Ontario College of Teachers v. Thompson, 2014 ONOCT 103

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Thompson, 2014 ONOCT 103

Date: 2014-07-09

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

Douglas Kenneth George Thompson, OCT a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Christine Bellini, OCT, Chair Wes Vickers, OCT

Monique Lapalme Arseneault

BETWEEN: ) ) Caroline Zayid,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,

) Law Clerk

• and – )

) Katie Rowen

DOUGLAS KENNETH ) Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson,

GEORGE THOMPSON, OCT ) for Douglas Kenneth George

(CERTIFICATE #437151) ) Thompson

) Julie Maciura,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: July 3, 2014

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on July 3, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated June 1, 2013 (Exhibit 1) was served on Douglas Kenneth George Thompson (the “Member”), requesting his presence on July 9, 2013 to set a date for a hearing and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for July 3, 2014.

The Member was in attendance at the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 1, 2013 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Douglas Kenneth George Thompson is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1) 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 verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) 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);

(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

At the outset of the hearing, Counsel for the College requested the withdrawal of allegations (d) and (e) in the Notice of Hearing, namely subsections 1(7.3) and 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

The Committee granted this request, and these allegations were subsequently withdrawn.

STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

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:

1. Douglas Kenneth George Thompson (the “Member”) was at all material times a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information regarding the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Halton District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).

3. In and around the period September-November 2010, the Member made repeated inappropriate and demeaning comments to a student/students which could have been perceived as displaying a discriminatory attitude towards homosexuals and/or as a suggestion that he believed the student/students in question were homosexual.

4. In and around the period September-November 2010, the Member made repeated inappropriate and demeaning comments and gestures to a student/students regarding their intelligence, some of which displayed a discriminatory attitude towards persons with intellectual disabilities.

5. In and around the period September-November 2010, the Member made repeated inappropriate comments to parents and students, including:

(a) indicating that students were unlikely to achieve academic success;

(b) speaking negatively about a student’s chances of being admitted to post-secondary studies;

(c) indicating that he felt students in his class(es) were of generally low intelligence;

(d) making negative comments to parents about the school and school administrators.

6. An investigation was undertaken by the Board regarding the allegations, and the Member was disciplined. As a result of the discipline imposed, the member also completed a six (6) session course on establishing and maintaining appropriate boundaries with students. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s February 23, 2011 letter to the Member.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

7. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

8. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts referred to above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and admits the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(18), and 1(19).

9. 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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he 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) 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 his counsel and counsel for the College 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 with the advice of legal counsel.

10. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, 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 College Counsel and Counsel for the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Douglas Kenneth George Thompson committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(18), and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts, and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2) and acknowledged that the Uncontested Facts referred to above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. The Committee accepts the Member’s plea of no contest and the statement tendered by the parties.

The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated inappropriate and demeaning comments to students which could have been perceived as displaying discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals are unacceptable. Further, the Member’s repeated inappropriate and demeaning comments and gestures to students regarding their intelligence and ability could also be considered discriminatory and unprofessional. The Member also made repeated inappropriate comments to parents and students about the school and school administration. The Member’s behaviour constitutes acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2) 1(18) and 1(19).

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member submitted a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3) indicating the following:

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:

1. directs that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. directs the Registrar 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:

(a) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, within ninety (90) days of the Decision of the Discipline Committee, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations;

(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:

(i) he or she has reviewed a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and

(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course.

3. 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 this issue.

Submissions of College Counsel Re: Publication

College Counsel submitted that there was a Joint Submission on Penalty, yet the parties had not come to an agreement as to publication of the Member’s name, in the College’s official magazine, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

College Counsel stated that the Member’s name should be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Counsel stated this is an important area (discrimination) for the profession to be cognizant of. It makes the profession aware that derogatory and discriminatory comments are not acceptable and it is important for the Member to know that this type of conduct is unacceptable. Publication with name serves as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to the profession. It makes the public aware that the College takes these matters seriously.

Submissions of Member’s Counsel Re: Publication

Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member’s name should not be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Counsel stated that the Member’s conduct was at the low end of the spectrum, it happened over four years ago and there have been no further incidents or complaints against the Member. Counsel also stated that specific deterrence has already been addressed as the Member was disciplined by his board immediately after these incidents occurred. The Member has already completed a boundaries course and has agreed to undertake further course work. Counsel stated that the goals of transparency would be satisfied by publication of the summary of the findings alone. Publication with name would be unnecessarily punitive to the Member.

The Committee reviewed the case law submitted by both Counsel in support of their arguments regarding publication.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Member is directed 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”);

2. 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:

(a) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, within ninety (90) days of the Decision of the Discipline Committee, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations;

(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:

(i) the course provider has reviewed a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and

(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course..

3. The findings and orders of the Committee shall be published in summary form, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The Committee determined that the Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3) was proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, the Committee accepted the proposed penalty presented by the parties.

From September to November 2010, the Member made discriminatory comments towards students with disabilities, displayed a discriminatory attitude towards homosexuals, and expressed negative comments to students and parents about the school and the administration. The Member did not demonstrate appropriate modeling for the students and his actions were unacceptable. The Committee considered this to be serious professional misconduct.

The reprimand serves to emphasize the necessity to maintain appropriate professional standards. It will further remind the Member to uphold the standards of the profession and to not engage in discriminatory conduct unbecoming a member. The fact that the reprimand will be recorded on the Register also serves as a specific deterrent to the Member.

The coursework regarding boundary violations speaks to the educative and rehabilitative aspect of the penalty.

The Committee determined that the Member’s behaviour was not at the low end of the spectrum and that discriminatory comments regarding sexual orientation and disabilities warrant publication with name and will not be tolerated by the profession.

Publication of the findings and order of the Committee, in summary, with the name of the Member, in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession provides both a specific deterrent and remind the Member not to repeat his actions. It serves as a general deterrent to all members of the profession by reminding them of the level of professionalism that is expected of teachers and that this type of behaviour will warrant publication. Publication with name serves the public interest by ensuring transparency in the discipline process.

Dated: July 9, 2014

______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Monique Lapalme Arseneault

Member, Discipline Panel

Wes Vickers, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel