The motion was heard and the Committee decided to agree to the request for adjournment, postponing the hearing date to June 3, 2013.
In agreeing to a four-month adjournment, the Committee considered that this timeframe would give the Member an opportunity to consult a lawyer, prepare his case and make all the other material arrangements so that he could attend the hearing.
After the hearing on the motion, Counsel for the College made several attempts to contact the Member again, without success. They learned gradually that the Member’s incarceration in N.W.T. was over and that his new address was in Alexandria, Ontario. They therefore attempted to send him notice that the hearing would proceed before a committee on June 3, 2013, but this letter was refused, as shown in the documentation from Canada Post, Tab I, Exhibit 3.
Annie Lacroix’s affidavit states clearly that the most recent letter was redirected to an address in Alexandria, Ontario. The College’s lawyer tried several times to contact the Member, by telephone, by registered mail and by delivery of the Notice of Hearing to this address by a process server. Furthermore, on May 29, 2013, Annie Lacroix reached the Member’s mother by telephone at the address in Alexandria. In the conversation with Ms. Lacroix, Ms. Latour said that she would do her best to inform her son of the hearing on June 3, 2013 at the College.
[XXX], process server for the City of Cornwall, also made three attempts to deliver the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) in person on March 30, 2012. All three delivery attempts were unsuccessful. On the third attempt, the document was affixed to the door of the Member’s address, Exhibit 4 (photographs).
The Committee is therefore satisfied that Counsel for the College did her best to communicate with the Member, and that the Member was aware of the date and terms of the hearing.
Proof of Membership
Counsel for the College produced two proofs of membership. At all material times, the Member was employed as a teacher under the jurisdiction of the N.W.T. Ministry of Education. According to the Statement of Professional Standing, between July 18, 2007 and September 24, 2010, the Member held an Interim Professional Teaching Certificate in N.W.T. (Exhibit 9).
In addition, the Member has held an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate since February 2, 2007 (Exhibit 5).
Decision by the N.W.T. Committee
The document entitled Hearing Committee Appointed Under the Education Staff Regulations, Concerning Mr. H. Latour, DECISION, Exhibit 6, specifically pages 31 and 32 of the written decision, drafted in N.W.T., states that the purpose of this Discipline Committee is to determine whether the Member’s teaching certificate should be cancelled or suspended. The issues relating to the Member’s actions are:
Conduct inconsistent with a proper student-teacher relationship;
A sexual relationship between Mr. Latour and an [XXX] year old female student commencing within days of her Grade [XXX] graduation;
Mr. Latour taking advantage of his position of trust over the student to form a close relationship that was not accidental in nature and that developed into a sexual relationship.
The College asked Joyce McLean to explain the disciplinary procedures involving teachers in N.W.T.:
Joyce McLean
Ms. McLean is the Registrar for Teacher Certification at the Ministry of Education, Culture & Employment in Yellowknife, N.W.T. Her testimony was given in English.
The Committee learned during the testimony that there is only one registrar in N.W.T., that the N.W.T. Ministry of Education does not deal with many discipline-related cases and that the Latour case is the most recent teacher discipline procedure.
The Registrar went on to discuss the procedure leading to the cancellation of the Member’s certificate. To cancel or suspend a teaching certificate and handle any matters of this kind, the Ministry appoints a discipline committee, on a case-by-case basis, charged with investigating a complaint against a teacher.
Based on the testimony and the exhibits produced in this case, the Committee noted that:
the complaint against the Member began in the [XXX]
the Member was a teacher for the [XXX]
the hearing was held on July 14, 2010 and ended on July 16, 2010
the written decision is dated August 6, 2010
the Member was in attendance at this hearing in N.W.T., but was not represented by legal counsel. (Exhibit 6)
Ms. McLean referred to the Hearing Committee Appointed Under the Education Staff Regulations, Concerning Mr. H. Latour, DECISION, Exhibit 6, when explaining the decision made with regard to the Member.
This document contains the highlights of the decision, but some information has been concealed in accordance with the Privacy Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21), while complying with the requirements of the Access to Information Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1).
After reading the document and hearing Ms. McLean’s explanations, the Committee noted that:
- The document indicates clearly that the N.W.T. committee’s findings with respect to the Member’s conduct relate to “grooming” behaviour and the initiation of a sexual relationship with aggravating factors which constitute unprofessional conduct, according to the decision made by the committee:
The Hearing Committee also finds that there was “grooming behaviour” by Mr. Latour with respect to [XXX] The Hearing Committee understands grooming behaviour occurs when a person in authority, such as a teacher, uses threats, tactics and rewards to work up to inappropriate relationships.
