Ontario College of Teachers v Perron, 2013 ONOCT 75

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Perron, 2013 ONOCT 75

Date: 2013-01-23

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Jacques René Joseph Perron, Member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Marie-Louise Chartrand, Chair Darlene Mead, OCT Ruth Ann Penny, OCT

BETWEEN:

Ontario College of Teachers (Christine Lonsdale and Lisa Filgiano, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, representing the Ontario College of Teachers)

– and –

Jacques René Joseph Perron (MEMBER No.: 104771) (Richard Forget, Richard Forget Law Firm, representing Jacques René Joseph Perron)

Paul Marshall, Emond Harnden LLP, Independant Legal Counsel

Hearing Dates: November 21, 2011; April 11, September 19, October 22 and October 24, 2012

REASONS FOR DECISION, DECISION AND ORDER(S)

A panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) was heard in Toronto on November 21, 2011.

An amended notice of hearing dated May 4, 2011 was directed to Jacques René Joseph Perron (the “Member”) requesting that he appear before the College’s Discipline Committee on May 17, 2011 to set the hearing date. The hearing date was set on November 21, 2011 and was carried out on April 11, September 19, October 22 and 24, 2012.

The Member was present at the hearing. He denies the allegations made against him as stated in the Notice of Hearing.

ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE OF HEARING

The allegations made against the Member in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated May 4, 2011 are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Jacques René Joseph Perron is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1) of the Act and/or is incompetent as defined in subsection 30(3) 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, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
• he failed to comply with the Act or the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and the regulations made under those Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14) and (15);
• he committed acts that having regard to all circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);
• he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19);
• he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or disregard for the welfare of students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is unfit to continue to carry out his professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the Member under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations;
• he failed to comply with his duties under the Child and Family Services Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(27).

PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATIONS

• Jacques Perron is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
• At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire de district catholique Aurores boréales (the “Board”) as principal of [XXX] (the “school”) in [XXX].
• Between June 2003 and March 2006, the College alleges that the Member acted inappropriately and incompetently, violated the ethics of the profession and failed to carry out his professional responsibilities, in that he:
  • failed to notify the Children’s Aid Society of allegations that a school employee, Pierre Grondin, exposed his erect or partially erect penis, to [XXX]-year old male student “A”, [XXX]-year old male student “B”, and [XXX]-year old intellectually-challenged male student “C”, in a hotel room while on a field trip to Winnipeg on June 18 and 19, 2003;
  • sexually abused intellectually-challenged male student “C” on a number of occasions up to August 2005;
  • failed to notify the Children’s Aid Society that school employee Pierre Grondin had sexually abused intellectually-challenged male student “C” for a number of years up to August 2005;
  • watched the filming of school employee Pierre Grondin as he sexually abused [XXX]- and [XXX]-year old sisters, “D” and ”E”;
  • abused his power and authority, exhibited favouritisim and failed to comply with conflict of interest rules when he:
    • continued to entrust intellectually-challenged male student “C” to Educational Assistant Pierre Grondin, even though the student was not making progress and the educational program for the student was incomplete;
    • showed favouritism toward Pierre Grondin by overlooking his incompetence and lack of professionalism in the roles of Educational Assistant, lunch supervisor and school custodian, despite reports by several teachers;
    • told the school bus driver, Cheryl Nelson, that he had conducted an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct on the part of Educational Assistant Pierre Grondin on a trip to Winnipeg and that “nothing serious had occurred”;
    • told two male students, “A” and “F”, to not say anything about the incident concerning Pierre Grondin’s conduct in a hotel room on a field trip to Winnipeg on June 18 and 19, 2003;
    • failed to take action regarding [XXX] written complaint reporting allegations of sexual harassment on the part of Pierre Grondin;
    • told teacher [XXX] that he could not address her complaint of sexual harassment against Pierre Grondin because Pierre Grondin was his brother and that it was her problem;
    • in November 2003, offered his partner, Yannick Gélinas, an Educational Assistant position at [XXX] for which Mr. Gélinas was not qualified;
  • fostered a climate of intimidation, manipulation, retaliation, threats and criticism with respect to staff members, Board members, parents and students, when he:
    • discouraged teachers Odette De Bonville and Stacy Morin from discussing with students “A”, “D” and “E” what was happening at their home when Pierre Grondin visited;
    • failed to address a parental complaint that Pierre Grondin was infatuated with their daughter, “G”;
    • threatened to return teacher [XXX] to his former truck-driver role when he complained of Pierre Grondin’s sexual harassment of him and the Member’s discipline management and lack of support;
    • encouraged parent [XXX] to file a complaint against teacher [XXX] because he sent a letter to the Member about Pierre Grondin’s sexual harassment of him;
    • dismissed Occasional Teacher Odette De Bonville from her duties when she complained to the Member about his discipline management and absences from school;
    • asked teacher Julie Lamouche if she had been masturbating in the washroom;
  • lacked respect for staff when he disclosed confidential information about them to a small group of employees who ought not to have had access to the information;
  • demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the Education Act and the Ministry of Education curriculums;
  • i. failed to appropriately manage the school budget with respect to his expenses; and
  • j. failed in his administration and supervision of school staff, when he did not address employee and/or parental complaints, and permitted staff to behave and dress inappropriately at school.

EVIDENCE

Evidence presented by the Ontario College of Teachers:

The College called upon the following witnesses:

René Nadeau

Mr. Nadeau was a Trustee from 2001-2005. During his testimony, Mr. Nadeau confirmed having been recruited by the Member to serve as Trustee. He confirmed that the School Board, in response to a complaint about the Member made by a female employee of the Board, hired Mr. Gerry Cliche to investigate the complaint. The investigator had been recruited by the Member. He reported that the Member was the person at issue in the complaint and that his involvement in the hiring of the investigator was not appropriate.

Mr. Nadeau raised the issue of the Member’s conflict of interest. He noted the letter addressed to Robert Laplante dated March 22, 2005 in response to observations he had brought to their attention. Mr. Nadeau did not know who wrote the letter and he did not sign this letter (Exhibit 3). Mr. Nadeau referred to the sixth paragraph of the letter by saying that the Member was in a conflict of interest situation and should not have taken part in the meeting when Mr. Cliche gave his presentation to the School Board, because the investigator should be neutral.

He confirmed that the school was not being well maintained, that the Member and school employee Pierre Grondin had a personal relationship, that he supported the Board’s decisions for fear of retaliation toward his spouse Julie Lamouche, teacher at [XXX].

The Committee maintained that the witness’s testimony was credible and retained it because he admitted to not being qualified to carry out the duties of Academic Advisor and he allowed the Member to guide him in the exercise of his responsibilities. While admitting to his limitations in the carrying out of his duties, he nevertheless indicated that the Member’s involvement in the hiring of Gerry Cliche constituted a lack of respect for the conflict of interest rules. He was honest and sincere throughout his testimony.

Linda Houston

Ms. Houston was a retired student services coordinator. During her testimony, Ms. Houston described the Ministry of Education requirements with respect to the maintenance of school records. Linda Houston prepared a written report in follow-up to the September 2005 review of Ontario school records (OSR) at [XXX] (Exhibit 4). This report indicates that the records were not kept in accordance with the Education Act and its Ontario Regulations. She related the results of her review, carried out in September 2005, of the school records of students enrolled at [XXX] and that the information contained in the school records reviewed did not comply with the requirements of the Ministry of Education. She reported that several documents were signed by the Member and some by Pierre Grondin, another school employee. Ms. Houston sent an email to Roger Lepage, Director of Human Resources at the Conseil Scolaire des Aurores boréales, dated July 4, 2006 (Exhibit 5), because she found on her visit to [XXX] in September 2005 deficiencies in the classification of confidential documents, such as the results of educational assessments and students’ personalized educational plans. She observed that one school record was more in order than others, that of student “C”. She indicated that during the training sessions offered when the Member was school principal, the atmosphere was tense.

The Committee found the witness's testimony to be credible and accepted it because she had the knowledge and the necessary experience to comment on the status of school records. Her report specified and identified the deficiencies, omissions and the Member's professional incompetence in maintaining and preserving school records.

Louise Filion-Prager

Ms. Filion-Prager held the position of Educational Assistant during the period from 1994 to 1995 (part-time) and, from 1998 to 2004, she held the position of Educational Assistant and lunch supervisor at [XXX]. She explained that during a staff meeting held in September 2003, the Member indicated to employees that they were not entitled to speak. In November 2003, she observed the Member's aggressive behaviour toward a school employee and, following this meeting, she witnessed said employee file a complaint against the Member. She confirmed that a personal relationship existed between the Member and school employee Pierre Grondin, and that the Member excused the conduct of the employee in question by saying “Pierre is Pierre.”

The Committee accepted Ms. Filion-Prager’s testimony because it contained many details and specifications. It is consistent with that of other testimonies on the subject of relationships between the Member and Pierre Grondin, the Member's abusive language and the favouritism exhibited by the Member toward Pierre Grondin.

Donald Dionne

Mr. Dionne served as Interim Principal of [XXX] during the period from November 2004 to June 2005, as the Member's replacement. Mr. Dionne was recruited by the Member and hired by the School Board. Mr. Dionne observed, upon starting his duties, that the school was not clean and that part-time school custodian Pierre Grondin, did not know how to properly maintain the school. Mr. Dionne stated that staff records were incomplete and that the records did not contain the performance evaluations. Mr. Dionne identified other deficiencies in how the school was being run, namely: that there was no religious teaching, that students had access to pornographic web sites and that school textbooks and resources were inadequate. Regarding management of the school budget, Mr. Dionne reported that the Member informed him not to worry about the school’s financial position because the Ministry of Education covers all deficits.

Mr. Dionne testified having received the memo from Robert Laplante, the supervisory officer in [XXX], dated February 28, 2005 (Exhibit 7), with a summary of the changes to be implemented in the school that they had discussed together - following his visit to [XXX] on February 21, 22 and 24, 2005. Mr. Dionne agreed with the need to introduce the changes proposed in Mr. Laplante's memo.

Mr. Dionne witnessed that the Member should have stated a conflict of interest when the hiring of Gerry Cliche was discussed by the School Board. He did not do so as shown by the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the [XXX] on Sunday, January 9, 2005, indicating the Member's attendance (Exhibit 8).

The Committee accepted Mr. Dionne's testimony because it was supported by other witnesses regarding the protection of students, for example, access to pornographic web sites and the status of school records.

[XXX]

[XXX] is the mother of female student “G” , [XXX] -years old in 2004 at the time she was enrolled at [XXX]. [XXX] reported that Pierre Grondin and his spouse Kathleen Toutant, both employees of the school, gave a lot of attention to her daughter. They played excessively with child “G”, took her in their arms and even asked permission on many occasions to take her with them to Québec in the months of July and August. She confirmed having made a complaint to the Member, then school principal, to put an end to the inappropriate behaviour on the part of Grondin and Toutant. During the cross-examination, [XXX] confirmed that, following the complaint, Grondin’s and Toutant’s inappropriate conduct ceased. [XXX], nevertheless continuing to fear for the safety of her daughter, withdrew her from the school at the end of the school year. [XXX] also reported that Ms. Toutant did not dress appropriately for work in a school.

The Committee accepted this testimony because [XXX] provided a clear description of Pierre Grondin’s and Kathleen Toutant’s inappropriate conduct toward her daughter. The description of the Member’s reaction following her complaint was consistent with that of certain other witnesses.

Student “B”

Student “B” attended [XXX] during the 2002-2003 school year. “B” was eight or nine years old in June 2003 when he went on a school field trip to Winnipeg. During this field trip, “B” shared a room with “C”, a male student of Pierre Grondin. During the stay in Winnipeg, “B” reported that Pierre Grondin left the bathroom naked and that his reaction was to cover his eyes so as not to see Pierre Grondin naked while “C”’s reaction was to laugh. “B” reported not having discussed the incident with the Member nor with his mother. He reported that Pierre Grondin visited the residence of his parents several times a week to play games.

The Committee did not accept this testimony because despite the fact that he began his testimony with assurance, the facts related by “B” were not consistent with other testimonies and his hesitations at the end of the testimony indicate that he wasn't providing complete answers.

Robert Laplante

Mr. Laplante is a human resources consultant and a retired supervisory officer. In January 2005, the Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Aurores boréales hired Mr. Laplante as a supervisory officer. He observed, during his three-day visit in January 2005, that the staff records were incomplete, that is, there were no criminal background checks or performance evaluations on file for employees. Regarding teaching, no religion classes were offered and computer safety was inadequate, which explains why students had access to pornographic web sites. He also observed that the hours worked by Pierre Grondin exceeded the number of hours permitted by Ontario employment standards.

Mr. Laplante testified that he wrote the memo of February 28, 2005 (Exhibit 7) to inform the interim principal of certain situations at the [XXX] that had caught his attention and that should have been rectified, namely:

• organizing staff records
• obtaining criminal background checks of anyone who is in contact with students
• confirming the hires adopted by the School Board
• establishing a plan to assess teacher performance
• establishing planning and corrective measures regarding the teaching of religion
• taking appropriate measures to prevent students from chatting and accessing pornographic web sites
• following the legislation on employment standards concerning the number of hours paid to Richard Beaudry and Pierre Grondin
• keeping records of updated copies of lesson plans
• preparing training plans for teachers

He confirmed that the Member was present at the School Board meeting when Gerry Cliche was hired, which investigated the complaint filed by an employee against the Member, which, in his opinion, constituted a conflict of interest. Mr. Laplante testified that the Member should have declared a conflict of interest when the hiring of Gerry Cliche was being discussed by the School Board. He did not do it as demonstrated in the minutes – extraordinary meeting of the [XXX] – Sunday, January 9, 2005 indicating the attendance of the Member (Exhibit 8). Mr. Laplante testified that he sent the letter dated March 14, 2005 from Robert E. Laplante to [XXX], re: Board meetings (Exhibit 10), to point out the deficiencies in how the School Board was operating and to deplore the fact that the Member, on administrative leave following a complaint filed against him, was still involved in the administration of certain matters including the hiring of investigator Gerry Cliche.

During his visits, Mr. Laplante noted that expenses were reimbursed to the Member even though he was on leave, that his salary was increased during his leave, and that only the Chairman of the School Board approved expense accounts, even if they were not all justified by a receipt.

Mr. Laplante also testified that he sent the letter dated March 17, 2005 to the Member, re: Request for reimbursement of expenses (Exhibit 11), which challenges the validity of the Member's claim given his status as an on-leave paid employee. Subsequently, the School Board validated this request for reimbursement (see Exhibit 16).

Mr. Laplante sent an email dated April 8, 2005 to Marianne Valiquette (Exhibit 12). Mr. Laplante testified that this email confirmed that the Member continued to submit expenses to the School Board during his paid leave.

Mr. Laplante sent the letter dated March 5, 2005 to [XXX], re: Secretary and treasurer (Exhibit 13). Mr. Laplante testified that he wrote this letter to [XXX] to, among other things, inform him that it was “unacceptable for an employee of the Board to be able to sign his own claims for reimbursement of expenses for Board matters” and that “the principle of two signatures to approve any expense should be implemented.” Mr. Laplante attached to the letter an example of administrative policy addressing the matter of reimbursement of expenses incurred by Board members.

Mr. Laplante wrote the letter dated March 17, 2005 addressed to the Member, re: Investigation approved by the Board (Exhibit 14). Mr. Laplante testified that he wrote this letter to the Member to inform him of the rules of procedural fairness to be followed to ensure that the investigation of the complaint filed by Ms. Monto had been carried out in compliance with these rules.

