Ontario College of Teachers v. Cameron, 2014 ONOCT 18

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Cameron, 2014 ONOCT 18

Date: 2014-04-01

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Barbara Ann Cameron, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT Mel Greif

BETWEEN: ) David Leonard, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix, ) Litigation Paraprofessional

• and – )

BARBARA ANN CAMERON ) Kate Hughes, (CERTIFICATE # 281435) ) Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre & ) Cornish LLP, ) for Barbara Ann Cameron

) Julie Maciura, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: March 7, 2014

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on March 7, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated February 20, 2013 was served on Barbara Ann Cameron (the “Member”), requesting her presence on February 27, 2013 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for March 7, 2014.

The Member was in attendance.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 20, 2013 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Barbara Ann Cameron is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act in that:

(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) she failed to keep records as required by her professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);

(c) she signed or issued, in her professional capacity, a document that she knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);

(d) she 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);

(e) she contravened a law 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);

(f) she 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,

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

Counsel for the College requested the withdrawal of allegation (b), namely subsection 1(10) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Committee granted this request, and the allegation was subsequently withdrawn.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

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:

1. Barbara Ann Cameron (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers, in good standing. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teacher’s Registered Member Information.

2. At all material times, the Member was and remains as an employee of the Upper Canada District School Board (the “Board”).

3. At all material times, the Member was the treasurer of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (“ETFO”), the Upper Canada Local, and had access to the financial records.

4. On February 8, 2008, the Brockville Police Service (the “police”) received a telephone call from Louise Lanctot, President of the EFTO, regarding the theft of a box of financial records that had been stored in the ETFO office. The boxes, which contained financial statements from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, were removed from the office during the period of January 18 - 24, 2008.

5. The police commenced an investigation and found that:

(a) From July 2005 to June 2006, the Member received 45 cheques which totalled $12,886.38;

(b) From July 2006 to June 2007, the Member received 38 cheques which totalled $34,437.22;

(c) From July 2007 to October 2007, the Member received 10 cheques which totalled $8,437.22; and

(d) In total, the Member received 93 cheques from July 2005 to October 2007 which totalled $55,943.94.

6. It was found that the Member wrote cheques to herself and paid for purchases on her personal credit card and Petro Canada gas card from ETFO funds.

7. It was found that in addition to financial documents being missing, there were monies missing from the ETFO bank account. A financial audit revealed, that approximately $54,000.00 was unaccounted for.

8. Two signatures were required on the cheque and one of the signatures was the Member’s in each instance. Prior to the second signatory signing the cheque, they were to review the supporting documentation and often times that was not done and left with the Member. Further, ETFO expenses were frequently paid without any supporting documentation.

9. Also, on at least nine occasions, that is nine cheques, a signatory of the cheque, Margaret Merpaw’s (Central Region Area Vice-President of ETFO) signature was forged. The other signature present on the cheques was that of the Member.

10. At an ETFO meeting held on March 6, 2008, the Member admitted to taking funds and reimbursed ETFO in the amount of $24,835.59.

11. On July 12, 2010, the Member turned herself into police and was charged with the following:

(a) that between the 1^st day of July in the year 2005 and the 31^st day of October in the year 2007, at the Province of Ontario, in the East Region, did steal money, the property of ETFO, Upper Canada Local, of a value exceeding $5,000, contrary to Section 344(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(b) that between the 1^st day of July in the year 2005 and the 31^st day of October in the year 2007, inclusive, at the Province of Ontario, in the Said Region, did knowingly use a forged document to wit: a cheque from the account of ETFO, Upper Canada Local, as if it were genuine, contrary to subsection 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada).

12. On November 21, 2011, the Member entered a guilty plea to charges of Theft Over $5,000.00 and Uttering a Forged document.

13. On April 10, 2012, the Member received a conditional sentence of two years less a day, which included eighteen (18) months house arrest followed by three (3) years of probation. Furthermore, as part of the criminal proceedings, the Member agreed that she had fraudulently taken $39,835.59 in total and agreed to pay an additional $14,000.00 back to ETFO. The Member has made restitution as agreed.

14. At the time of the conduct described above, the Member was suffering from depression and anxiety due to a number of stressors in her life including putting pressure on herself to succeed professionally and the stress of caring for two young disabled children who suffered from a generic disorder resulting in four surgeries with extensive recovering times and ongoing intensive care on her part. The Member dealt with the stressors in her life by drinking excessively which led to recklessly spending. This in turn caused depression and anxiety because she panicked and was embarrassed as to how to deal with her hidden debts that had spiralled out of control.

15. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a certified copy of the Ontario Court of Justice Information, dated July 22, 2010.

16. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a certified copy of the Conditional Sentence Order dated April 26, 2012.

17. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a certified copy of the Probation Order dated April 26, 2012.

18. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a certified copy of the Restitution Order dated April 26, 2012.

19. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a certified copy of the transcript of the Proceedings at Guilty Plea made on November 21, 2011 before Mr. Justice J.D. Waugh.

20. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a certified copy of the transcript of the Reasons for Judgment and Sentencing made on April 26, 2012 before Mr. Justice J.D. Waugh.

21. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” is a certified copy of the Pre-Sentence Report presented to Mr. Justice J.D. Waugh dated January 16, 2012.

22. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “I” is the report dated December 29, 2011 presented to the Court from psychotherapist Shelley Dimock. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “J” is the further report of Shelley Dimock dated June 5, 2012. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “K” is the follow up report of Shelley Dimock dated February 8, 2014.

23. The Member’s employer, the Upper Canada District School Board, is fully aware of the criminal proceedings and the outcome. They returned the Member to the classroom in September 2012 before her house arrest was completed. She has been teaching successfully with the Board for this year and a half period (September 2012 to present). Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “L” is the letter from Principal D. Banks verifying her positive return to teaching and her many extracurricular activities with the School.

GUILTY PLEA

24. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 23 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

25. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts referred to above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and admits the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(12), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).

26. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she 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 her name, may be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement between his/her counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

27. In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, 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, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Barbara Ann Cameron committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(12), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member acknowledged that the Admitted Facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2) constitute behaviour that is professional misconduct and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. The Committee accepts the Member’s guilty plea and the statement tendered by the parties.

The Member wrote 93 cheques to herself totalling $55,943.94 and paid for purchases on her personal credit card and gas card from federation funds. A police investigation revealed that on nine occasions, the Member forged the signatures of a person who, by law, was a signatory of such documents. Additionally, the Member made efforts to undermine any potential investigation by removing financial documents. The Member demonstrated her agreement with the nature of her misconduct by pleading guilty to theft over $5,000 and uttering a forged document. As a consequence of this plea of guilt during a criminal proceeding, the Member received a conditional sentence of two years less a day, an eighteen-month house arrest and a three-year probation. The Member was ordered to make restitution.

The Committee therefore finds the Member to be guilty of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(12), 1(15), 1(16), 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 and the fact of the reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. directs the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member from March 8, 2014 to August 17, 2015. The fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.

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 that issue.

SUBMISSIONS ON PUBLICATION

Submissions of College Counsel

Counsel for the College submitted that the Member’s name should be published in the College’s official publication Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. College counsel argued that the hearing itself is a transparent proceeding, and the Member’s name will appear in the Committee’s decision on the College’s website. The public will therefore know the Member’s identity, and it would only make sense to be consistent and publish her name in the College’s magazine.

In support of this position, counsel for the College cited the Gillet decision, a Discipline Committee case in which a teacher was found guilty of professional misconduct after she stole funds from her school board. Counsel stated that even though Ms. Gillet misappropriated a smaller amount of money than the Member, she was suspended for 18 months, and her name was published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

Submissions of Member’s Counsel

Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member’s name should not be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, given the mitigating factors of the case. The Member fully admitted to misappropriating funds at an EFTO meeting and has repeatedly indicated her remorse. The Member took full responsibility for her actions and was cooperative during both the criminal and College proceedings. Furthermore, the Member has been teaching since 1997 and has never had any issues as a teacher, as demonstrated by her school board’s decision to allow her to return to the classroom.

