Ontario College of Teachers v. Bulat, 2014 ONOCT 15

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Bulat, 2014 ONOCT 15

Date: 2014-11-19

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

Brounislaw John Bulat, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers

PANEL: Christine Bellini, OCT, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT

Pauline Smart

BETWEEN: ) ) David Leonard,

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,

) Law Clerk

• and – )

) Brounislaw John Bulat was ) not present or represented

BROUNISLAW JOHN BULAT )

(CERTIFICATE #220172) )

) Erica Richler,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: November 19, 2014

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 19, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated October 2, 2014 was served on Brounislaw John Bulat (the “Member”), requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee on October 24, 2014 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 19, 2014.

The Member was not in attendance at the hearing, nor was he represented.

Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo, sworn November 17, 2014 (Exhibit 3) to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty being sought. In this affidavit, Ms. De Bartolo, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault, outlined her communications with the Member and provided proof of proper service of all required documents. In a letter dated October 14, 2014, (Exhibit 3, Tab C) the Member confirmed that he had received the information package sent to him by College Counsel. Further, the Member agreed that the hearing could proceed in his absence as scheduled and that he would provide written submissions to the Discipline Committee (Exhibit 3).

In light of this affidavit, the Committee was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and was aware of the time and date of the hearing and the penalty being sought.

The Committee therefore proceeded to hear the matter in the absence of the Member.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated October 2, 2014 are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Brounislaw John Bulat 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 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);

(c) he contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);

(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); and

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

At the hearing on November 19, 2014, College Counsel sought to withdraw the allegation of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Committee agreed that this allegation be withdrawn. PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Brounislaw John Bulat (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, Person A was an adult male and Person B was an adult female.

3. On or about March 19, 2012, the Member:

(a) struck Person A with a motor vehicle;

(b) attempted to injure and/or kill Person A;

(c) communicated with Person B when he knew his communication was unwelcome and he was subject to an order not to do so;

(d) engaged in threatening conduct toward Person B.

4. On or about May 31, 2013 the Member was found guilty of the following charges in that he:

(a) on or about the 19th day of March in the year 2012 at the Town of Tecumseh in the Southwest Region did attempt to murder Person A by striking him with a motor vehicle contrary to subsection 239(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(b) on or about the 19^th day of March in the year 2012 at the Town of Tecumseh in the Southwest Region did while being at large on his recognizance given to a Justice and being bound to comply with a condition of that recognizance to wit: abstain from communication, associating, or having any contact with Person B directly or indirectly, without lawful excuse fail to comply with that condition, contrary to subsection 145(3) of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(c) on or about the 19^th day of March in the year of 2012 at the Town of Tecumseh in the Southwest Region did knowing that Person B is harassed or being reckless as to whether Person B is harassed did without lawful authority engage in threatening conduct thereby causing Person B to reasonably in all the circumstances, fear for her safety, contrary to subsection 264(2)(c)(i) of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(d) on or about the 19^th day of March in the year 2012 at the Town of Tecumseh in the Southwest Region was criminally negligent in the operation of a motor vehicle and did thereby cause bodily harm to Person A, contrary to Section 221 of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(e) on or about the 19^th day of March in the year 2012 at the Town of Tecumseh in the Southwest Region did having the care of a vehicle to wit: a vehicle that was involved in an accident with a vehicle, with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fail to stop his vehicle, knowing bodily harm has been caused, give his name and address and offer assistance to Person A an injured party, contrary to subsection 252(1.2) of the Criminal Code (Canada).

5. On or about July 23, 2013, the Member was sentenced to six (6) years incarceration.

6. The Member has not appealed the conviction and/or sentence.

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.

THE EVIDENCE

College Counsel entered into evidence the Registered Member Information for Brounislaw John Bulat (Exhibit 2), which indicates that the Member was registered with the College during the period of the alleged events. Counsel for the College also provided the Committee with a Brief of Court Documents: Her Majesty The Queen v. Brounislaw John Bulat (Exhibit 4) which contained the following documents:

TAB

DOCUMENT

PAGE No.

A.

Certified Copy of Indictment

1-8

B.

Certified Copy of Probation Order Imposed at Sentencing dated July 23, 2013

1-2

C.

Certified Copy of Prohibition Order dated July 23, 2013

1-2

D.

Certified Copy of Fine Order/Victim Surcharge Dated July 23, 2013

1-2

E.

Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment before the Honourable Justice C. Bondy at Windsor dated May 31, 2013

1-49

F.

Transcript of the Reasons at Sentencing before the Honourable Justice C. Bondy at Windsor dated July 23, 2013

1-38

The evidence presented in the Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 4) confirms that on or about May 31, 2013 the Member was found guilty of the following charges contrary to the Criminal Code (Canada): did attempt to murder Person A by striking him with a motor vehicle; did while being at large on his recognizance and being bound to comply with a condition to abstain from communication, associating, or having any contact with Person B directly or indirectly, did without lawful excuse fail to comply with that condition; did without lawful authority engage in threatening conduct thereby causing Person B to reasonably in all the circumstances, fear for her safety; was criminally negligent in the operation of a motor vehicle and did thereby cause bodily harm to Person A; and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability failed to stop his vehicle, knowing bodily harm had been caused, give his name and address and offer assistance to Person A an injured party.

On or about July 23, 2013, the Member was sentenced to six (6) years incarceration. He has not appealed the conviction and/or sentence.

SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING

College Counsel submitted the Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 4) in support of the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. The Member had legal representation in the criminal proceedings.

College Counsel submitted that the Member’s behaviour as detailed in the record of the criminal proceedings and the resultant criminal convictions provide a sufficient basis to justify a finding of professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

College Counsel submitted that teachers are expected to be role models both inside and outside of the classroom. Given that the Member was convicted of attempted murder and harassment, his conduct fell far below the standards to which teachers are held. A finding of professional misconduct pursuant to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 was therefore appropriate.

College Counsel stated that the Member contravened a law and was convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada, therefore the Committee could make a finding under subsection 1(16) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

College Counsel further stated that the Member’s conduct can be viewed as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional and conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsections 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

DECISION

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by College Counsel, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Brounislaw John Bulat committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The law of evidence and Rules 13.03 and 13.04 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee allow the Committee to accept a certificate of conviction as proof that an offence was committed by a person, where there is a finding of guilt and conviction in a Canadian court, provided that there is no evidence to the contrary and that no appeal has been granted, as is the case here.

The Committee finds that the Member’s actions and subsequent criminal convictions constitute acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

College Counsel submitted that the only appropriate penalty is to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member and to publish the findings, in summary, with the name of the Member, in the College’s official magazine, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

College Counsel submitted to the Committee a letter from the Member for their consideration (Exhibit 5). Counsel pointed out that in this letter, the Member shows no remorse for trying to take a man’s life and still has not accepted the fact that he has been convicted of attempted murder.

College Counsel stated that revocation is appropriate and acts as a specific and general deterrent. It sends a message to the Member, the profession and the public that this type of conduct is inconsistent with the standards of this College and is unacceptable for its members. In order to restore confidence to the public and the profession and to protect the public, revocation of the Member’s certificate is necessary.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Committee directs the Registrar to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member; and

2. The findings and order 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 Member was convicted of five counts under the Criminal Code of Canada, the most serious of which was attempted murder.

The court documents confirm that the Member harassed Person B, a former girlfriend, and breached a restraining order to keep away from her. Further, the Member, while driving his vehicle, rammed twice into a vehicle driven by Person A, the current boyfriend of Person B. When Person A exited the vehicle, the Member proceeded to run him over, causing bodily harm and the Member fled the scene. Subsequently, the Member was convicted of five counts under the Criminal Code of Canada. The Member is currently incarcerated and is serving a six year sentence for his crimes.

In reviewing the letter from the Member that was submitted to the Committee (Exhibit 5), the Member stated that he plans on volunteer coaching elementary students when he is released from prison. These comments caused the Committee deep concern in that the Member fails to recognize and accept the seriousness of his crimes. Notwithstanding, it is incomprehensible for the Member to think that the public would allow a person convicted of attempted murder to volunteer with children. These crimes for which the Member was convicted, are extremely serious and ones which discredit and disqualify him in the eyes of the profession.

The Member, as a result of his conduct and criminal convictions, has forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession. This grave misconduct requires that the Member receive the maximum penalty: revocation of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Member’s actions were criminal. Publication of the findings and order of the Committee, in summary, along with the name of the Member, identifies to the profession the nature of the Member’s misconduct and the consequences for such behaviour. Publication, in this case, acts as a general deterrent and informs the profession that such behaviour will not be tolerated and will result in the harshest penalty, revocation. Publication serves the public interest by reassuring and informing the community that the profession acts decisively when matters of this nature are brought to its attention.

In conclusion, the Committee is confident that the penalty order serves the interests of the public and the profession.

Dated: November 19, 2014

______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel ______________________________ Irene Dembek, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Pauline Smart

Member, Discipline Panel