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
Peter David Scorrar, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of
Teachers.
PANEL: Christine Bellini, OCT, Chair Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT
Pauline Smart
BETWEEN: ) ) Larissa Moscu,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Law Clerk )
- and – )
) Peter David Scorrar was not present,
PETER DAVID SCORRAR ) or represented
(CERTIFICATE #224746) )
) Julie Maciura,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: November 25, 2013
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION, AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 25, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated September 13, 2012 was served on Peter David Scorrar, requesting attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on September 25, 2012 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 25, 2013. Peter David Scorrar was not in attendance at the hearing.
College Counsel submitted into evidence the Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo, sworn November 20, 2013 (Exhibit 3). The Affidavit confirmed that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing, the Disclosure Brief, Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee and a cover letter on or about September 21, 2012 (Exhibit 3, Tab B).
On September 17, 2013, the Member was served with a letter advising him of the hearing date and time. This letter also advised the Member that the College would be seeking revocation of his Certificate and publication of the decision with his name in the official publication of the College (Exhibit 3, Tab F). By e-mail dated September 22, 2013, the Member acknowledged being served with this letter advising him of the date and time and notice of the hearing scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on November 25, 2013 (Exhibit 3, Tab H).
The Committee was satisfied that the Member was properly served and informed of the hearing date and time and location (Exhibit 3, Tab F). The Committee noted the Member was not present at 9:30 a.m. and commenced the hearing in his absence.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Peter David Scorrar (the “Member”) in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Peter David Scorrar is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”) in that:
(a) he failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession contrary to section 13 of the Regulation Made Under the Teaching Profession Act, made pursuant to section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act R.S.O. 1980, chapter 495, as amended (the “TPA Regulation”);
(b) he failed to regard as his first duty the effective education of his pupils and the maintenance of a high degree of professional competence in his teaching contrary to subsection 14(a) of the TPA Regulation;
(c) he failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils contrary to subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation;
(d) he failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care contrary to subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation; and
(e) he failed to comply with subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act.
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Peter David Scorrar (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Greater Essex County School Board, formerly Essex County District School Board (the “Board) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario and held an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate.
During the 1988-1989 academic year the Member was a teacher of the Student at the School.
During the 1988-1989 academic year the Member began flirting with the Student, who was [XXX] years of age at the commencement of the 1988-1989 year. That conduct continued and escalated during the 1989-1990 academic year.
On or about the last day of the 1988-1989 academic year, the Member kissed the Student on the lips in front of other students.
In or around July 1989, while the Student was working at a restaurant, the Member attended the restaurant alone to drink and waited until the Student finished work, walked her to her car and kissed her.
In or around the first month of the 1989-1990 academic year, the Member, on more than one occasion, drove the Student to secluded areas where he would rub, fondle and/or kiss her.
During and including the period between October 1989 and December 1989, the Member engaged in sexual intercourse or other inappropriate sexual conduct with the Student.
During the 1988-1989 academic year, the Member invited the Student to his home and when confronted by the mother of the Student, threatened the Student’s mother by saying that she would never see her daughter again.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was not present or represented by counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denies the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.
Evidence
College Counsel submitted as evidence the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1 Notice of Hearing dated September 13, 2012
Exhibit 2 Registered Member Information Sheet
Exhibit 3 Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo sworn November 20, 2013
Exhibit 4 Document Brief relating to Peter David Scorrar.
College Counsel called one witness, the Student.
The Evidence of the Student
The Student is currently a teacher herself and has been teaching since 1997.
The Student testified that the Member had been a teacher in her [XXX] school. Even though she did not have him as a teacher until grade [XXX], she knew of him before then because he was a popular teacher; he was athletic and if he liked a student they were allowed to call him “Uncle Pete”. The Student stated the Member became her [XXX] teacher in her grade [XXX] year, in September 1988. She was also placed in his [XXX] class after another class for which she signed up had insufficient enrolment. The Student remembers that she did not initially like the Member very much but eventually her feelings changed after he began paying attention to her.
In February 1989 the Student recalls the Member began paying attention to her and began flirting with her. On the last day of school the Member kissed the Student on the lips. The Student stated that the relationship then progressed, and included sexual intercourse that began on October 19, 1989.
