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 Jeffrey Tavis Bussineau OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Mel Greif, Chair
Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT
BETWEEN: )
) Eli Mogil,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
-and- )
) Andrea Wobick and Adam Webb,
) Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP
) for Jeffrey Tavis Bussineau
JEFFREY TAVIS BUSSINEAU )
(CERTIFICATE #467352) )
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: August 7, 2014
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR PENALTY
On April 15, 2014, a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) rendered a written decision finding Jeffrey Tavis Bussineau (the “Member”) guilty of professional misconduct.
The Committee reconvened the hearing on August 7, 2014 to hear submissions on the issue of penalty. The Member was present during the penalty hearing.
At the time of the resumption of the hearing on penalty, the original panel had been reduced by one. Mel Greif and Alexander (Sandy) Bass remained on the panel and heard the submissions on penalty. Monika Ferenczy, who was a member of the orginal panel, had tendered her resignation from Council and from the Discipline Committee prior to the resumption of the hearing on August 7, 2014. Pursuant to section 4.4(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the remaining members of the panel were able to receive submissions and conclude the hearing.
In its written decision of April 15, 2014, the Committee found that based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence presented during the six-day hearing, the Member committed acts of professional misconduct by:
(a) engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a Student,
(b) engaging in electronic communication with the Student via Facebook, and
(c) calling the Student “Hon” and/or “Cutie Pie”.
The Committee found that these facts supported a finding of professional misconduct pursuant to Ontario Regulation 437/97, being more particularly breaches of subsections 1(5), 1(18) –unprofessional and 1(19). The Committee did not find that there was evidence of physical, psychological or emotional or sexual abuse of a student contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.1), 1(7.2), and 1(7.3). Further, the Committee did not find that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
The College and the Member jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Committee in this matter was that the Member be reprimanded by the Committee, that the Member successfully complete a course of instruction on boundary violations prior to returning to the classroom and 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.
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
College Counsel provided argument to support the joint submission on penalty but sought an additional condition of a one month retroactive suspension. The suspension would be considered to have already been served. The fact of the one-month suspension would be recorded on the Register.
College Counsel stated that the Member had admitted to off-site coffee sessions with the Student, the use of inappropriate terms of endearment such as “Hon” and “Cutie Pie”. The Member also admitted to, the inappropriate use of social media, driving the student alone in his personal vehicle and assisting the Student to purchase medication. The Member admitted in text conversation to the Student that he was in his underwear and consuming alcohol. Counsel stated that based on these admissions by the Member and the findings of professional misconduct by the Committee, the proposed joint submission on penalty was appropriate.
College Counsel presented a Brief of Authorities in support of his view that a one-month suspension was warranted in this particular case. Five cases were presented. All included suspensions. A review by College Counsel of these fairly recent cases highlighted the behaviours by members which culminated in suspension. College Counsel argued that similar cases deserved similar consequences and the Committee was to take guidance from these five cases. The cases cited and explored by College Counsel shared sufficient similarity to this case to serve as a guide to penalty.
SUBMISSIONS OF MEMBER’S COUNSEL
Counsel for the Member agreed that the joint penalty proposed meets the requirements of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation and satisfies the public trust. Member’s counsel asserted that no suspension was warranted given the Committee’s findings and the fact that the conduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of misconduct. In support of this statement, Member’s Counsel reviewed the fact that the Member had voluntarily undertaken not to teach pending the resolution of this matter. This undertaking was recorded on the Register for the past three years. This could be seen to be a suspension in fact.
Counsel for the Member provided case law in support of her view that a suspension was not appropriate in this case. She argued that the cases presented by College Counsel had limited application in this matter since, unlike this case where the Committee heard oral evidence of the Member and other witnesses, these cases and penalties were all the result of agreements. In her view, the Committee does not have direct knowledge of the evidence that would have been presented in each case. Therefore, these cases should not serve as guides for the determination of a penalty. The Committee ought to rely on all the evidence presented during this hearing in determining whether a suspension was warranted.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty as well as the additional penalty of suspension suggested by College Counsel and makes the following order:
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”);
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of one (1) month, with such suspension having been served from July 4 to August 1, 2014. The fact of the suspension set out in this paragraph 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 as they are fulfilled:
(i) prior to the Member returning to the classroom, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations;
(ii) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (i) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:
A. the course provider has reviewed a copy of the April 15, 2014 Decision on Finding and Reasons of the Discipline Committee and Joint Submission on Penalty document made an exhibit at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision on Penalty and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and
B. the Member has successfully completed the course.
- 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 DECISION
The Committee considered the joint submission on penalty and the arguments in its support. The penalty as agreed properly reflects the requirements of discipline. A proper penalty contains the following characteristics. There ought to be specific deterrence and this is met through a one-month suspension, a boundaries course and publication with name. General deterrence is satisfied through sharing the nature of the penalty with the profession. Publication addresses this need. Rehabilitation is an important element within any penalty. The Member needs to take a specifically created boundaries course which addresses his professional shortcomings and will assist him in modifying his behaviour, should he return to the classroom. The maintenance of the public trust is upheld by the rehabilitative nature of the penalty and the strong component of general deterrence through publication. The public can be assured that the College takes very seriously the professional misconduct demonstrated in this matter.
The Committee determined that, in addition to the joint penalty, a one-month suspension was appropriate to the circumstances of this case. The addition of a suspension reinforces the penalty in all regards. The length of time, in spite of the fact that the time had already been served, publicly reaffirms the inappropriate and serious nature of the behaviour of the Member. The fact of the suspension will be noted on the Register and thereby advise all persons of the significance of this decision. It signals that professional misconduct of this nature will result in a significant penalty. Both the public and the profession can rest assured that the College will be very proactive in the protection of students and the maintenance of high standards of professionalism.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Dated: August 7, 2014
Mel Greif
Chair, Discipline Panel
Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel