Ontario College of Teachers v. Andreacchi, 2013 ONOCT 6

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Andreacchi, 2013 ONOCT 6

Date: 2013-01-30

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

John Andreacchi, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Mel Greif, Chair Vicki Shannon, OCT Louis Sloan, OCT

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS David Leonard, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Bev Hodsdon, Law Clerk

• and –

JOHN ANDREACCHI (CERTIFICATE #434584) Mandy Wojcik, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP for John Andreacchi

Julie Maciura, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: January 30, 2013

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on January 30, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing, dated June 29, 2011 was served on John Andreacchi, requesting his presence on July 19, 2011 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for January 30, 2013.

John Andreacchi was in attendance.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against John Andreacchi in the Notice of Hearing, (Exhibit 1) dated June 29, 2011 are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that John Andreacchi 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 or the Regulations made under that Act, 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 of 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).

Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. John Andreacchi (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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) and taught Special Education – Developmentally Disabled at the Grades 6, 7 and 8 level at Centennial Senior Public School in Brampton, Ontario.

3. On or about September 7, 2008, the Member was charged by Halton Regional Police with, inter alia, assault of A, a female person, who reported that at approximately 11:00 a.m. on that morning the Member grabbed her by both wrists and crossed her arms across her neck in an arm hold, causing her to gasp for air.

4. Following a jury trial, the Member was found guilty of a charge of assault against A and not guilty of the other six charges brought against him.

5. On March 24, 2011, the Honourable Madam Justice Coats granted the Member a conditional discharge, with a conditional sentence of twelve (12) months’ probation. The Member was also ordered, inter alia, to pay a fine of $100.00, to perform sixty (60) hours of community service work, to attend at and comply with a treatment program for assessment/counselling, and prohibited from associating, contacting or holding communication directly or indirectly with A except through legal counsel. Attached as Exhibits “B” and “C”, respectively, are copies of the Reasons for Sentence and Reasons for Sentencing of the Honourable Madam Justice Coats.

6. The Member, who had been assigned to home with full pay and benefits following his arrest in September 2008, returned to his teaching duties in June 2009 and continues to be an employee of the Board.

GUILTY PLEA

1. 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 6 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

2. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 and the referenced Exhibits, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and admits the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).

3. By this document the Member states that:

   1. he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
   2. he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
   3. he understands that by pleading guilty 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;
   4. 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;
   5. he understands that any agreement between his counsel and counsel for the College with respect to penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;
   6. he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

4. In light of the admitted facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, 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, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that John Andreacchi 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

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 (the “Agreed Facts”) of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2). He acknowledged that the Agreed Facts referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 above, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct. The Committee accepted the Member’s guilty plea and the facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.

The Member, having been convicted of assault, has committed professional misconduct. As a result, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5) and failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, specifically subsection 264(1)(c), contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). The criminal conviction of the member is evidence of the fact that he contravened a law relevant to the Member’s suitability to hold a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16).

The Committee also finds that the Member committed acts that having regard to all of the circumstances would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18) and that this conduct was unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

JOINT SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member agreed that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be a reprimand and the requirement that the Member enrol in counselling for stress and anger management. The Member shall report to the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers that he has completed this requirement.

In presenting their Joint Submission on Penalty to the Committee, both College Counsel and Counsel for the Member agreed that the penalty was appropriate in the circumstances and pointed to a number of factors to support their submissions. In particular, they referred to several findings of the sentencing judge, Justice Coats, including the fact that this was the first criminal offense committed by the Member, that this has already had an impact on his personal and professional life, and that he had gone to counselling prior to sentencing.

Counsel for the parties agreed that the findings and order of the Committee should be published in summary form in the official publication of the College Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. The parties had not agreed on whether or not the Member’s name should be published and made submissions on that issue.

SUBMISSIONS RE: 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. He submitted that publication serves as both a specific and general deterrent and is important to ensure transparency in the process. He submitted that hearings are open to the public and that resulting decisions are publicly accessible, as was the criminal proceeding and resulting decision involving the Member. He also submitted that there should be good reason not to publish a member’s name and that this reason should be made clear, considering the open nature of the proceedings.