Regarding the deficiencies in the school observed by Mr. Laplante, the School Board's response was found in the letter dated March 16, 2005 from Michel Trudel, [XXX] and René Nadeau to Robert Laplante (Exhibit 15). The School Board reacted to the questions raised regarding several subjects such as religious teaching, teacher evaluations, and how Board meetings were run. The letter specified the School Board's expectations of Mr. Laplante.

Mr. Laplante confirmed that he received the email that Michel Trudel sent to an unknown recipient dated March 31, 2005 (Exhibit 16) in which Mr. Trudel issues the directive to no longer provide Mr. Laplante with information and to refer any questions to the School Board.

Mr. Laplante testified that he had received a letter from Mr. Trudel and Mr. Nadeau to Mr. Wilson dated May 1, 2005 (Exhibit 17). The letter was addressed to the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers and indicates the reasons for Mr. Laplante's dismissal. Mr. Laplante claimed the allegations contained in the letter to be unfounded and inappropriate.

In addition, Mr. Laplante reported that the Member was present in the school community even during his leave.

The Committee found that the professionalism displayed by Mr. Laplante, his in-depth knowledge of the school community shown during his testimony and his assertiveness during his cross-examination rendered him a credible witness.

Julie Lamouche

Ms. Lamouche has been a teacher at [XXX] since 1996 and testified by way of videoconference. She is the spouse of former school trustee René Nadeau and was the union representative at the school. She confirmed that in 2003, [XXX], located in [XXX] under the leadership of the Member, had between [XXX] and [XXX] students and [XXX] teachers, that the school was badly maintained and that the atmosphere in the school was tense, cold and stressful.

She described two inappropriate events that took place in the school, namely one immediately prior to a teachers' meeting in 2001-2002 when the Member asked her in front of the school's other staff members, when she returned from the washroom, if she had been masturbating in the washroom. She reported having felt humiliated and frustrated. On another occasion, in 2002, the Member pulled on the elastic of Ms. Penville's undergarment.

In February 2003, Julie Lamouche was a witness at a meeting between the Member and [XXX] on the subject of the complaint filed by [XXX] against Pierre Grondin. Julie Lamouche recognized the letter written by Mr. [XXX] (Exhibit 18). She reported that Mr. Grondin did not respect [XXX] , enjoyed annoying him, and running after him in the hallways to the point where he had to take refuge in his classroom.

Julie Lamouche confirmed that the Member and Mr. Grondin carried on an intimite relationship, that Mr. Grondin was the school custodian, Educational Assistant and lunch supervisor at the school and that he did not always perform his prescribed duties: as Educational Assistant, "he excited students instead of calming them down," "acted silly" and "did the airplane with small children." As school custodian, he swept dust under the carpets and arrived late. She did not report these deficiencies to anyone because she didn't trust the principal or the School Board, and she was scared. She was certain that the Member knew things – that he was aware of Pierre Grondin's conduct – but didn't do anything.

Julie Lamouche reported that in November 2003 she witnessed a meeting between the Member and Ms. Monto. At the beginning of the meeting Mr. Grondin said that Ms. Monto and Ms. Sabrina had made negative remarks about his lunch supervision and that Pierre Grondin's tone of voice was very high while Ms. Monto remained calm but did not appear to feel well. After the meeting, Julie Lamouche reported having had tears in her eyes and had trouble teaching. Afterwards, Ms. Monto filed a complaint against the Member and the investigator was appointed to question school staff.

Julie Lamouche testified that “C” “seemed to like Pierre (Grondin) a lot. He saw him as a role model.” According to Julie Lamouche, instead of teaching “C” the rudiments of life such as managing a budget or doing laundry, Pierre Grondin made him do his custodial work.

With regard to Ms. Toutant's attire beginning in 2003, Julie Lamouche described it as inappropriate for working in a school with children.

Regarding the administration of Mr. Dionne, Julie Lamouche testified that Mr. Dionne did his best but it wasn't easy because “the school was upside down.” She said that the Member communicated with her to ask her to sign a letter of complaint against Mr. Dionne, but that she refused.

During the cross-examination, Julie Lamouche denied the suggestion by the Member's lawyer that the Member's conduct toward Mélanie Penville “was more or less a warning to Mélanie for her to behave better than that.” Concerning the letter of complaint from [XXX], Julie Lamouche did not know if it had been submitted to the School Board. She reported that the Member told her that he had told [XXX] to go to the police station “if he was a victim of sexual assault.”

During the cross-examination, Julie Lamouche said that the climate of intimidation in the school made it so that she did not report or indicate the lack of fairness or standards in the protection of children and denied having told lies to protect her job (the defence’s theory).

The Committee found that her specific recollection of the event that occurred in the fall of 2003, of the Member's favouritism towards Pierre Grondin, of Pierre Grondin's incompetence, and of the climate of intimidation in the school supported the testimonies of several other individuals. The Committee found that her testimony was consistent and that her ability to remember events clearly made her testimony relating the Member's abusive language used towards her, credible.

Yvonne Monto

Ms. Monto was the PDS secretary and video-technician at [XXX]. She was hired in 1991 by the [XXX] as a teacher, supply teacher, secretary and technician.

Ms. Monto described the meeting of September 15, 2003 on the subject of budget cuts during which the Member, using an abusive tone, warned employees that they were not entitled to talk. The Member announced that the School Board was cutting 1.5 Educational Assistant positions and 0.5 secretary positions, “but if we were nice between now and Christmas, maybe he could reconsider.” She reported that the next day, on September 16, 2003, the Member changed her hours from 8:30 to 3:30, prohibited her from going into the classrooms and from speaking to staff in the school, while threatening her with the telephone receiver.

Ms. Monto described another meeting “to attack Yvonne” which took place on November 13, 2003. Mr. Grondin reported that Ms. Monto had said “that there should be two supervisors in the playground.” While Ms. Monto denied this allegation, Mr. Grondin shouted at her in her face while calling her a liar. Ms. Monto testified that the Member didn't do anything concerning Mr. Grondin's attitude, even though he was in her personal space and was yelling at her. Another subject was addressed during the meeting, namely, bumper stickers on cars. One parent, offended by the stickers displaying female body images on Mr. Grondin's car, had left Ms. Monto a message to pass it on to the Member. Mr. Grondin blamed Ms. Monto. Once again, Mr. Grondin spoke loudly and entered her personal space. After the meeting, the Member continued to provoke Ms. Monto so much that she left the school, went to a medical clinic and was put on sick leave.

Ms. Monto described the school as having “an absolutely toxic, unbearable atmosphere” because the Member controlled everything. According to Ms. Monto, the Member used Mr. Grondin to propagate her harassment.

Ms. Monto testified that Kathleen Toutant wore very short skirts and very low-cut sweaters while the other female employees, “… had always been given guidelines, in meetings, indicating that very short skirts or ‘shorts’ were not allowed”.

Ms. Monto confirmed that she made a complaint against the Member in 2004 because she finally decided to do something.

Under cross-examination, Ms. Monto admitted that the Member had identified some deficiencies in the performance of her duties. She denied the suggestions made by the Member's lawyer that she did not accept the Member's authority, because she followed his orders to the point of lying, and that she did not “build a case” against the Member to have a job.

During the cross-examination, Ms. Monto explained that the Member did not file a formal complaint against her for she could justify all her actions.

During her testimony, Ms. Monto identified her written personal notes after the meeting in the Member's office on September 15, 2003 (Exhibit 19), her personal notes taken after a conversation on September 16, 2003 (Exhibit 20), and her personal notes describing the last conversation on the topic of her conduct and her duties before she left the school for the last time on November 13, 2003 (Exhibit 21). Ms. Monto confirmed the information contained in these documents.

The Committee accepted her testimony because her written notes from the events of the fall of 2003 were confirmed by the testimony of three other people.

Pierre Simard

Mr. Simard was hired by the Board in November 2004. Pierre Simard had had a conversation with the Member in a Québec hotel. The Member explained that he was the principal of the school on sick leave but that he continued to assume certain duties of the position.