Elements of grooming behaviour are:
Mr. Latour's continued encouragement of [XXX] to join the [XXX];
Mr. Latour assisting [XXX] to find [XXX] as a partner, so that the [XXX] would continue, and would be able to complete in the [XXX] competition;
Mr. Latour giving [XXX] private tutorials and assistance in [XXX] editing;
Mr. Latour allowing [XXX] to work alone in his classroom;
[XXX] being invited over to Mr. Latour’s apartment;
Mr. Latour subletting his apartment to [XXX]
Mr. Latour giving wine to [XXX] the night that they began their sexual relationship.
While some of these activities may by themselves be harmless, collectively they are all evidence of Mr. Latour grooming [XXX] The Hearing Committee finds this to be an aggravating factor.
For these reasons, the Hearing Committee has determined that Mr. Latour had engaged in unprofessional conduct on the part of the teacher. That is grounds for the suspension or cancellation of a teaching certificate, under section 44(b) of the Regulations. (Exhibit 6, p.36)
- The N.W.T. committee instructed the Registrar of the Northwest Territories to cancel the Member’s teaching certificate:
The Hearing Committee will instruct the Registrar to cancel the teaching certificate of Hugues Latour. (Exhibit 6, p.36)
This Committee also learned that the Member had tried to appeal this decision in 2012 (Exhibit 7), giving as his reason, “… I was refused a hearing in my mother tongue, French, and French-language legal representation by the NWT Teachers’ Association. This procedural error was highly prejudicial to me. Furthermore, I was not guilty of any unprofessional conduct and I was dismissed illegally by the [XXX].”
In response to the Member’s letter, N.W.T. Minister Jackson Lafferty advised the Member that he had 30 days to submit a request for a review of the cancellation of his N.W.T. teaching certificate and that if no request for review was submitted, the Member’s teaching certificate would be cancelled once the time limit for the request for review had elapsed (Exhibit 8).
The Committee noted that the decision written in N.W.T. is dated August 6, 2010 (Exhibit 6), the Member’s teaching certificate was cancelled on September 24, 2010 (Exhibit 10) and the letter from the Member requesting a new hearing and contesting the cancellation of his teaching certificate is dated December 28, 2012 (Exhibit 7).
DECISION
Having examined the exhibits filed, and based on the evidence and the submissions made by Counsel for the College, the Discipline Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19), as set out in the Notice of Hearing.
The Committee also finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 437/97, section 2, in that a finding of professional misconduct or a similar finding against the Member was made by the governing authority of the teaching profession in N.W.T. that is based on facts that would, in the Committee’s opinion, constitute professional misconduct as defined in section 1, in particular the aforementioned subsections.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The decision by the Committee is based on section 2 of Ontario Regulation 437/97 made under the Act.
This section confers on the Committee the discretion to accept as fact every element in the N.W.T. decision. Section 2 reads as follows:
A finding of incompetence, professional misconduct or a similar finding against a member by a governing authority of the teaching profession in a jurisdiction other than Ontario that is based on facts that would, in the opinion of the Discipline Committee, constitute professional misconduct as defined in section 1, is defined as professional misconduct for the purposes of subsection 30 (2) of the Act.
Counsel for the College produced evidence showing that the Member was found guilty of professional misconduct in N.W.T. and his teaching certificate was cancelled.
A number of facts in the N.W.T. decision (Exhibit 6) are identical to those in the Notice of Hearing, Exhibit 1. The most material show clearly that the Member engaged in “grooming” behaviour with a student at his school (Student “A”), that he encouraged her to join the [XXX] he supervised, gave her [XXX] editing tutorials and private help and allowed her to work alone in his classroom. More seriously, the Member asked Student “A” to go with him to [XXX] to [XXX] a whale hunt because the Member could not. The Member subsequently invited her to his apartment (he sublet the same apartment to her), and gave her wine during an evening with her in which they began a sexual relationship. This relationship continued and Student “A” gave birth to the Member’s son.
The Committee also noted the evidence that the Member denied this relationship when he was interviewed in N.W.T., as shown on pages 32 and 33 of Exhibit 6:
Mr. Latour was interviewed three times by the Investigators; On September 29, 2009, October 16, 2009 and October 21, 2009;
In all three interviews, Mr. Latour was asked whether he had a physical relationship with a student or former student. In the first interview, Mr. Latour denied having such a relationship, and he characterized that as “sick”.
In the second interview, Mr. Latour again denied having such a relationship. Mr. Latour was then presented with the Facebook e-mail exchange between [XXX] [an individual unidentified during the College hearing] and Mr. Latour. The interview ended soon after that, at the request of Mr. Latour’s NWTTA representative.
