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
James Michael Kowal, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Jean-Luc Bernard
Annilee Jarvis, OCT
BETWEEN: ) ) Ava Arbuck,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Bev Hodsdon,
) Law Clerk )
- and – )
) James Michael Kowal
JAMES MICHAEL KOWAL ) not present or represented
(CERTIFICATE #153742) )
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: December 11, 2013
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on December 11, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
NOTICE TO MEMBER
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated August 1, 2012, was served on James Michael Kowal (the “Member”), requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on August 30, 2012 to set a date for a hearing and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently scheduled for December 11, 2013. The Member was not in attendance, nor was he represented by legal counsel.
Affidavit of Beverley Hodsdon
In order to demonstrate that efforts had been made to contact the Member and to serve on him the Notice of Hearing, counsel for the College tendered an affidavit sworn on December 9, 2013 by Beverley Hodsdon, law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP. The Affidavit of Beverley Hodsdon (Exhibit 3) indicates that the College made a number of attempts to serve on the Member the Notice of Hearing and other case-related documents and to contact him regarding the scheduled hearing.
The affidavit states that the College tried on a number of occasions to deliver these documents to the last address it had on file for the Member and specifies that attempted deliveries were made by regular mail, registered mail and through a process server. After a package addressed to the Member was returned to College counsel in October 2012 and an email sent to the Member in November 2012 was rendered “undeliverable”, the College retained the services of a private investigating firm to locate the Member. Although the firm reported three possible alternative addresses, the firm’s investigator was unable to locate the Member at any of these addresses. The College sent subsequent letters regarding the date of the hearing to the last address it had on file for the Member, but these were returned to College counsel. In the affidavit, Ms. Hodsdon states that, to her knowledge, the College’s last attempt to contact the Member took place on December 2, 2013. On that date, Ms. Hodsdon called a telephone number listed in Canada 411 as corresponding to the Member’s last known address and belonging to “E. Kowal.” This number, however, was not in service.
Rules of Service
Counsel for the College asserted that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and provided the Committee with an excerpt from the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (Exhibit 4). Rule 4.01(2) states that a Notice of Hearing is to be served on a member either in person or by mailing a copy of the notice in a registered letter addressed to the member at his or her last known home or business address as shown in the College’s records. Rule 2.03(2)(a) further indicates that service is deemed to be effected when a document is delivered by regular, registered or certified mail to a person’s last known address on the fifth day after the day the document was mailed. Rule 2.03(2)(b), for its part, states that service is effected when a document is delivered to the person’s last known email address on the same day the email was sent, if the recipient confirms receiving the email, as the recipient is obligated to do.
College counsel submitted that service was therefore effected as documents notifying the Member of the hearing had been sent out via email, regular mail and registered mail to the last email address and mailing address that the College had on record for the Member. Counsel for the College stated that the Member had an obligation to provide the College with his current home address, citing section 31 of College’s Bylaws (Exhibit 4a). Section 31.01(b) stipulates that members must provide the Registrar with their home address and telephone number at their Principal residence, while Section 31.02 outlines members’ obligation to notify the Registrar within 30 days of any changes to this information.
Having examined the Affidavit of Beverley Hodsdon, the Rules of Procedures and section 31 of the College’s Bylaws, the Committee determined that service was effected and proceeded to hear the matter in the absence of the Member.
STATUS HISTORY OF MEMBER
Counsel for the College submitted a Member Information Form dated December 4, 2013 (Exhibit 2). This document outlines the Member’s educational background and qualifications as well as his membership status history. According to the Member Information Form, the Member was suspended for non-payment of fees on January 18, 2013.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against James Michael Kowal (the “Member”) in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that James Michael Kowal is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
c) he failed to supervise adequately a person who is under his professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
e) 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); and
f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
James Michael Kowal (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (the “Board”) as an occasional teacher at the [XXX] Public School (the “School”).
At all material times, Student No. 1 and Student No. 2 were [XXX] students at the School.
On or about December 3, 2010, the Member:
(a) failed to adequately supervise Student No. 1 and Student No. 2;
(b) left Student No. 1 and Student No. 2 unattended in the school yard;
(c) failed to follow the instructions relating to the dismissal procedures for the students; and
(d) failed to comply with the regulations and/or policy of the Board regarding the safety of students.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was not present or represented by counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied 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.
OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUES
This matter relates to questions of student supervision and compliance with safety procedures. According to the Notice of Hearing, the Member failed to adequately supervise students in December 2010 when he left two [XXX] students unattended in a school yard. The task before the Committee is to consider whether the incident described in the Notice of Hearing occurred as alleged and whether the Member’s conduct or actions in these circumstances constitute professional misconduct.
THE EVIDENCE
The College called four witnesses: Peter Corsi, Acting Vice-Principal; [XXX], parent; [XXX], parent and Alison Kneen, Principal.
Evidence of Peter Corsi
The witness testified that at the time of the incident, he was Acting Vice-Principal at [XXX] School in the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board. He explained his duties, which included supervision and managing the main campus when the Principal was absent, planning activities, lunch-time supervision and dealing with students and parents regarding teacher issues. The witness stated that he was working at dual-track school with French Immersion and English-language instruction. The school served more than 700 students from junior kindergarten to grade 8, spread over two campuses. Junior kindergarten to grade 4 was located on the main campus, and grades 4 to 8 were located on the east campus. The Vice-Principal’s office was in the main campus. The witness said that on December 3, 2010, the services of the Member were retained for supply teaching in the [XXX] classroom, which consisted of students aged [XXX] and [XXX]. The witness spoke with the Member at the first nutrition break and at the end of day at approximately 2:40 p.m. The witness indicated that the [XXX] classroom had two doors, one leading to the hallway and one leading to the fenced [XXX] playground. The witness described the dismissal routine, which included the use of “[XXX]” to escort students in [XXX] to their buses. He affirmed that students who did not take the bus were dismissed directly to their caregivers. The witness testified that the [XXX] playground was “very densely populated” at dismissal time and that the [XXX] students needed to be with a [XXX] or parent.
The witness testified that it was his practice to walk the school at the end of day and also to send an email to the Principal describing the events of the day when he served as Acting Vice-Principal. He stated that on December 3, 2010, he found two students unsupervised on the gym stage, who should have been in the [XXX] classroom. Also, the witness said that the Member had brought one student to the office at the end of the day that missed the bus. The Member left the school while some students were still in the [XXX] playground. The father of Student No.2 noticed that his son was not on the bus, which was confirmed by his son’s [XXX], who stated that he could not find Student No.2 at the end of the day. Student No.2’s father went to pick up his son at the school and found his son playing unattended in the [XXX] playground. The witness stated that he apologized to the parent and confirmed that he would look into the issue.
Student No.1 was also unattended in the [XXX] playground and was brought into the office by a parent who was picking up her child. The witness stated that he called Student No.1’s parent to inform her that her son had missed the bus and that the witness would be investigating the situation. The parent had already received a call from her son’s daycare stating that he had not been dropped off by the bus. The witness confirmed that the teacher’s lesson plans (Exhibit 6, [XXX] Daily Plans) were very clear on dismissal routines and stated that there should no dismissal without a [XXX] or an adult. The [XXX] list was visible to all in the classroom, clearly posted by the exit door.
The witness stated that he summarized the events by sending an email to the Principal with a copy to the classroom teacher on December 3, 2010 at 4:17 p.m. (Exhibit 5).
Evidence of [XXX]
The witness testified that she is employed as an early learning specialist at the YMCA in Cobourg and has two daughters attending the school. On December 3, 2010, she went to pick up her children at the school and took them to the [XXX] playground. She believed that there were two other families there. She stated that the weather was “pretty cold”. When she was ready to leave, after 15 to 20 minutes, there was one family and two children remaining, and there were no teachers in the playground at the time. A parent arrived and picked up one child, and the witness said she “realized the other little boy was not with a parent”. The witness stated that she took the child (Student No. 1) into the office and met the Vice-Principal. She explained to the Vice-Principal what she was doing “out of concern.” She walked to the [XXX] classroom with the Vice-Principal and Student No.1. The classroom was empty and the Member was nowhere to be found. The witness testified that Student No.1 confirmed that he was alone. The witness said that Student No.1 seemed “calm and confident.”
Evidence of [XXX]
The witness testified that she is employed as a financial planning consultant who works in four offices, including one in Cobourg. The witness confirmed that her son (Student No.1) attended [XXX] School as of September 2010 in a [XXX] program. The witness confirmed that the usual routine was to drop off her child in the morning at the school and for him to take the bus from the school to the daycare after dismissal. She explained that this occurred “98% of the time.” The witness confirmed that Student No.1 was familiar with his [XXX] and the routine at the end of the day. The witness stated that there had “never” been any other issues.