According to Mr. Simard, the school atmosphere was strange. When he started his job, he quickly learnt that you had better be nice to Mr. Grondin and Kathleen Toutant because they were the Member's half-brother and the spouse of the latter. The Member was very present in the school and he regularly organized meetings at a tavern with all the employees. It was during one of these meetings that he saw the Member grab the breast of a female employee of the tavern. Mr. Simard then learned that the Member was not Pierre Grondin's half-brother but his lover; he also noticed that Pierre Grondin, Kathleen Toutant and Richard Beaudry acted like puppets manipulated by the Member.

Mr. Simard found Mr. Grondin asleep on the children's mat. According to Mr. Simard, Pierre Grondin played with the children as if he were their father or mother, conduct that shouldn't occur at school – “That's not normal.” Pierre Simard didn't say anything to the Member because he was on sick leave and he was aware of the close relatonship between the Member and Mr. Grondin.

Pierre Simard noticed that the Member exercised control over “C” and that he used “C” as an official reporter of incidents arising in the school. For example, on a trip to Ottawa, at the end of the 2004-2005 school year, “C” telephoned the Member almost every day.

Pierre Simard reported that Pierre Grondin and Richard Beaudry had reached an agreement with the Member before he left on sick leave to allow them to work overtime even when it wasn't required. As such, Richard Beaudry told him “he wouldn't be happy earning just the salary that he was supposed to earn at that time, because it took more than that to live on …”,

Mr. Simard agreed with the Member's lawyer that he didn't observe sexual acts performed by the Member on people in the school.

Mr. Simard did not work under the Member's leadership. However, during his testimony, he accurately related certain facts and certain information, in particular that Pierre Grondin and Richard Beaudry admitted to him that they had reached an agreement with the Member concerning overtime worked. The Committee accepted this item of information from this testimony.

Cheryl Nelson

Ms. Nelson was the school bus driver during the 2002-2003 school year. During her testimony, Ms. Nelson reported that in June 2003, three students enrolled at [XXX] were talking about having seen school employee Pierre Grondin sleeping naked in a hotel room while on a school field trip to Winnipeg. She also reported that the same three students were teasing another student, student “C”, because Pierre Grondin was making advances toward him. She reported that in accordance with the responsibilities of her position, she informed the Member about what she had heard on the bus route. In response to her report, the Member contacted her about a week later, saying that an incident had occurred in the locker room at the pool and that he had addressed it.

The Committee accepted her testimony; she remembered the incident on the bus that had occurred in June 2003[sic] very well and the Member's reaction following her report.

[XXX]

[XXX] taught at [XXX] . [XXX] was hired by the Member and the Superintendent in charge of the school. He reported having filed with the Member a complaint against Pierre Grondin for sexual abuse. He confirmed that the Member observed Pierre Grondin's inappropriate behaviour on several occasions and that the Member had maintained a romantic relationship with school employee Pierre Grondin. He reported that the Member also hired his lover, Yannick Gélinas, as school secretary. His teaching work load included teaching intellectually-challenged student “C”. He confirms that student "C", having limited abilities, was not able to write a letter in French and was unable to invent a long and complex story. The Member had assigned Educational Assistant Pierre Grondin to intellectually-challenged student “C”. During his cross-examination, he confirmed having seen bus driver Ms. Nelson, storm into the Member's office.

[XXX] testified that he wrote the letter to the Member dated February 6, 2004 (Exhibit 18). In this letter he filed a complaint against Pierre Grondin for sexually abusing him. In this letter, [XXX] described Pierre Grondin's actions and indicated that it was his duty to report this abuse in order to “protect students and myself.” In his letter, [XXX] mentioned that the Member witnessed one of the times Pierre Grondin abused him, on February 4, 2004.

The Committee accepted the testimony that described in detail Pierre Grondin's sexual harassment of [XXX], the intellectual capacity of student “C” and the Member's favouritism toward Pierre Grondin.

Student "C"

Student “C” was a student at [XXX] during the 2003-2004 school year. During his testimony and cross-examination, “C” confirmed that he was in [XXX] class and that Pierre Grondin worked in the school. He reported having shared a hotel room on two occasions with Pierre Grondin during field trips to Winnipeg. He confirmed the presence of other students in a hotel room during an end-of-year field trip to Winnipeg and the fact of not being able to express himself or write in French. He confirmed having seen and read a report (Exhibit 26) detailing the incidents that occurred during trips to Winnipeg.

During the hearing, the College asked to cross-examine “C” on account of his contradictory responses. Relying on the Act's relevent provisions applicable to the evidence, and the applicable jurisprudence, the Committee accepted the College's request.

During the cross-examination by the College's lawyer, “C” admitted having succumbed to Pierre Grondin's repeated sexual advances, having been filmed on many occasions while Pierre Grondin sexually abused him and that the Member took part in a field trip to Winnipeg and stayed in the same hotel. He admitted wanting to protect the Member and that the Member and his lawyer asked him to sign a letter denying the sexual abuse (Exhibit 27). He confirmed that the Member saw him in the presence of Pierre Grondin outside the classroom and gave money to Pierre Grondin.

“C” confirmed that he took part in an interview with investigators Peter Annis and Robert Lefebvre on August 30, 2005 (Exhibit 26). He confirmed that the statements made to the investigators during the second interview, on February 15, 2006, were true, that is, he remembered the trip to Winnipeg, that Pierre Grondin abused him sexually, that he spent a lot of time with Pierre Grondin, that he gave him money from time to time, that Pierre Grondin coerced him into sex several times a week. He confirmed the Member was present on one of the field trips to Winnipeg but denied having had a sexual relationship with him.

“C” identified an attestation letter dated January 12, 2007 (Exhibit 27), which stipulates that he did not have a sexual relationship with Pierre Grondin and the Member. “C” recognized his signature and attested that he did not write the letter. He testified that the Member and his lawyer asked him to sign it.

The Committee accepted "C"'s testimony. "C"'s conduct during his testimony demonstrated a desire to tell the truth without wanting to reveal too much information. He was incapable of responding directly and without emotion to the questions related to the sexual abuse inflicted on him by Pierre Grondin. Only when he was confronted with the information contained in the investigators' report did he confirm having been a victim of sexual abuse by Pierre Grondin and wanting to protect the Member.

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE MEMBER'S LAWYERS

The Member's lawyers did not call on witnesses.

THE ARGUMENTS

REPRESENTATIONS OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

The lawyer for the Ontario College of Teachers did not present jurisprudence to assist the Committee in support of its representations. She rather claimed that if they were proven, they would represent professional misconduct.

The lawyer for the College began her representations with general comments, followed by the subject more specific to the allegations and concluded with a summary of the testimonies.

The College's lawyer's plea presented elements using a thematic approach.

They were as follows:

• The incident in Winnipeg -- it is alleged that Mr. Grondin exposed himself to students
• Pierre Grondin's competence.
• The sexual relationship between Pierre Grondin and “C”
• [XXX] and the complaint of abuse and harassment
• The Member's discipline style toward his less-favoured people
• Yannick Gélinas
• Pierre Grondin's and Kathleen Toutant's conduct toward [XXX] daughter, “G”
• The climate of intimidation in the school
• The hiring of Gerry Cliche
• The Member's inappropriate comment to Julie Lamouche
• The Member's management of the school budget
• Administrative deficiencies with school and staff records
• The manner in which Kathleen Toutant dressed at school

The lawyer for the College stipulated that in an administrative proceding she did not have to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt -- contrary to what was demanded during a criminal process. The level of evidence being sought was the balance of probabilities. The Member had to know the allegations. The College had some flexibility in providing evidence. Additionally, she indicated that the Committee may accept everything, a little or no part of a testimony.

With respect to the cross-examination, the lawyer for the College specified that the issue is not the evidence but the response. As a result, the fact that the Member's lawyer suggested that a fact is true does not provide strength of evidence for that fact, unless the response confirms it.