The Student kept a journal that detailed her evolving relationship with the Member. Her journal was discovered by her mother on October 22, 1989. The Student warned the Member that their relationship had been discovered and she stated the Member told her to deny it, to say “it never happened”. The Student’s mother presented the Principal with a copy of the journal entries as evidence and a meeting was held between the Student, her mother, the Principal and the Member. During the meeting the Member acknowledged that he had “some contact of a sexual nature” with the Student. The Student testified that while she and the Member had already had sexual intercourse by the time of the October 23rd meeting, she had not recorded it in her journal. As such, her mother did not know about it and the Student did not tell her mother about it at the time and so the Principal did not find out either. The Student was adamant that she and the Member first had sexual intercourse on October 19, 1989.
At the end of the meeting (Exhibit 4 Tab 12), all parties agreed and signed that:
(a) both (the Member and the Student) end their relationship;
(b) both (the Member and the Student ) agreed that they would not meet at any time or place without other people being present;
(c) (the Member) agreed to attend at least six sessions with a counsellor and to report the results to the Principal;
(d) this report will be placed in the Member’s file;
(e) copy of the report would be made available to the counsellor.
The Student attended a second meeting with her mother and a Superintendent at the Board office. The Student was informed that the Member would be suspended for two months and would return to her school in January 1990. The Student remembers the meeting very well and remembers being relieved that the Superintendent was kind to her, even fatherly. She had been worried that he would blame her, at least in part, for the relationship, and she was relieved that he was nice to her. The Committee found that the Student’s ability to remember and clearly recount these kinds of details tended to strengthen her evidence. The Student’s memory was only aided by her journal entries – she clearly remembered the events in question independent of those journal entries.
The Student stated that despite the agreement, the Member and she continued their relationship. While she could not remember every date on which they met, she did remember clearly that she had sexual intercourse with the Member in his van on her birthday, [XXX]. The Student stated that the Member returned from his short suspension to the school on January 1990, and they continued to have a sexual romantic relationship off of school property.
The Student stated they also had sexual intercourse on her graduation night, [XXX]. On July 30, 1990, the Member wrote a letter to her (Exhibit 4, Tab 15) which stated:
“When we make love… I’m completely emersed (sic) in you… I want you to love me. I need you to love me. For if you do love me then all of these other things disappear”. The Member also writes in this letter: “As you know – I’m not just a good lay. I’ve got a mind. It is important for me to get into your mind as well as your pants. Do you remember I said once that it is important to be able to talk with your partner after making love.”
In late August 1990, the Student stated her mother discovered the two at the Member’s home and that they were still having a relationship. She said “an ugly scene ensued including the Member saying to the Student’s mother that if she didn’t leave it alone she would never see her daughter again”. By that the Student assumed the Member meant that he would take her away somewhere.
The Student stated “it’s been many years and I still have many vivid memories. It impacted me and I did not know how much until recently”. The Student recalled two recent events that triggered her to question if what happened in the past with the Member could be considered professional misconduct. For a long time the Student stated that she felt that maybe there was nothing wrong with the relationship she had with the Member. However, the Student is now a teacher, and reading summary decisions in Professionally Speaking “was the first time that gave her pause”. The second incident that caused her to come forward was in February 2011, when the Student states that she read a letter, written by the Member, to the editor in a newspaper, in which he publicly defended a sex offender. As she said, “Reading his words, defending this [other] man” prompted her to further question the inappropriateness of Member’s conduct towards her when she was his student.
SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING - COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE
Counsel for the College submitted to the Committee that it needed to apply the legislation that was in place at the time considering the timeframe during which the allegations occurred. College Counsel presented both the testimony of the Student and the corroborating evidence submitted in the exhibits. The Student testified that the journal entries were made on the dates indicated in her journals and that they accurately reflected what happened and how she felt at the relevant times.
During the 1988-1989 academic year the Member was a teacher of the Student at the School. During this academic year the Member began flirting with the Student, who was [XXX] years of age at the commencement of this school year. That conduct continued and escalated during the 1989-1990 academic year (Exhibit 4, Tab 1).
On or about the last day of the 1988-1989 academic year the Member kissed the Student on the lips in front of other students (Exhibit 4, Tab 2).
In or around July 1989, while the student was working at a restaurant, the Member attended the restaurant alone to drink and waited until the Student finished work, walked her to her, car and kissed her (Exhibit 4, Tab 4)
In or around the first month of the 1989-1990 academic year the Member, on more than one occasion, drove the Student to secluded areas where he would rub, fondle and/or kiss her. (Exhibit 4, Tab 8)
During and including the period between October 1989 and December 1989, the Member engaged in sexual intercourse or other inappropriate sexual conduct with the Student. (Exhibit 4, Tab 15)
During the 1988-1989 academic year the Student testified that the Member invited the Student to his home and when confronted by the mother of the Student, threatened the Student’s mother by saying that she would never see her daughter again.
College Counsel stated that the evidence submitted as journal entries was used during the school board’s investigation. The Student verified that the journal entries submitted as exhibits were accurate and written by her in 1989.
Counsel reminded the Committee that in light of the historical nature of the conduct, the Notice of Hearing was drafted in a way to ensure that only those provisions that were in force at the time were being alleged against the Member. Counsel submitted the following documents for the Committee to consider: the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980, and subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act.
DECISION
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Peter David Scorrar committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to section 13, subsections 14(a), 14(d) and 14(f) of the Regulation Made Under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O 1980, and failed to comply with subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee heard evidence from one witness, the Student, about incidents that occurred during the 1988-1989 academic year. The witness consistently described events that the Committee concluded were unprofessional, and could reasonably be seen as grooming behaviour. The Committee finds that the witness provided documentary evidence (her journal entries, the letter from the Member, and the Principal’s meeting notes - all made back in 1989) that corroborated her testimony. The Committee finds that the witness was credible and the information that she provided was organized, sequential, and well-documented. Her recounting of the events was still clearly upsetting to her, as she cried through much of her testimony.
Much of her evidence was corroborated by the Member himself in his letter to her (Exhibit 4, Tab 15) and in the admissions he made at the meeting of October 23, 1989, as documented in the Principal’s notes of that meeting (Exhibit 4, Tab 12).
The Member was not present or represented during this hearing.
The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct did not uphold the standards of the teaching profession as he failed to respect the student-teacher boundaries. In addition, the Member repeatedly refused to follow the administration’s direction and the Student’s mother’s demands to end the relationship, which further demonstrated his disregard for professional standards. Even though the Member admitted verbally and in writing that he was aware that a sexual relationship with a student was wrong and was disciplined by his administration (Exhibit 4, Tab 12), he continued to engage in that inappropriate conduct, even going so far as to threaten to take the Student away from her family.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Counsel for the College submitted that the appropriate penalty, given the serious nature of the conduct, was revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and publication with name. This penalty will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member to not engage in any future conduct of this nature. As a general deterrent, the penalty informs the profession and the public that this behaviour is not condoned, rather it is condemned, and will result in revocation of certification, as well as full publication with the Member’s name.
Counsel for the College submitted three cases for review by the Committee, which demonstrated a similar degree of penalty application for similar misconduct. Counsel concluded that the most serious case must impose the most serious of consequences -revocation and publication with name.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
a) the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member; and
b) 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 DECISION
The Committee finds that revocation is the appropriate penalty in this case. While the Member has resigned from teaching, he still holds a certificate of qualification and has not signed an undertaking to resign and never reapply.
During the time of the allegations the Member demonstrated repeated and blatant disregard for the emotional and physical well-being of the Student. The Member did not uphold the commonly held standards of respect and professionalism inherent in the teaching profession, nor did he demonstrate any remorse for his actions (which was apparent not only from his letter to the Student back at the time (Exhibit 4, Tab 15) but also from his letters to counsel for the College in 2012 and 2013 in response to their correspondence with regard to setting a hearing date – Exhibit 3).
The Committee finds that the Member’s ongoing pattern of professional misconduct makes revocation the necessary penalty in order to inform the Member that his behaviour will not be accepted and to deter him from repeating it. By his actions and behaviour, the Member has forfeited the privilege to hold a teaching certificate in the Province of Ontario. Revocation also serves the principle of general deterrence by letting other teachers know that this will be the outcome for this type of behavior, even if it only comes to light many years after the fact.
The Committee agrees with Counsel’s submissions that publication of the findings and Order of the Committee, in summary, with the name of the Member is warranted. Publication with name acts as a specific deterrent to the Member, provides a general deterrent to the profession, and serves to inform the public and therefore protect public interest. Publication meets the principle of transparency and assures the public and the profession that the College does not tolerate repeated and unresolved misconduct and that this type of misconduct is dealt with seriously.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Dated: December 5, 2013
______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel ______________________________ Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Pauline Smart
Member, Discipline Panel