Counsel for the College also submitted that publication of the Member’s name sends an important message to the public and to members of the profession that conduct of members that results in a finding of professional misconduct, despite occurring outside of the classroom, will result in sanction by the Discipline Committee.

Counsel for the Member argued that the matter is appropriate to warrant publication without the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Counsel reminded the Committee that it had the legislative authority to determine whether or not the Member’s name should be published. She argued that, while the Discipline Committee has the discretionary power to publish a member’s name, that there is no presumption of publication in the Act. She submitted that there should be good reason to publish a member’s name and that, in this case, there is not. As evidence of this submission, she pointed to the fact that the Member has been dealing with this ordeal since 2008 when the criminal charges were first laid against him, and that he has since returned to the classroom and has been successful in his return to teaching.

Member’s Counsel claimed that publication at this time therefore does not serve the principles of rehabilitation and doesn’t serve a specific deterrent function. She argued that general deterrence can be met by publishing the summary without the Member’s name and this would also accomplish transparency by following a public procedure. She argued that the Member agreed to the fact of the reprimand appearing on the College’s register for a period of three years. Member’s Counsel also indicated that he will be engaged in counseling, which will provide specific deterrence to the Member. Also serving as a specific deterrent were the effects of the criminal proceedings against the Member, which the sentencing judge found had an impact on his personal and professional life.

In reply, College Counsel submitted that the statute and bylaws of the College require that the record of the reprimand remain on the public register for three years. Therefore, the Member’s agreement to this requirement was not relevant. College Counsel also pointed out that, although the Member did experience a long ordeal that was embarrassing to him, this was a result of the Member’s own actions. College Counsel reminded the panel of the imperative for publication and the general expectation of the public that this be so in the interest of transparency.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. directs the Member to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

2. the Registrar is directed to impose the following term, condition or limitation on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such term, condition or limitation to be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as it is fulfilled:

   (i) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, within three (3) months from the date of an Order of the Discipline Committee, the following courses:

   a) counselling in stress and anger management issues, which counselling is to be delivered by a counsellor pre-approved by the Registrar;

   (ii) the Member shall deliver directly to the Registrar, within thirty (30) days of completion of each of the courses at A above, a written certificate from the course provider stating that:

   a) he or she has received a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea marked as an exhibit at the hearing of this matter, as well as a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and

   b) that the Member has successfully completed the course;

3. the Committee directs that there be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form with name, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Committee carefully considered and accepted the joint submission on penalty. In the Committee’s view, the Member breached the standards of the profession and engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. As a result of several mitigating factors as outlined by College Counsel and Counsel for the Member, a reprimand and the imposition of terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate is an appropriate penalty for conduct of this nature. In particular, the Committee found that the allegations were indeed serious as they resulted in a criminal conviction. The Committee found that the matter was dealt with effectively and appropriately by the criminal courts. A reprimand of the Member and the imposition of terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate appropriately reflect the gravity of the criminal conviction. The Committee considered several mitigating factors including the fact that it was the Member’s first offense, and the Member has already completed anger management training. He has also sought counselling and has returned to his teaching duties where he continues to be an employee of the Peel District School Board. The penalty serves the interest of the various parties affected by the Member’s actions. The reprimand specifically informs the member of the inappropriate nature of his actions. The terms, conditions and limitations placed on the Member’s certificate are designed to assist in the Member’s rehabilitation. The public interest is served by requiring that the Member engage in rehabilitative action. Counselling in stress and anger management issues will assist the Member to properly continue his career in teaching.

The Committee was obligated to consider the issue of publication with the Member’s name as the requirement of transparency should always remain paramount. In the absence of a compelling reason not to publish the Member’s name, the name should be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. In the Committee’s opinion, the details of this case and the Member’s penalty must serve as a general deterrent to members of the teaching profession against this type of behavior. The Committee agreed with Counsel that it is important to indicate to the profession and the public that behaviour that breaches the standards of the profession will be sanctioned appropriately by the College, even if the behaviour occurs outside of the classroom.

In conclusion, the Committee is confident that that the penalty is fitting in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.

Date: January 30, 2013

Mel Greif Chair, Discipline Panel

Vicki Shannon, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Louis Sloan, OCT Member, Discipline Panel