The context is very important in this case. The majority of the events occurred in a very small school in northern Ontario where everyone knows what is going on all the time. The lawyer for the College mapped out the testimonies in connection to the relationships between some of the parties. She argued that strange relationships are relevant for several of the allegations. The Member and Mr. Grondin had a complicated relationship: they were perhaps half-brothers, perhaps lovers, and they lived together for a while.

The lawyer for the College pointed out that several witnesses had described the complicated story that unfolded at school. She pointed out that the dates found in subsection 3 of the Notice of Hearing are important. The events linked to the allegations occurred between June 2003 and March 2006. Even if the Member was not in his position for that entire time, on sick leave starting in the fall of 2004, he exercised certain functions including hiring teachers; he was present on the premises and made decisions related to school operations.

According to the lawyer for the College, the third element concerned the School Board. René Nadeau, a Trustee, spouse of Julie Lamouche, a teacher at the school, described how he carried out his duties. He said that he did not go against the Member for fear of retaliation toward his spouse. René Nadeau spoke about the two other trustees: Mr. Trudel, who had an unclearly defined relationship with the Member, and [XXX], the father of “C”, for whom the Member had obtained a pension or an amount of money for his son. The lawyer for the College held that Mr. Nadeau's testimony explained why no one filed a complaint with the School Board. The lawyer for the College emphasized the importance of keeping in mind the context when examining specific allegations.

The incident in Winnipeg

The lawyer for the College reminded the Committee that it had heard several testimonies relating to the incident in Winnipeg. In June 2003, school bus driver Cheryl Nelson heard, on the way to school, three students, namely, “B”, “D” and “E”, who were saying that Pierre Grondin was walking around naked in the hotel room and lay down naked on the bed. The same students were heard teasing “C” because Pierre Grondin had been making advances toward him. Cheryl Nelson, in connection with her obligations as the school bus driver, reported to the Member what she had heard. According to her testimony, one week later, the Member informed her that he had taken the necessary steps and that the incident had occurred in the pool and not in the hotel room, and that he had addressed it. Ms. Nelson said she didn't know if the incident had been reported to the Children's Aid Society. [XXX] told the Committee that he remembered the day when Cheryl Nelson came back saying that something had happened in Winnipeg.

Several other testimonies confirmed the incident in Winnipeg. Donald Dionne said he had been informed by the Member of the incident at the pool; the Member assured him that the Children's Aid Society had carried out its investigation and that everything was back in order. "B" said that the incident happened in a hotel room and that Pierre Grondin came out of the bathroom naked. "C" spoke about this incident. All the witnesses gave more or less the same version.

The lawyer for the College argued that, under such circumstances, there was an obligation to inform the Children's Aid Society in order to protect the children. She reminded the Committee of the Member's admission: not to have informed the Children's Aid Society of the incident. It was his responsibility to inform them, not to minimize the incident and explain why it wasn’t necessary to be concerned about the situation. The lawyer for the College concluded that the evidence is very clear regarding this allegation.

Pierre Grondin's competence

Several witnesses confirmed that Pierre Grondin had three positions at the school: school custodian, Educational Assistant and lunch supervisor. They spoke about how he carried out his duties. The Member ran a small school; the lawyer for the College argues that he was aware of the way in which Mr. Grondin carried out his duties. As School Principal, it was his responsibility to manage the school and to ensure that his staff carried out their duties correctly.

The lawyer for the College reminded the Committee that René Nadeau, Louise Filion-Prager, Donald Dionne, Yvonne Monteau, Julie Lamouche and Pierre Simard testified about Pierre Grondin's competence. René Nadeau came to the school about once a week. According to him, Mr. Grondin did not know how to carry out his school custodian duties. For example, he maintained that Mr. Grondin did not know how to use the machine to wash the carpets. Louise Filion-Prager testified that in his position as Educational Assistant, Mr. Grondin arrived late, that he yelled at students and that he sometimes slept during school hours and that, when she brought these incidents to the Member’s attention, the Member answered: “Pierre is Pierre.” Donald Dionne spoke about major shortcomings in Mr. Grondin’s work as school custodian and as Educational Assistant. During her testimony, Ms. Monto said that he was not accomplishing all his tasks, that he was doing the cleaning during lunch, and that he had a fourth job at Tempo restaurant. According to Ms. Monto, although Pierre Grondin was responsible for “C “, he wasn’t often at the school.

Julie Lamouche spoke about how Mr. Grondin cleaned the classroom. She said that she didn’t inform the Member of these shortcomings because she didn’t trust the management of the school or the School Board. Pierre Simard spoke about the fact that Mr. Grondin would disturb the classroom with great bursts of laughter, that he would sometimes sleep on a mat and that he touched small children in an abnormal manner. Mr. Simard said that the identified student assigned to Pierre Grondin did not have an Individual Education Plan and that Pierre Grondin had confided in him that he had an agreement with the Member that he would be earning overtime. Mr. Simard confirmed that Mr. Grondin often worked overtime, although it was clear that he wasn’t working during the day.

The lawyer for the College maintained that the entire testimony corresponded with the allegation of incompetence, given that the Member was responsible for managing the school. The Member abused his authority, exhibited favouritism, and neglected to comply with conflict of interest rules. The lawyer for the College asked the Committee to keep in mind that Pierre Grondin was not treated in the same manner as the other staff members because Mr. Grondin had a relationship with the Member.

According to the lawyer for the College, this testimony is relevant to allegations 3(e) and 2(i): the Member showed favouritism toward Pierre Grondin by closing his eyes to his incompetence and his lack of professionalism in his role as Educational Assistant, lunch supervisor, school custodian, despite the very specific reports provided by several teachers. It is also relevant with regard to allegation 3(g), that the Member had neglected his duties as administrator and staff supervisor.

The sexual relationship between Pierre Grondin and “C”

The lawyer for the College pointed out the fact that the sexual relationship between Pierre Grondin and “C” is perhaps the most difficult subject for this Committee -- given the difficulty of the evidence. She provided the Committee with the context to enable it to understand this testimony.

First of all, the Committee must understand the testimony of “C” in the context of the testimony of several other witnesses who described the relationship they observed between Pierre Grondin and “C”. Julie Lamouche explained that “C” helped Pierre Grondin in his custodial work, that “C” helped him with the young children in his class rather than learning how to manage a budget, that he did laundry for him, and so on.

[XXX] indicated that “C” (a [XXX] -year old student in [XXX] grade in 2003) did not work a lot in class, that the Member had a lot of influence over “C” and that the Member was well acquainted with his family. [XXX] spoke about the fact that the Member had helped his family obtain a pension for “C”. The lawyer for the College pointed out that [XXX] said that “C” was incapable of writing a letter in French. As a result, “C” did not write the letter in Exhibit 27 in which one can read that he never had a sexual relationship with the Member or Pierre Grondin. Someone wrote it for him and he signed it.

The lawyer for the College maintained that “C” was not capable of inventing a long, detailed and complicated story. [XXX] testimony confirmed this fact. The lawyer for the College claimed that the reference to a fabricated story during the cross-examination by the Member’s lawyer did not make sense. Here was a witness who responded in a monosyllabic manner and the Committee must understand “C”’s testimony in the context of [XXX] explanation, that is: a 26-year old witness who still had trouble expressing himself.

Pierre Simard described “C” as the Member’s official reporter – a kind and good young man, over whom the Member had absolute control. According to him, “C” was incapable of living without the Member. For example, “C” phoned him every day while on a school field trip to Ottawa. The lawyer for the College pointed out that "C" denied having a very close relationship with the Member, but it was nevertheless what Pierre Simard observed. Julie Lamouche also said that “C” liked Pierre Grondin a lot and looked to him as a role model.

The testimony of “C” was relevant with respect to three allegations in particular: the incident in Winnipeg, the fact that “C” had a sexual relationship and that he had been sexually abused. The lawyer for the College spoke of a second trip to Winnipeg during which pornographic sessions were filmed. The Member went on this field trip as well as the [XXX] family and Pierre Grondin. “C” initially denied these events. The lawyer for the College claims that the Committee had to consider the fact that the witness cried during his testimony and that, according to her, it was because he knew he wasn’t telling the truth.

Second, despite the fact that “C” denied that the Member watched the filming in Winnipeg, the Member was travelling with Mr. Grondin, “C” and the [XXX] family. No one provided an explanation for this trip. Mr. Grondin stayed in a hotel room with “C”, a completely abnormal situation, and “C” testified that the Member was there also. According to the lawyer for the College, the Member should have been aware of the relationship, which constitutes professional misconduct. It was a completely inappropriate relationship between a staff member of the school and a very vulnerable student.

In the cross-examination, “C” confirmed having had a non-consensual sexual relationship with Pierre Grondin.

The lawyer for the College pointed out to the Committee that the witness wanted to tell the truth but didn’t want to harm the Member and Pierre Grondin. The lawyer for the College invited the Committee to prove that the events that “C” described happened, namely: a) that the incident in Winnipeg occurred, b) that Pierre Grondin exposed himself, c) that there was a sexual relationship between Pierre Grondin and “C” that, even if the Member did not know all the details of it, he knew enough to take steps to bring remedial action.

Discipline exercised by the Member with his less appreciated staff members

The testimony of Yvonne Monto, the school secretary, was as follows: The way in which the Member exercised discipline over her was consistent with the allegations of abuse of authority and favouritism. This also corresponded with the allegations of a climate of intimidation, especially in two respects. First, the Member’s conduct, as it is described by Ms. Monto and Ms. Filion-Prager, was inappropriate. Second, the contrast between the ways in which the Member managed problems he may have had with Ms. Monto is enormous when compared to the ways in which he managed Pierre Grondin’s conduct.

Ms. Monto had known the Member for several years and there was some animosity between them. Ms. Monto described a series of meetings and incidents with the Member. She described a meeting in September 2003 in which the Member addressed the subject of cuts with respect to educational assistants (Exhibit 19). She described the tone of this meeting as being highly abusive.

She said that members of the staff were not entitled to speak, that there were going to be cuts, and she felt threatened in this meeting.

Perhaps the most important meeting was the last one. The context was such that Ms. Monto reported to the Member a complaint from a parent regarding an inappropriate bumper sticker on Pierre Grondin’s car. Ms. Monto claimed that the Member got angry when the complaint was filed, that Mr. Grondin was present during part of the meeting, that he attacked her, raised the tone of his voice and that the Member did nothing. Following the meeting, Ms. Monto did not feel well, and this contributed to her having to take sick leave.

The lawyer for the College maintained that the testimonies of Louise Filion-Prager and Julie Lamouche confirmed the testimony of Ms. Monto: Julie Lamouche confirmed that the meeting was difficult and stressful and the very loud tone embarrassed Ms. Monto. Ms. Filion-Prager said that she felt threatened at school because of her friendship with Ms. Monto. The lawyer for the College claimed that these incidents gave evidence of the atmosphere of intimidation, or the Member’s inappropriate exercising of discipline over Ms. Monto and his favouritism toward Pierre Grondin.

Pierre Grondin’s sexual harassment of [XXX]

Julie Lamouche testified that she saw Mr. Grondin teasing [XXX] by running after him in the halls, and that she saw [XXX] hide in his classroom in order to protect himself from Mr. Grondin. The fact that the school is small with [XXX] classrooms is significant for understanding this testimony. Ms. Julie Lamouche was well aware of what was going on. It is inconceivable that the Member was not.

[XXX] testified that Pierre Grondin touched him, licked his ears, teased him, and that he had exposed himself in his classroom. He said that the Member was present from time to time when Pierre Grondin behaved in this manner. According to [XXX], the Member had control over Pierre Grondin, but nothing had really been taken seriously before his letter of complaint (Exhibit 18). During cross-examination, he admitted that the Member was taking steps to stop Pierre Grondin’s conduct, but he would continue behaving in this way when the Member left. The lawyer for the College claims that it isn’t enough to say: “Stop that, Pierre!” because that doesn’t constitute appropriate discipline in a sexual harassment situation in a school, and it constitutes evidence of the Member’s favouritism toward Pierre Grondin.

The allegation regarding Yannick Gélinas

Subsection 3, clause e, paragraph 7, addresses the fact that in November 2003 the Member offered his partner Yannick Gélinas a position as Educational Assistant at [XXX], although Mr. Gélinas did not have the necessary qualifications. [XXX] testified that Yannick Gélinas came from Québec, that he was the Member’s lover, and that the Member hired him as a secretary. The lawyer for the College claims that, even if this is exactly what is alleged in the Notice of Hearing, these are nonetheless inappropriate actions.

The incident with ”G”

The lawyer for the College pointed out that there was a specific allegation in subsection 3(f) (2), ‘Fail[ing] to address a parental complaint that Pierre Grondin was infatuated with “G”, their daughter.’

[XXX] testified that Pierre Grondin and his spouse, Kathleen Toutant, were excessively interested in her [XXX] -year-old daughter. They wanted to take this child to Québec for two months. When [XXX] spoke about it to the Member, he responded by saying that this wasn't a serious matter but that he was going to speak to them about it. Following this discussion with the Member, Kathleen Toutant and Pierre Grondin did not repeat their request and their interest stopped for about a month, but they started up again once the Member was no longer the school principal. Finally, [XXX] withdrew her child from the school.

In the opinion of the lawyer for the College, it is not appropriate for two staff members to take a little girl to Québec. And, again, the measures taken by the Member were not sufficient. The lawyer emphasized the contrast between the disciplinary actions taken with Ms. Monto and those directed at Pierre Grondin. The school principal was required to ensure the children's safety at all times.

Climate of intimidation

Almost all the witnesses spoke about the climate of intimidation in the school [subsection 3 (f)], about the stressful and intimidating atmosphere. They told stories relating in particular to the Member's conduct.

René Nadeau, as a trustee, testified that he could not confront the Member because he was afraid of retaliation against his spouse. Pierre Simard spoke about the measures taken by Donald Dionne, the interim principal, to attempt to mitigate "overtime" and that, following implementation of these measures, the staff turned against him and filed complaints. He was asked to sign this complaint because everyone was going to do it. He described Mr. Grondin and Ms. Toutant as the Member's puppets. Following his refusal to sign the letter, he had a conflict with Ms. Toutant and then a complaint was filed against him.

Julie Lamouche spoke of the same incident. She testified that the Member asked her to sign the letter and that, coming from the Member, this request was inappropriate.

The lawyer for the College specified that there were many incidents concerning the atmosphere of intimidation. This testimony referred to subsection 3(e) of the Notice of Hearing, saying that the Member abused his authority.

The hiring of Gerry Cliche

Several witnesses presented testimony in connection with subsection 3(f) of the Notice of Hearing: the climate of intimidation, and the hiring of investigator Gerry Cliche to investigate the complaint filed by Ms. Monto against the Member.

Donald Dionne explained that the Member was in a conflict of interest situation with respect to the hiring of Gerry Cliche. The Member was present at the School Board meeting during which the hiring of Mr. Cliche was confirmed. Mr. Laplante explained why he ended Gerry Cliche's contract, for the latter wanted to meet with Ms. Monto to ask her, in an intimidating way, to withdraw her complaint. The testimonies of René Nadeau and Julie Lamouche confirmed that the Member hired Gerry Cliche, and Julie Lamouche said that Mr. Cliche "didn't trust him".

According to the lawyer for the College, when all the information is compiled, it offers a very relevant example of abuse of authority, intimidation, and utterly inappropriate action on the part of the Member.

The Member's inappropriate comment to Julie Lamouche

Ms. Lamouche was the only witness related to the allegation contained in subsection 3(f) (6), which was as follows: the Member presumably asked Ms. Lamouche if she had been masturbating. Ms. Lamouche testified that she was in a meeting, that she had to excuse herself to use the washroom, that it took a little time and that when she returned, the Member asked her if she had been masturbating. In the cross-examination, Ms. Lamouche denied the suggestion made by the Member's lawyer, that she didn't remember who had made this inappropriate comment to her. According to the lawyer for the College, it is a testimony that wasn't contradicted.

The Member's school budget

The lawyer for the College summarized the testimony regarding the allegation in subsection 3(i): the Member's school budget. René Nadeau testified regarding the submitting of a VISA bill to go and pick up the Member in Winnipeg while the latter was on leave. Mr. Nadeau said that, even if it wasn't appropriate to request reimbursement, the Member "nevertheless accepted that it was something that had been approved by the School Board.” According to Mr. Nadeau, it seemed that the money had not been spent for the well-being of the students. For this reason, the lawyer for the College referred to the evidence concerning overtime hours worked by certain staff members, including Mr. Grondin.

Administrative deficiencies with respect to records

The matter of administrative deficiencies associated with the allegation in subsection 3(h) “demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the Education Act and Ministry of Education programs," and subsection 3(j), " failed in his administration and supervision of school staff, when he did not address employee [...] complaints." The lawyer for the College cited three testimonies on this subject, namely, that of Donald Dionne, of Robert Laplante and of Ms. Houston.

The lawyer for the College claimed that Exhibit 7 was a summary that would help the Committee understand the components of the evidence relating to administrative deficiencies. She specified that Exhibit 7 is a memo that was written by Robert Laplante to Donald Dionne, and they both spoke about this memo during the hearing.

The lawyer for the College stipulates that the deficiencies identified by Donald Dionne and by Robert Laplante are: “records, and criminal record checks were missing in a few files, and in all the files there was no confirmation of being hired”.

The major shortcomings in the school's administration include:

• lack of religious teaching
• access to pornographic sites via school computers
• many hours of overtime paid to staff
• unavailability of course outlines
• Individual Education Plans completed incorrectly

The lawyer for the College asked the Committee to consider Ms. Houston's testimony and her report (Exhibit 4), which contains her comments regarding school records.

Kathleen Toutant's attire at school

The fact that Kathleen Toutant, Mr. Grondin's spouse, wore inappropriate clothing in the school is consistent with the allegation in subsection 3(g) insofar as the Member "failed in his administration and supervision of school staff, when he permitted staff to behave and dress inappropriately at school." The lawyer for the College pointed out that the Committee heard the testimonies of Ms. Filion-Prager, Ms. Monto, [XXX] and Ms. Lamouche, which confirm this allegation. These witnesses said that Ms. Toutant wore very short skirts and many tops with low-cut necklines. Ms. Monto, however, had received specific guidelines from the Member on the way she should dress, a major contradiction in the Member's approach to this subject. Mr. Simard testified that Ms. Toutant liked to wear very short skirts and transparent clothing. In his testimony, he described her as a whore. Mr. Simard also said that Ms. Toutant gave her clothes to a nine- or ten-year-old student, in fourth grade, who would come to school wearing "short skirts, very transparent, seductive clothing”.

MEMBER'S REPRESENTATIONS

The Member's lawyer asked to show the Committee a written document which constituted all his claims. He read the document during his representations.

The Member's lawyer decided to organize his submission by dividing it into three parts: before November 1, 2004, after November 1, 2004, and, finally, the evidence of the witnesses.

The Member's lawyer submitted that the School Board had entrusted the Member with administrative duties during his leave, and that he had no other responsibilities. Mr. Dionne was the principal starting in November 2004, so he was responsible for running the school.

The Member's lawyer states that it was following the merging of the school boards that several witnesses presented statements against the Member.

The Member's lawyer observed that these witnesses decided to submit their statements to obtain or preserve their jobs, because no one reported anything against the Member as long as he was principal of [XXX].

The Member's lawyer claimed that René Nadeau's testimony was not credible because, according to him, Mr. Nadeau was playing a game.

The Member's lawyer indicated that Ms. Houston visited the school a year after the Member left and, although she found certain records in a mess, she had not been in her position when the Member was in charge of such records.

The Member's lawyer indicated that Ms. Filion-Prager did not file a complaint against the Member and, if she had seen something wrong, she would have filed one. In addition, only after the merger did she file a complaint and, without a doubt, it was in order to keep her job.

The Member's lawyer submitted that Mr. Dionne hid things in his testimony, admitted that the Member had helped him a lot by doing recruiting, that he found himself in a difficult situation replacing him in the middle of the school year, and that Mr. Dionne was not prepared to take on the role of principal of a school.

The Member's lawyer claimed that [XXX] testimony didn’t add anything. Her memory failed when she said that Pierre Grondin assumed the position of principal after the Member left on leave.

The Member's lawyer reported that the testimony of “B” was not credible because he was a smart enough young man who would have reported any sexual incident to his mother and, even today, at the age of [XXX], he didn't seem to be a witness who would be afraid to report sexual incidents to those in a position of authority.

The Member's lawyer stated that the witness Robert Laplante was on the defensive during his testimony, that the Member was not working in the school when Mr. Laplante was working in his position, that Mr. Laplante made the decision to prohibit the Member access to the school without indicating under what authority he was doing this, that he didn't know if the Member's expenses had been approved or not, and that he contradicted Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Dionne when reporting that the school was clean. The Member's lawyer stipulated that Mr. Laplante wanted to set himself up against the Board by doing everything himself.

The Member's lawyer stated that it was difficult to establish Julie Lamouche's credibility because she had several methods at her disposal for filing complaints against the Member over several years, but she never used such methods. According to the Member's lawyer, Ms. Lamouche saw something bad done by the Member but she chose to neglect her responsibilities. Ms. Lamouche was the union representative, she knew how to file a complaint, which she did only after the school boards merged, and she did so to keep her job.

The Member's lawyer said that Yvonne Monto stated that the Member had been a good principal, and that it was only when the Member implemented budgetary restrictions that she decided to file a complaint against the Member. The Member's lawyer also stated that Ms. Monto didn't tell the truth to Mr. Laplante in order to justify herself before him.

The Member's lawyer stated that the witness Pierre Simard had not been at the school when the Member was principal, and that the Member's sexual acts, which Mr. Simard saw, occurred in a tavern and not at the school.

The Member's lawyer claimed that Cheryl Nelson’s testimony was contradicted by that of [XXX]. The Member's lawyer indicated that the witness said that the Member had an influence over Mr. Grondin's conduct.

With respect to witness “C”, the Member's lawyer said that “C” denied having sex with the Member, but admitted having had sex with Pierre Grondin. The Member's lawyer claimed that the obligation to report this information to the Children's Aid Society also pertained to parents, which eliminated the Member's responsibility to do the same. Despite this statement, the Member's lawyer admitted that the Member had the responsibility to report any suspicion of abuse to the Children's Aid Society.

The Member's lawyer named all the other witnesses identified in allegations who did not appear, which means that these allegations were all invalid.

Finally, the Member's lawyer referred to the wilful ignorance on the part of the Member concerning Pierre Grondin's actions. The Member's lawyer argued that it was unfortunate for the young man but, out of friendship for Pierre Grondin, he wilfully overlooked it.

DECISION

After having heard the testimonies and reviewed the relevant and eligible exhibits, as well as the lawyers' submissions, the Committee recognizes that the facts support the finding of professional misconduct and considers that the member committed professional misconduct, having violated subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19) and 1(27) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as stated in the Notice of Hearing.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Committee heard several testimonies that confirm the Member's favourable treatment of Pierre Grondin, the use of abusive language toward the staff, and the lack of compliance with conflict of interest rules. The Committee also heard the testimonies that demonstrate the Member's inaction regarding Pierre Grondin's inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature toward a student, the inappropriate dress code of Kathleen Toutant, Pierre Grondin's spouse, and the lack of compliance with professional standards to ensure the protection and well-being of the students.

The Committee subsequently heard and received the written representations of the Member's lawyer in which the Member admits not having reported to the Children's Aid Society that an employee, Pierre Grondin, exposed himself to a student and failed to fulfil his duties by admitting that he hadn't acted appropriately with respect to Pierre Grondin's actions.

Furthermore, during his argumentation, the Member's lawyer [sic] confirmed not having taken measures concerning Pierre Grondin on account of deliberate ignorance. The consequences of such an admission are discussed in greater detail later in this decision. The consequences of this admission are key in what concerns the conclusion of professional misconduct committed by the Member.

Furthermore, the Committee is of the opinion that the evidence and testimonies received clearly demonstrate that the Member:

• “asked Julie Lamouche, a teacher, if she had been masturbating in the washroom” because Ms. Lamouche, who the Committee considered credible during her testimony, related the event with precision.
• “fostered a climate of intimidation, manipulation, retaliation, threats and criticism with respect to staff members, Board members, parents and students”. The notes of Ms. Yvonne Monto and the testimonies of Mr. Nadeau, Ms. Lamouche, Ms. Monto, Ms. Filion-Prager, and Ms. Houston reported a stressful, tense atmosphere and the use of threats and retaliation toward his less appreciated staff members. Ms. Nelson's testimony indicated a manipulation of information by the Member.
• “demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the Education Act and Ministry of Education curriculums”. The reports and testimonies of Mr. Laplante and Ms. Houston demonstrate a lack of knowledge, particularly as to the obligation to offer religious teaching, given that [XXX] is a school, neglecting the protection of children by allowing access to pornographic sites, by not requiring criminal record checks and attestations of diploma and training, by not preparing the performance evaluations for the school's staff, but not maintaining school records in accordance with standards established by the Ministry of Education, and by not protecting confidential information.
• “failed to appropriately manage the school budget with respect to his expenses". The Committee reviewed the reports of Mr. Laplante to this effect and also heard that the Member assured Mr. Dionne that he didn't need to be concerned about the school's finances because the Minstry of Education always makes up the deficits. The Committee heard Mr. Laplante and Mr. Simard speak about the fact that two employees, Pierre Grondin and Richard Beaudry, claimed a lot of overtime and these claims were made following an agreement reached between the Member and his employees. More particularly, the Committee received supporting documentation showing that the approvals received for the claiming of expenses incurred during his administrative leave were issued after Mr. Laplante brought this fact to the attention of the School Board.
• “failed in his administration and supervision of school staff, when he did not address employee and/or parental complaints, and permitted staff to behave and dress inappropriately at school”. The Committee heard on many occasions that the Member allowed Kathleen Toutant to dress immodestly at school, that he allowed Pierre Grondin to adopt inappropriate conduct towards the students in the school, to be absent from work without justification, and to sleep during working hours.

The Committee is of the opinion that the following allegations were proven by the Member's admission:

• “failed to notify the Children’s Aid Society of allegations that a school employee, Pierre Grondin, exposed his erect or partially erect penis, to [XXX]-year old intellectually-challenged male student “C”, in a hotel room while on a field trip to Winnipeg on June 18 and 19, 2003”,
• “failed to notify the Children’s Aid Society that school employee Pierre Grondin had sexually assaulted intellectually-challenged male student “C” for a number of years up to August 2005".

The Committee heard and accepted several testimonies including that of student “C” and the College submitted supporting documents which confirm the sexual abuse on the part of Pierre Grondin, particularly on a field trip to Winnipeg in June 2003, Pierre Grondin's repeated sexual abuse of student “C”, the influence the Member had over student “C”, the favouritism that the Member exhibited toward Pierre Grondin, the lack of follow-up by the Member to the complaint filed by [XXX] against Pierre Grondin for sexual abuse, the Member's lack of follow-up to [XXX] request to protect and ensure students' well-being, complaints received with respect to Pierre Grondin's inappropriate conduct and, in particular, Ms. Cheryl Nelson's report, all of which confirms that the Member had knowledge of the allegation of sexual abuse of student “C” by Pierre Grondin and, on the last day of the hearing, the Member alluded to "wilful ignorance" to justify his actions.

CONCLUSION

The representations of the Member's lawyer were presented as follows: []

• What is important is that there was no evidence of sexuality by Perron toward students.
• In this case, the facts might cause confusion.
• Perron was not perfect, but don’t forget that he worked under pressure. All his daily activities and his role as school principal can easily be considered as one. But by law the role of principal is specific (sic) to the school premises.
• It appears that Perron maintained the professional standard except toward Grondin, with whom he adopted deliberate ignorance (sic).
• Perron did not sexually mistreat the student. Perron did not mistreat these students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically (sic) etc.
• Perron complied with the Education Act (sic) except toward Grondin, with whom he used deliberate ignorance (sic).
• The sex that involves Grondin is shameful, however Perron is subject to deliberate ignorance (sic).
• Perron’s misconduct comes back to deliberate ignorance (sic).
• We are treating the poor deliberate ignorance (sic) as a result of Perron’s friendship with Grondin.

The Committee is of the opinion that the plea of deliberate ignorance on the part of the Member is an admission and it constitutes definitive proof that he admits to having committed professional misconduct. This is serious because it involves abuse of a minor student. The Committee reviewed the applicable jurisprudence and relies on the judgment R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13 in Paragraph 24, which describes the law on the legal concept of "deliberate ignorance".

The expression "deliberate ignorance" seems more descriptive than "wilful blindness", as it connotes "an actual process of suppressing a suspicion". Properly understood in this way, the concept of wilful blindness is of narrow scope and involves no departure from the subjective focus on the workings of the accused's mind. While a "failure to inquire" may be evidence of recklessness or criminal negligence, as for example, where a failure to inquire is a marked departure from the conduct expected of a reasonable person, wilful blindness is not simply a failure to inquire but, to repeat Professor Stewart's words, "deliberate ignorance". This deliberate ignorance is equivalent to a knowledge of and active participation in alleged sexual abuse.

In light of the claims made by the Member's lawyer and the plea of wilful blindness, the Member admits having knowledge of Pierre Grondin's actions. He deliberately looked “in the other direction” and allowed Pierre Grondin, among other things, to sexually abuse student “C”, which makes him an accomplice. Consequently, the Committee believes that the following allegations have been proven:

"Between June 2003 and March 2006, the Member acted inappropriately and incompetently, violated the ethics of the teaching profession and failed to carry out his professional responsibilities, in that he:

• sexually abused intellectually-challenged male student “C” on a number of occasions up to August 2005;
• watched the filming of school employee Pierre Grondin as he sexually assaulted [XXX] and [XXX]-year old sisters, “D” and “E”;
• abused his power and authority, exhibited favouritism and failed to comply with conflict of interest rules when he:
  • continued to entrust intellectually-challenged male student “C” to Educational Assistant Pierre Grondin, even though the student was not making progress and the educational program for the student was incomplete.

The evidence demonstrates that the Member showed favouritism toward Pierre Grondin by overlooking his incompetence, lack of ability and professionalism in the roles of Educational Assistant, lunch supervisor and school custodian, despite reports by several teachers. He told the school bus driver, Cheryl Nelson, that he had conducted an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct on the part of Educational Assistant Pierre Grondin on a trip to Winnipeg and that “nothing serious had occurred”. He failed to take action regarding the complaint, reporting allegations of sexual harassment on the part of Pierre Grondin, written by [XXX], a teacher in the school. He failed to address a parental complaint that Pierre Grondin was infatuated with their daughter, “G”.

With respect to all the other allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing, they have been rejected because of insufficient evidence.

January 23, 2013

Marie-Louise Chartrand,

Chair, Panel of the Discipline Committee

______________________________,

Darlene Mead, OCT,

Member, Panel of the Discipline Committee

Ruth Ann Penny, OCT,

Member, Panel of the Discipline Committee