Member’s counsel stated that the Member had previously tried to please everyone in her life, and in striving to be the perfect teacher, wife and mother, she found herself in a difficult situation. The Member had to balance caring for her young children, who had a genetic disorder, with her professional development and career plans.

In order to cope, she began drinking, which led to reckless spending, debt and finally, a poor decision to misappropriate funds. Counsel for the Member stated that the Member has since come out of this spiral, become sober and has come clean to her federation, her husband and the police.

Touching on the Gillet decision, Member’s counsel acknowledged that Ms. Gillet’s name was published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession even though she misappropriated a smaller amount of money than the Member. However, counsel for the Member stated that the dollar amount of misappropriated funds is not the only factor that the Committee should consider. In contrast to the Member, Ms. Gillet held a position of trust as a principal, never made restitution, and did not have the same personal circumstances as the Member. Further, Member’s counsel noted that Ms. Gillet stole funds that would have otherwise been spent on teaching materials, and as such, her actions were detrimental to the learning of children.

Counsel for the Member also cited the Discipline Committee decision Davidson in which a teacher was found guilty of professional misconduct for misappropriating funds. In this case, however, Ms. Davidson was only suspended for eight months, and her name was not published in the College’s magazine.

Counsel for the Member argued that the Member has already suffered public shaming as she went through her criminal proceeding while living in a small community. Member’s counsel stated that it would not be beneficial for the Member to be publicly shamed a second time, adding that she has two young sons in the Ontario public school system.

Reply Submissions of College Counsel

In response to the submissions of Member’s counsel regarding the Gillet decision, counsel for the College agreed that the Committee should be considering factors other than the simple dollar value of the funds that the Member misappropriated. However, College counsel disagreed with the suggestion that the Member’s actions were somehow less serious than those of Ms. Gillet. While Ms. Gillet stole funds intended for the purchase of learning materials for children, the EFTO funds that the Member stole also had an important purpose as they would have contributed to the pension of her fellow teachers and would have supported union activities.

In response to the assertion of Member’s counsel that the Member’s name should not be published because she has two young children in the school system, counsel for the College submitted that this argument suggests that other teachers will conduct themselves inappropriately when interacting with the Member’s sons. Counsel stated that the Committee has no evidence that this will happen and should not assume that Ontario teachers will behave in an unprofessional manner.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Member is required 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 College register.

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member from March 8, 2014 to August 17, 2015. The fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the College register.

3. 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 DECISION

The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), having determined that the proposed sanction is proportional to the misconduct committed by the Member and appropriate in the circumstances.

In this case, a reprimand is required. The Member betrayed the ethical standards of the profession to an extreme level. The Member consciously attempted to deflect the blame by trying to demonstrate that others were partly to blame for her behaviour. The Member knew that what she was doing was wrong, fundamentally illegal and criminal. This element of knowing the nature of her misconduct and not stopping herself make a reprimand even more appropriate. A reprimand acts as a specific deterrent. The recording of this reprimand on the Member’s certificate will function as a general deterrent to the profession.

A seventeen-month teaching suspension was accepted by the Committee as being appropriate given the nature of the misconduct. Both parties agreed to this term. A suspension of this duration is a reasonable penalty, given the nature of the misconduct. Most important, it serves as a specific deterrent since it removes the Member from the possibility of making income and thereby, is truly appropriate.

The suspension signals to the profession, as a general deterrent, that high standards are expected of teachers and that standards of ethical performance in all of their duties within the classroom and out of the classroom are to be maintained. The suspension recognizes the importance of conveying to members of the public that teachers are held to a very high standard in order to maintain the public trust.

Publication with name is necessary in this matter. The Member committed acts of professional misconduct, has admitted to responsibility, has accepted the penalty and therefore, needs to share both her behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour with her peers and her profession. The principle of general deterrence is respected through publication with name, which demonstrates that behaviour such as this will never be tolerated. It will result in serious penalties. Publication also guarantees that the public trust will be maintained through the demonstration of appropriate penalty and transparency of process.

The Committee is convinced that this decision is appropriate in the circumstances and will serve to protect the public interest.

Date: April 1, 2014

Irene Dembek, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Mel Greif

Member, Discipline Panel