On December 3, 2010, the witness was in the Oshawa office when she received the call from the director of the daycare informing her that her son had not been on the bus. The daycare provider called the school, confirmed that Student No.1 was there and subsequently picked him up. The witness received an email confirming that her son was at the daycare but seemed upset and was unwilling to play with others. The witness further stated that the Acting Vice-Principal from the school had called her to let her know that there was an incident and that he would investigate it.
The witness stated that when she picked up her son from the daycare, he was quiet but mentioned that he had a supply teacher, was left in the playground and that another parent brought him into the office. The witness stated that she “reflected” over the weekend about the incident. On Monday, December 6, 2010, she sent an email to the Principal (Exhibit 7). She explained in her email that she was concerned about how her son was left alone and that the playground was open, and anyone could have “wandered in” and “wandered off” with him. She wrote that her “son is still adjusting to the whole experience of a new school…and he is afraid to be forgotten again.”
That same morning, she drove her son to school. He was nervous and would not stay in school if it was the same supply teacher. The witness walked with her son to his classroom to ensure that his regular teacher was present, and she stated that the classroom teacher spoke to her immediately. The witness stated that it took her several days to reassure her son that school was a safe place to attend.
Evidence of Alison Kneen
The witness testified that she has been a Principal with the Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB for eleven years. At the time of the incident, she was Principal of [XXX] School. She explained that there are 704 students from all over the county and as many as two thirds of the students take buses. She explained how the [XXX] system worked and that [XXX] are trained by the Vice-Principal. She stated that it was a well-run program, and the [XXX] are well acquainted with the routine before they are allowed to buddy with [XXX] students. The witness confirmed that no students had been lost by using the [XXX] system prior to this incident.
The witness testified to the process of how an occasional teacher is assigned to a school by an automated callout system. She knew the Member, and she confirmed that he was familiar with the school because he had worked there previously for grades 7 and 8. She also testified as to the duties of an occasional teacher, which include the reviewing the daily plans and guide to the classroom provided by the classroom teacher.
On the day of the incident, the Principal confirmed that she was at school, on the (east) senior campus. She testified that she heard about the incident that day from the vice-Principal, first by phone and then by email (Exhibit 5). The Principal stated that after receiving the email, she was concerned that there were [XXX] students left behind in the playground. She contacted the Superintendent, who advised her to contact the Director of Human Resources. Once she knew the children were safe, she proceeded to the [XXX] classroom to verify that general practices for the [XXX] system were posted on the wall by the exit door. In order to highlight the routine for Student No.1 and Student No.2, she testified, that she copied the details of the busing routine onto the teacher’s [XXX] Daily Plans (Exhibit 8). She also checked the teacher’s daily schedule (Exhibit 9) to see if there was any information regarding the dismissal process. The daily schedule confirmed the timelines and the routines for activities, including dismissal. It also included a list of student names and the process in which they were picked up at the end of the day.
As a result of this incident, the Principal investigated the situation. During the Principal’s investigation, the [XXX] confirmed that they had gone to the [XXX] door to pick the students up but could not see them. She reported the information to the Human Resources department and was advised there would be an investigative meeting. The meeting took place December 8, 2010 and was attended by the Member, his union representative, another Principal and the witness. The witness explained the purpose of the meeting to the participants: to present the facts to the Member; to state the concerns of the parents and herself about why the students were not where they were supposed to be and why two [XXX] -year-olds were outside and unattended; why the plans in the daybook and on the wall for dismissal purposes were not followed.
The Principal testified that in response to the queries, the Member stated that he was sorry, that he regretted the incident, and that he had checked the yard but did not recognize the students. He further stated that he did not have extensive experience with early primary students, especially in winter, and that he should have taken more time with dismissal procedures. He left school at 3:05 p.m. At the conclusion of the investigative meeting, the Principal reminded the Member that as an experienced occasional teacher, he should have known the procedures. The Principal stated that she sent a copy of the meeting summary to the Director of Human Resources (Exhibit 10).
The Principal testified that the Member received a disciplinary letter dated March 15, 2011 (Exhibit 11). In this letter, the Member was reminded of the expectations regarding conduct as an occasional teacher, as he was previously reminded in disciplinary actions dated May 4, 2009 and June 16, 2009. He also was informed in this letter that he was being suspended without pay until March 31, 2011 and that he would have limited access to occasional teacher assignments, including school sites and grade levels. The Member was advised that if he did not protect student safety and the integrity of program delivery, the Board would have no alternative but to terminate him and report it to the College.
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL ON FINDING
Counsel for the College submitted that two [XXX] students were left outside in a playground on December 3, 2010 when the Member was in charge of their care. After the Acting Vice-Principal was made aware of the incident, he ensured the safety of the students, spoke to the parents of both students and proceeded to go to the classroom to verify the daily schedules and procedures for dismissal. The Acting Vice-Principal related the incident to the Principal and the classroom teacher, and an investigation was conducted by the Principal. The Principal organized a meeting with the Member and expressed her concerns and those of the parents that their [XXX] -year-old children had been left unattended outside in winter time. In response to the allegations, the Member apologized, expressed his regret and did not deny what had occurred that day.
Counsel for the College referenced a disciplinary letter dated March 15, 2011 expressing the importance of the safety of students (Exhibit 11). The letter quoted the Board’s safety policy (Exhibit 12) and the expectation that teachers should be aware of the policy.
College counsel submitted that “explicit instructions” were left for the Member and that it was clear that the Member had read them as he had added his own notes and signed them, stating that “we had a good day” (Exhibit 6). Counsel for the College stated that the Member failed to supervise and it was his responsibility to do so. She also submitted that the Committee should consider the credibility of the witnesses, stating that they were forthright, impartial and consistent. Counsel for the College further stated that the testimony of each witness supported that of the others. She submitted that the Member’s actions comprise professional misconduct and that the College has addressed every allegation in the Notice of Hearing.
DECISION
Onus and Standard of Proof
The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53. The standard of proof applied by the Committee in accordance with the McDougall decision is a balance of probabilities. As in all cases, the Committee looks for clear, convincing and cogent evidence.
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 James Michael Kowal committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1 (11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee gave considerable weight to the evidence provided by each witness. The witnesses gave testimony that was impartial, forthright and consistent. Each witness provided information appropriate to their perspective of the events. The different testimonies were consistent with one another. For example, all the witnesses agreed that the events occurred on December 3, 2010. Also, the testimony of a parent witness confirmed the information provided by the Acting Vice-Principal that two [XXX] students were unattended in a school playground.
The Committee relied on specific exhibits to aid in its understanding of protocols and procedures of the school, as well as the events that occurred. Based on information provided by the classroom teacher (Exhibits 6 and 9), it is clear that the Member did not follow the expected procedures regarding supervision and dismissal. Evidence provided through emails (Exhibit 5) and through witness testimony supports the facts that students were left unattended.
The Education Act is clear on the role and responsibilities of teachers, ensuring the safety of students under their care. This includes supervision and safe dismissal. The Committee accepted the submission of College counsel that the Member did not comply with the Education Act in that he did not follow the daily plan regarding the dismissal routine: his behaviour is “disgraceful, dishonourable and definitely unprofessional” and he did not follow the Regulation and Board policy.
The Committee accepts the submission of College counsel that the Member’s behaviour constituted psychological or emotional abuse of a student or students. The Committee gave weight to the testimony of the mother of Student No.1 regarding the emotional impact of the incident on her son. She stated that he was anxious about returning to school for fear that the classroom teacher was absent again and that an occasional teacher might lose him. Student No.1 needed much reassurance for several days.
The Committee concurred with the College counsel that this behaviour constitutes professional misconduct. The Member did not safely supervise students in his care or give regard to professional standards.
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL AS TO PENALTY
Counsel for the College submitted that the following penalty would be appropriate:
The Member is required to appear before the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded by the Committee before returning to teaching in Ontario, and the fact there is to be a reprimand is to be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s certificate of qualification (“certificate”) for a period of 3 months.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following specified terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate:
a. that the Member shall not return to teaching or to any position for which a certificate under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 is required until he has received the reprimand referred to in paragraph 1;
b. that the Member shall not return to a teaching position until he has attended, at his own expense, a course of instruction to be pre-approved by the Registrar that emphasizes classroom management and teacher accountability, and shall provide the instructor of the course with a copy of the Decision of the Discipline Committee and, upon completion of the course, he has provided such evidence as the Registrar requires of successful completion the same;
c. following completion of the above requirement in 3(a) and (b) above, the Member shall only return to a teaching position if, within 15 days of the Member’s employment, the Member provides to the Registrar evidence that is satisfactory to the Registrar;
i. of the date the Member commenced or resumed employment with the employer;
ii. that the employer has received a copy of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons in this matter; and
iii. that the employer is aware of the terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate.
- The Committee directs that the findings of professional misconduct and Order of the Committee, including the Member’s full name, be published in summary, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
Counsel for the College tendered a Discipline Committee decision dated September 28, 2009 regarding the Member’s previous misconduct (Exhibit 13). The written decision indicates that on February11, 2008, the Member was found guilty of professional misconduct for having yelled at a student in a raised voice during an incident in October 2005. The panel who heard the matter directed the Registrar to impose terms and conditions on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration whereby the Member was to complete a course in appropriate student discipline techniques. A summary of these findings and orders were published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession without the Member’s name.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three (3) months commencing on December 11, 2013 and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Committee directs that the Member appear before the Committee following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand and the fact of the reprimand 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, and limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
i. Prior to commencing any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member is required to appear before the Committee to receive the reprimand referred to in paragraph 2 above.
ii. Prior to commencing any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and teacher accountability;
iii. within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (ii) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that he or she has received a copy of the Decision, Reasons and Orders of the Discipline Committee; and the Member has successfully completed the course.
iv. Prior to commencing any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, following completion of the requirements in (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the Member shall within fifteen (15) days of return to teaching, provide evidence satisfactory to the Registrar the date the Member commenced employment and evidence that the employer has received a copy of the Decision, Reasons and Orders of the Discipline Committee and that the employer is aware of the terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate.
- Pursuant to paragraph 3 of subsection 5 of section 30 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the findings and Order of the Committee shall be published in summary, 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 leaving students unattended, failing to follow school procedures and disregarding his responsibilities as a member of a self-regulated profession constitutes professional misconduct. The Member neglected to provide a safe environment and appropriate supervision for [XXX] students under his care. He did not give due regard to the instructions, which were clearly laid out in the daily plan and the dismissal chart by the door. Consequently, students were left outside unsupervised on December 3, 2010.
With the privilege of self-regulation comes responsibility. As a member of a self-regulated profession, the Member has a responsibility to ensure that his membership is current. This includes providing accurate personal and contact information. The Committee took very seriously the information provided in the Affidavit of Beverley Hodsdon (Exhibit 3), which clearly outlines steps taken by the College to inform the Member of the allegations against him and to allow him to participate in the hearing process. The Member has taken no responsibility in self-governance.
The past misconduct of the Member further supports the scope of the penalty. At a previous Discipline hearing (Exhibit 13, Discipline decision), the Member was found guilty of professional misconduct for lack of control or demeanour. The penalty at that time included a course in appropriate student techniques and publication in summary in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession without the Member’s name. As well, the Member was required to provide proof to the Registrar that he had successfully completed the course.
It is evident to the Committee that before resuming the teaching profession, the Member would benefit from additional professional support. The Member has to enrol in a classroom management and teacher accountability course, which will reinforce for the Member appropriate practices and conduct for members of the profession. In addition, receiving a reprimand serves as a clear specific deterrent. It will impress upon the Member the gravity of his actions and provide him with an opportunity to reflect on his conduct and his responsibilities as a professional. The Committee is satisfied that coursework and a reprimand will serve to remediate the Member’s behaviour.
The Member is suspended from teaching for a period of three months. Suspension serves as both a specific and general deterrent. A suspension of this length informs the Member, the profession and the public that these actions will not be tolerated. As this is the Member’s second disciplinary hearing, the Committee believes that a lengthy suspension is warranted.
The Committee agrees that publication with name is appropriate in these circumstances. It serves as both a specific and general deterrent. The Committee is mindful that this is a second finding of misconduct for the Member, which reinforces the need for a penalty of greater severity. In this case, publication with name maintains transparency and bolsters the public confidence in the profession. Furthermore, publication in this manner reassures the public that the College takes the issue of professional decorum seriously.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty serves to protect the public interest.
Dated: January 15, 2014 ______________________________ Irene Dembek, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel ______________________________ Jean-Luc Bernard Member, Discipline Panel
Annilee Jarvis, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel