DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the "Act") and Ontario Regulation 437/97 thereunder
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: )
) Christine Lonsdale and Annie Lacroix,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for the Ontario College of Teachers
THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF )
TEACHERS )
– and – )
) Jacques C. Roy,
) of Roth & Associates,
JACQUES RENÉ JOSEPH PERRON ) representing Jacques René Joseph
(MEMBER NO. 104771)) Perron
) R. Paul Marshall,
) Emond Harnden LLP,
) Independent Legal Counsel ) )
) Heard: 7 August 2013
PENALTY DECISION
On January 23, 2013, the panel of the Disciplinary Committee (the "Committee") rendered a written decision finding Jacques René Joseph Perron (the “Member”) guilty of professional misconduct.
Having considered the evidence and the burden of proof, the standard of proof, and the submissions of the College's counsel and the Member's former counsel, the Committee determined that the facts supported a finding of professional misconduct.
The January 23, 2013 decision thereby confirmed that the Member committed professional misconduct when he failed to notify the Children's Aid Society that Pierre Grondin, an employee of the school, sexually abused a [XXX]-year-old student with learning disabilities over a period of several years and that the Member deliberately turned a blind eye to this conduct in order to protect his friendship with this employee, who served as a teaching assistant for the student. Several other factors were taken into account in the written decision. These include a serious failure to protect students, the favouritism shown by the Member toward certain members of his teaching staff, the climate of intimidation this fostered at the school, and mismanagement of the school's public funds. In its January 23, 2013 decision, the Committee therefore concluded that the Member committed professional misconduct in violation of sections 1(5), 1(7), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19), and 1(27) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 as stipulated in the May 4, 2011 Notice of Hearing.
The August 7, 2013 hearing followed from this hearing on the merits and was concerned exclusively with the penalty and order. This hearing allowed the Committee to hear submissions from the parties with respect to penalty in order to make a determination concerning it.
During this hearing, the Member's lawyer sought to have Mr. Perron testify. The College opposed this additional testimony on the grounds that the hearing on the merits was complete and a decision had been issued on January 23, 2013. The Member's counsel then made an oral motion to adjourn all proceedings relating to that hearing. The decision on the motion to adjourn is the object of a separate decision. However, in this decision as to penalty, it is important to note that the motion to adjourn is rejected and to inform the reader that the rejection of motion to adjourn is dealt with under the Decision on the Motion and Reasons issued on September 17, 2013.
Submissions of College Counsel
The College's counsel argued that the only appropriate penalty is revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration. She submitted that publication of the Member's name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession must also be part of the penalty. In support of this argument, she cited the reasons given for the January 23, 2013 decision, including the favouritism demonstrated by the member toward a staff member, Pierre Grondin, and the use of abusive language toward staff. She reminded the Committee that the Member repeatedly neglected his administrative duties. She also highlighted the Member's admission establishing as fact that the Member did not report allegations to the Children's Aid Society that a staff member had exposed himself to a student and, moreover, that the Member took no disciplinary action against Pierre Grondin because of [his own] "willful blindness." The College's counsel further argued that the Member's failure to act is tantamount to sexual misconduct.
In order to assist the Committee to fully understand her position, counsel referred to a number of Discipline Committee decisions imposing the penalty of revocation:
The Ontario College of Teachers v. Deans, June 21, 2012
The Ontario College of Teachers v. Mullins, May 7, 2012
The Ontario College of Teachers v. Williams, August 19, 2008
The Ontario College of Teachers v. Stack, July 8, 2008.
These decisions impose a penalty of revocation and refer to similar misconduct that had negative repercussions on students and on staff and community morale. These decisions, among others, demonstrate that severe ethical lapses carry the most serious consequence: the loss of the privilege to practice the profession. She reminded the panel that the Member was also found guilty of professional misconduct under several other provisions of the Act and argued that revocation is essential to ensure that the Member fully apprehend the gravity of his misconduct. The College's counsel concluded by arguing that this penalty is necessary to maintain public trust, and that publication of a summary of the case with the Member's name in the College's official publication is essential to deter members of the profession from committing similar offenses.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
The submissions made by the Member's counsel were brief. He argued that the testimony related to this case stems from a homophobic campaign in which the College should not become complicit.
After arguing this position, he focused on errors he claims were made by the Committee during the hearing on the merits and in the writing of the decision. He also took the opportunity to clarify his position and that of the Member by plainly stating that his client never sexually abused children.
In addition, he argued that the Member's former counsel made several errors resulting from the counsel's state of health. He claimed that his own presence at the hearing indicates that the incapacity of the former counsel was serious and did not permit him to continue to defend the Member.
It should also be noted that during the hearing as to penalty, the Member's counsel submitted a letter (exhibit 29) holding that the hearing as to penalty is in principle an extension of the initial hearing and not a new proceeding. The Member's counsel concluded by opposing the publication of a summary of the decision with the Member's name in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
Penalty Decision
The Committee made the following Order as to Penalty:
The Registrar is directed to revoke the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
Pursuant to section 30(7) of the Act, the Committee orders that the Member may not apply for reinstatement for a period of at least five years from the date of this Order.
A summary of the Decision, the Order, and the Member's name as it appears in the College's public register shall be published in the College's official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession
Reasons for the Decision as to Penalty
The Committee carefully considered all the submissions and arguments of the parties.
As the Committee determined and explained in its January 23, 2013 decision, the Member's misconduct is very serious. This former school principal abused his position of trust and authority in failing to conform to the standards of the profession, in committing acts and omissions that members would reasonably consider shameful, dishonourable, and contrary to the standards of the profession, and in acting in a manner unbecoming of a member of the profession.
As is indicated in the reasons for the January 23, 2013 decision, the Member placed his friendship with Pierre Grondin above the protection of students. He failed to report his friend Pierre Grondin's sexual conduct toward children to the Children's Aid Society, and knowingly lied to protect him.
As a school principal, he failed to meet his responsibilities by fostering a climate of intimidation, manipulation, reprisals, threats and criticism -- among the staff, board members, parents and students.
Additionally, he did not meet the Ministry of Education standards for the keeping of student records, for hiring, and for the implementation of certified, competent teaching in his school. The Committee is also convinced that he abused his position of authority to influence the investigation of a complaint against him and exercised favouritism resulting in pecuniary implications for certain staff, namely his friend Pierre Grondin.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty imposed in this case of serious misconduct serves the public interest. The revocation of certification and the five-year delay before an application for reinstatement can be submitted are essential to maintaining the public’s trust. This penalty will have a specific deterrent effect upon the Member.
The publication of the summary of the decision with the Member’s name will also provide a specific deterrent to the Member, as well as being a general deterrent to all members of the profession, demonstrating that such behaviour constitutes professional misconduct and carries the most severe penalty: the revocation of a member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
September 17, 2013
Marie-Louise Chartrand,
Chair, Discipline Committee Panel
______________________________,
Darlene Mead, OCT,
Member, Discipline Committee Panel
Ruth Ann Penny, OCT,
Member, Discipline Committee Panel