DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Colin Jeffrey Sawers, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Christine Bellini, OCT, Chair William (Bill) Kirkwood
Louis Sloan, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Caroline Zayid,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Litigation Paraprofessional
- and – )
COLIN JEFFREY SAWERS ) Andrea Wobick,
(CERTIFICATE #186522) ) Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP,
) on behalf of Colin Jeffrey Sawers
) Erica Richler,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: April 18, 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION, DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 18, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated March 26, 2010 was served on Colin Jeffrey Sawers, requesting his presence on April 12, 2010 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for April 18, 2013.
Colin Jeffrey Sawers was in attendance throughout the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Colin Jeffrey Sawers in the Notice of Hearing, (Exhibit 1) dated March 26, 2010 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Colin Jeffrey Sawers is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made thereunder, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(d) he committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and
(f) he engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students of a nature defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.
At the hearing on April 18, 2013, College Counsel sought to withdraw the allegation of professional misconduct in paragraph (f), namely that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students of a nature defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act. The Committee agrees that this allegation shall be withdrawn.
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
At all material times, the Member was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached to Exhibit 2 and located at Tab “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
The Member was employed by the Waterloo Region District School Board (the “Board”) at all material times hereto and was a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] (the “School”) in Kitchener, Ontario.
During the 2003-2006 academic years, A was a male student of the School and graduated on [XXX] .
The Member was A’s [XXX] teacher during the first semester of the 2003-2004 academic year.
In early 2004, A told the Member that he was gay and they spoke about the Member being available to act as a mentor for A – someone to discuss emotional issues with.
The Member spoke to his Principal about A’s disclosure above and he being a mentor for A. The Principal agreed that the Member could do so even though he was not a guidance counsellor, provided that A’s parents agreed.
The Member spoke to A’s parents and they agreed that the Member continue to act as A’s mentor.
Later in the spring of 2004, A’s father went to the School and spoke with the Principal to report a concern regarding the Member in that the Member called A at home at 9:00 p.m. and invited A to Tim Horton’s for tea.
The Principal spoke to the Member about the concern. The Principal told him that he was to be available to A if he needed support, but that he should not be initiating contact with A. The Principal instructed the Member that he should not have any contact with A outside of school property and that any contact should be at the request of A.
If the Principal were to testify, she would say that, approximately two weeks later, the Member’s department head reported to the Principal that A had disclosed something of a sexual nature to the Member.
The Principal subsequently told the Member to have no further contact with A as a mentor and/or a counsellor.
Thereafter, while A was still a student at the School, and despite the Principal’s direction, the Member:
(a) encouraged A to initiate communication with him;
(b) communicated about personal matters with A through electronic communication and classroom discussions;
(c) asked A questions about his sexuality;
(d) made personal contact with A outside of regular school hours;
(e) took A for lunch on A’s [XXX] birthday with the permission of A’s parents;
(f) met with A and A’s friend for lunch;
(g) organized and chaperoned a group trip to Paris for students, which A attended with his parents’ permission; and
(h) hired or invited A to do renovation work at his property, with the permission of A’s parents.
- The Principal provided the Member with a letter of discipline dated November 21, 2006. A copy of the letter is attached to Exhibit 2 and located at Tab “B”.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
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 13 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts referred to herein constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that he:
(a) understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) understands that by pleading no contest 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;
(d) 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;
(e) understands that any agreement between his counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the uncontested facts and circumstances, 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 and Counsel for the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Colin Jeffrey Sawers committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 above (the “uncontested facts”) of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2). He acknowledged that the uncontested facts referred to in Exhibit 2 constitute professional misconduct and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Committee accepted the Member’s plea of no contest and the facts in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest.
From 2004 until 2006, the Member engaged in a series of interactions with a student in his school. Initially, the student disclosed his sexual orientation to the Member. With the permission of the Principal and the student’s parents, the Member became the student’s mentor. Concerns arose from the parents regarding the Member’s interactions with the student outside school hours. In 2004 the Principal told the Member about the concerns raised by the parents and was instructed not to initiate contact with the student outside the school property. The Principal subsequently told the Member not to have any contact with the student as a mentor or counsellor. Despite the Principal’s direction, the Member continued to interact with the student, such as communicating with the student electronically, meeting the student socially outside of school and discussed the student’s sexuality. On several occasions the student’s parents gave the Member permission for some of these interactions. The Principal provided the Member with a letter of discipline on November 21, 2006, reinforcing that the Member was expected to maintain professional relationships with all students in the school community.
The Committee finds that based on the Member’s aforementioned conduct, he committed acts of professional misconduct, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
SUBMISSIONS ON PUBLICATION
Counsel agreed that there be publication of the findings and order of the Committee in summary form in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, but did not agree on whether the Member’s name should be included.
College Counsel submitted that the name of the member should be published in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Counsel stated that any boundary violations between a student and teacher need to be made known in order to protect the public and to demonstrate that the College takes these matters seriously. College Counsel submitted that publication with name encourages public confidence in the discipline process and sends a message to others in the profession that this type of conduct will not be tolerated.
Counsel for the Member requested that the Member’s name not be published. She suggested that the behaviour was at the lower end of the spectrum. Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member has resigned his membership, and undertaken never to teach again where a certificate is required, and has received a penalty of reprimand. This meets the factors to be taken into account when assessing penalty, such as specific and general deterrence and protection of the public. Publication of the Member’s name is not warranted.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the appropriate penalty and introduced a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which provides as follows:
The Ontario College of Teachers and the Member jointly submit that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
(b) 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 (the “Register”);
(c) directs that there be publication of the findings and order of the Committee in summary form in the official publication of the College Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. The parties have not agreed on whether or not the Member’s name should be included and submissions will be made on that issue.
PENALTY
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
(a) the Member is directed to appear before the Committee to receive a reprimand and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”); and
(c) the Committee directs that there be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
Both counsel submitted that the reprimand was appropriate given that the Member has resigned his membership in the College and signed an undertaking not to seek reinstatement of his certificate. Given these actions, the Committee agreed with the penalty of reprimand.
The Committee considered the submissions of Counsel with respect to publication and determined that the name of the Member will be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. The Committee determined that teacher student boundary violations warrant publication with name. Further, the nature of the Member’s misconduct and given the lengthy period of time over which the misconduct occurred, the Committee concluded that it was in the public interest to publish the Member’s name.
The Committee further acknowledges that publication with name acts as a specific deterrent to this Member and serves to deter the profession from engaging in similar misconduct.
Date: April 18, 2013
______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
William (Bill) Kirkwood
Member, Discipline Panel
Louis Sloan, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel