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
Bryan Williams, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Louis Sloan, OCT, Chair Mel Greif William (Bill) Kirkwood
BETWEEN: ) ) David Leonard,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Litigation Paraprofessional )
- and – )
) Bryan Williams,
) on his own behalf, in person
BRYAN WILLIAMS )
(CERTIFICATE #444832) )
) Julie Maciura,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: May 31, 2013
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on May 31, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated February 23, 2011 was served on Bryan Williams, requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on March 8, 2011 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for May 31, 2013.
The Member was in attendance and self-represented.
THE ALLEGATIONS
IT IS ALLEGED that Bryan Williams is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in sections 30(2) and 40(1.1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”) in that:
a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
b) he 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 Act and the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under those Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 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 May 31, 2013, College Counsel sought to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs (b) and (f), namely that the Member abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7) and 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 these allegations shall be withdrawn.
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Bryan Williams (the “Member”) was at all material times, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached to Exhibit 2, Tab “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Mississauga, Ontario.
At all material times, A was a [XXX] female student at the School and the Member was A’s former [XXX] [XXX] teacher.
During the last week of classes in December 2007, before the Christmas break, A and other classmates were speaking casually about children and working with children. A suspected that the Member may have overheard this conversation because at the end of the class, the Member approached A and asked her about [XXX] his children.
A agreed to [XXX] the Member’s children and at that time, the Member provided A with his cellular telephone number and asked A to call him so that they could make arrangements to meet and speak about it.
Subsequently, the Member had asked A to call him on the Saturday of the week in question to which A did, but the Member did not respond. The Member returned A’s call on the Sunday and arranged to meet.
A was supposed to work on that day, but her shift did not start until later in the afternoon and the Member told A that he was going to go by her place of employment to pick her up and they would then go for coffee.
The Member picked A up from her place of employment and drove some distance from A’s place of employment and the School to a coffee shop where they could speak. The Member informed A that he chose that particular coffee shop because he did not want to start rumours.
While the Member and A were alone at the coffee shop, they exchanged and looked at each other’s cellular phones. Attached to Exhibit 2, Tab “B” are photographs of the Member and A at the coffee shop. Attached to Exhibit 2, Tab “C” is a statement from A.
The Member received a disciplinary letter by the Board dated June 23, 2008. Attached to Exhibit 2, Tab “D” is a letter from the Board to the Member.
The Member undertook a course with regards to professional boundaries in July 2008 as required by the Board. Attached to Exhibit 2, Tab “E” is a letter from Glenn French with regards to the completion of the boundaries course by the Member dated June 28, 2012.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts referred to in paragraphs 5 to 9 above, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5); 1(15); 1(18 -unprofessional); and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that depending on the penalty ordered by the Discipline Committee, the decision of the Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, may be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and himself with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and without the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the admitted 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 by the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Bryan Williams committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1 (15), 1(18 - unprofessional) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee accepts the Member’s admission of the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 above (the “Admitted Facts”). The Member acknowledged that the Admitted Facts referred to in paragraphs 5 to 9 above, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1 (15), 1(18 - unprofessional) and 1(19). The Committee accepted the Member’s guilty plea and accepts that the facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2) amount to professional misconduct as pleaded to by the Member.
The Member met with a female student to discuss [XXX] arrangements at which time cell phone numbers were exchanged. This meeting was facilitated when the Member picked up the student at her place of employment and took her to a coffee shop somewhat removed from her place of employment. The Member explained that the location was chosen because he was concerned about rumours. A photograph, taken of the Member and the student at a table in the coffee shop was submitted in evidence (Exhibit 2, Tab B). The Member was cautioned in a disciplinary letter from his Board. (Exhibit 2, Tab D). In this letter the Member was advised that future similar occurrences could result in further disciplinary action, including a recommendation for termination of employment. The Member was also required to take a professional boundaries course.
Because of his actions, the Member is guilty of professional misconduct, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1 (15), 1(18 - unprofessional) and 1(19).
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
College Counsel submitted that the appropriate penalty would be a 1 to 3 month suspension, a course in boundary violations, a reprimand and publication with the Member’s name. College Counsel indicated that its first responsibility was protection of the public interest. College Counsel argued that it was important to provide both a specific and general deterrent for the Member and the profession and to assist in the Member’s rehabilitation. Counsel was not asking for revocation but argued that a 1 to 3 month suspension serves as both a specific and general deterrent.
The Member agreed to the imposition of a reprimand and completion of a boundaries course. He argued that a suspension would be unduly punitive in that he had been successfully employed at a different school, by the same Board, for the past four years without further complaints. He also asked that his name not be published since he had re-established himself as an effective teacher at his new school and this would cause undue hardship.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Committee directs that the Member 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”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of one month commencing on June 30, 2013, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(i) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction approved by the Registrar regarding appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues;
(ii) upon completion of the course outlined in (i) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that the Member has successfully completed the course.
- The Committee directs that there be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form, without the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The reprimand serves to signal to the Member the nature of his misconduct and also to signal a path for rehabilitation. The suspension fully informs the Member of the scale of his misconduct and advises the profession of the consequences of such misconduct. The boundaries course is imperative in the process of rehabilitation and will satisfy the public interest which requires that teachers act professionally at all times. Publication, without name, informs all persons of the nature of the Member’s behaviour and the consequences that will ensue. The Member has been teaching for the last four years with the same Board, without any boundaries concerns. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the penalty of suspension, reprimand boundaries course and publication, without name, was sufficient to deter this Member.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Dated: May 31, 2013
______________________________ Louis Sloan, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Mel Greif Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________ William (Bill) Kirkwood Member, Discipline Panel