In the third interview Mr. Latour read a written statement. That statement included a reference to “an intimate and private moment that happened in the summer” between [XXX] [Student “A”] and Mr. Latour. Mr. Latour was asked if this was a sexual relationship between [XXX] [Student “A”] and Mr. Latour. He confirmed that it was;
The Committee also noted that other facts support the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, Exhibit 1:
By initiating and maintaining a sexual relationship with a student, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
The Member exploited the vulnerability of an [XXX]-year-old student while occupying a position of trust and authority. He abused the student psychologically or emotionally and sexually, contrary to subsections 1(7.2) and 1(7.3), by initiating an intimate relationship with her.
The Committee further considers that the Member’s conduct constitutes a breach of his duties under section 264 of the Education Act. It was his duty to ensure the students’ safety. The Member failed to comply with the Education Act or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to subsection 1(15).
In his letter of December 18, 2012, the Member wrote: “Furthermore, I was not guilty of any unprofessional conduct…,” Exhibit 7. This piece of evidence shows that the Member has no understanding of a teacher’s role in society and does not uphold the standards of conduct for the teaching profession, contrary to subsection 1(16).
The fact that the student had to go through pregnancy and childbirth and the demands of parental responsibility as a teenager is proof of the Member’s flagrant negligence with respect to the risk and danger to which he exposed the student, contrary to subsection 1(17).
An inappropriate relationship with a student, especially a sexual one, represents improper conduct and serious professional misconduct. The Member’s actions would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional and constitute conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsections 1(18) and 1(19).
The Committee finds it plausible that the alleged events took place. The College has therefore met the burden of proof by relying on clear, cogent and convincing evidence and has achieved the standard of proof of the balance of probabilities.
The Committee agrees with the College’s assumption that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 (Professional Misconduct) made under the Act.
As for the Member’s argument in the N.W.T. decision; i.e., the fact that Student “A” was [XXX] years old and had graduated a few weeks beforehand, the Committee agrees with the N.W.T. committee’s finding on page 34 of Exhibit 6:
Regardless of the circumstances, it was entirely inappropriate for Mr. Latour to engage in a sexual relationship with an [XXX] year old female who had graduated from Mr. Latour’s school approximately two weeks before. Mr. Latour argues that [XXX] [Student “A”] was, at this time, an adult that there is a clear change in status that occurs on graduation. The Hearing Committee disagrees. [XXX] [Student “A”] was, at this time, a former student of Mr. Latour. There cannot be a distinction, as Mr. Latour suggests, between a sexual relationship that occurs two weeks before graduation between a teacher and a student, and a sexual relationship that occurs two weeks after graduation between the same two people.
The Committee agrees with this interpretation by the N.W.T. committee.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY BY COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE
Counsel for the College stated that, in this case, revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration was self-evident. She also recommended publication of the Member’s name in the College’s official publication, Pour parler profession/Professionally Speaking. She stated that the revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration would serve as a specific deterrent for the Member and as a general deterrent for the members of the teaching profession.
PENALTY AND ORDER
The Committee made the following order as to penalty:
It directed the College Registrar to revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
It directed that the decision and order be published in summary form in the next regular issue of Pour parler profession/Professionally Speaking, including the Member’s name as it appears on the public register.
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
The Committee accepted the submissions of Counsel for the College and agreed that there was evidence of “grooming” behaviour in this case and that the Member had initiated an intimate sexual relationship with one of his students, aged [XXX]. These actions warranted revocation and the publication of the Member’s name in the College’s official publication, Pour parler profession/ Professionally Speaking.
The revocation of the Certificate of Qualification and Registration is warranted by virtue of the true nature of this case, which is, after all, one of sexual misconduct. The Committee is not convinced that the Member fully comprehends the importance of respecting the boundaries between students and teachers which should not be crossed. The revocation is necessary for the purposes of ensuring students’ safety and serving and protecting the public interest.
The Committee believes that it is necessary to publish its findings and order with the name of the Member, because that will act as a deterrent for the teaching profession as a whole as well as for the Member. Publication with the Member’s name sends a message both to this Member and to the members of the profession as a whole that this misconduct crosses the boundaries between students and teachers which must not be crossed and, in doing so, undermines trust in the members of the teaching profession. The publication of the Member’s name also serves the interests of the public by providing reassurance and by letting the community know that the teaching profession takes decisive action when facts of this nature are brought to its attention. In conclusion, the Committee finds that the penalty serves and protects the interests of the public and the teaching profession.
September 19, 2013
Robert Gagné,
Chair, Discipline Panel
Monika Ferenczy, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________,
Darlene Mead, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel