Ontario College of Teachers v Dreger, 2014 ONOCT 37

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Dreger, 2014 ONOCT 37

Date: 2014-06-30

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

Karl Dreger, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Stefanie Achkewich, OCT, Chair Monique Lapalme Arseneault

Wes Vickers, OCT

BETWEEN: ) ) Ava Arbuck,

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Bev Hodsdon,

) Law Clerk

• and – )

) Amanda Smallwood,

) Bell, Temple,

) for Karl Dreger

KARL DREGER, OCT )

(CERTIFICATE #195939) ) Julie Maciura,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: June 30, 2014

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 30, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated February 17, 2012 was served on Karl Dreger, requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on March 8, 2012 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for June 30, 2014.

The Member was present at the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against Karl Dreger (the “Member”) in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Karl Dreger is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (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 practised or purported to practise the profession while under the influence of any substance or while adversely affected by dysfunction, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(8);

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

(d) 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);

(e) he contravened a law, the contravention of which has caused or may cause students under the Member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);

(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); and

(g) he 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(8) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Committee granted this request, and the allegation was subsequently withdrawn.

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:

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Karl Dreger (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 respecting the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Sudbury Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a Principal at St. Benedict Catholic Secondary School (the “School”) in Sudbury, Ontario.

3. On October 8, 2010, the Member received a prescription for thirty (30) Percocet tablets from a physician.

4. Later that day, the Member altered the prescription to make it appear that the prescription was for eighty (80) tablets. He attended at a pharmacy and presented the prescription to be filled. The pharmacist subsequently determined that it had been forged.

5. On or about February 2, 2011, the Member was criminally charged in that he on or about October 9, 2010, at the City of Sudbury in the said region:

(a) did knowingly use a forged document to wit: walk-in clinic medical prescription dated October 9, 2010, as if it were genuine, contrary to Section 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(b) did have in his possession property, to wit: Percocets, of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars knowing that all or part of the property was obtained directly or indirectly by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment, contrary to Section 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada).

6. On or about April 14, 2011, the Member pleaded guilty and was found guilty of the charge in paragraph 5(a) above and received a conditional discharge with twelve (12) months’ probation. The charge described in paragraph 5(b) was withdrawn by the Crown.

7. Attached and marked as Exhibit “B” is a certified copy of the Information dated February 2, 2011. Attached and marked as Exhibit “C” is a certified copy of the Probation Order dated April 14, 2011.

8. Attached and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the transcript of Proceedings before Justice R.W. Lalande dated April 14, 2011.

9. Attached and marked as Exhibit “E” and Exhibit “F” respectively are letters from Pat Tobin, Social Worker dated April 11, 2011 and April 25, 2012 with regard to the Member.

10. There have been no previous allegations against the Member before the Discipline Committee. The Member has been employed with the Board as Principal at St. Albert Learning Centre since September 2011. A copy of his Performance Appraisal dated May 6, 2013 is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”.

11. By this document, the Member admits, the truth of the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

GUILTY PLEA

12. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts above, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5); 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18), and 1(19).

13. 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty 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 counsel for the College and himself 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.

14. In light of the Admitted Facts and 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 and Counsel for the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Karl Dreger committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18), and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee accepts the Member’s admission of the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 14 above (the “Admitted Facts”). The Member acknowledged that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18), and 1(19).

The Committee accepted the Member’s guilty plea and accepts that the facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2) amount to professional misconduct as pleaded to by the Member.

On or about April 14, 2011 the Member was found guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice that he “did knowingly use a forged document to wit: walk-in clinic medical prescription dated October 9, 2010, as if it were genuine, contrary to Section 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada).

The Committee finds that the Member’s behaviour in forging a prescription and the attendant finding of guilt in criminal proceedings constitute professional misconduct as alleged.

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 of the Ontario College of Teachers 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 in a Canadian court, provided that there is no evidence to the contrary and that no appeal has been granted.

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 is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”). The reprimand will be delivered in person at the offices of the College, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario.

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:

(i) within three (3) months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics.

(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. he or she has reviewed a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts, Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty document made an exhibit at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and

B. 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 that issue.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS RE: PUBLICATION

Submissions of College counsel

Counsel for the College submitted that the name of the Member should be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

Counsel stated there are three main purposes for publication with name, specific deterrence to the Member, general deterrence to the profession, and transparency and accountability. Counsel submitted that publication with name ensures transparency and openness of the process and restores public confidence by ensuring that the College does not shield its members when they engage in professional misconduct. Counsel stated that the profession and the public have a right to know how the College deals with professional misconduct. She further stated that publication with name sends a strong message that the College has taken this case seriously.

Submissions of Member’s Counsel on Publication

Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member’s name should not be published in the College’s publication Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Counsel submitted that this was the Member’s first occasion before a Discipline Committee; he has no previous criminal record and is a contributing member to the community. She further stated that this incident was widely reported in the local media, students were never put in jeopardy and the Member has since appeared to resolve his issues. Counsel stated that the penalty, with all of its elements was sufficient to fulfill the requirements of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation and transparency. She indicated that publication of the Member’s name was unnecessary and would be unduly and excessively shameful to him.

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:

(i) within three (3) months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics.

(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 Agreed Statement of Facts, Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and

B. 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 Member altered a medical prescription from 30 to 80 tablets of Percocet, leading the pharmacist to determine he had forged it. He was subsequently criminally charged and pled guilty to forgery. This is unethical and unacceptable behaviour for a member of the teaching profession.

The Committee carefully assessed the arguments presented by both counsel in determining an appropriate penalty. The Member and the College agreed on the fundamental elements of the penalty, specifically a reprimand, a successfully completed course on professional ethics and publication of the findings, in summary form, in the official publication of the College. It was left to the Committee to determine whether the name of the Member would be published in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

In addition to the agreed upon penalty, the Member and the College separately entered into an Undertaking to ensure and monitor rehabilitation.

The Committee agreed that a reprimand was appropriate in that the Member needed to have a specific deterrent to help him understand the serious nature of his misconduct. The fact of the reprimand being recorded on the Member’s Certificate will additionally serve as a general deterrent, and will signal to the profession and the public the importance of ethical behaviour in our schools.

The requirement that the Member successfully complete a course on professional ethics will address the conduct engaged in by the Member and assist him in modifying it.

Publication with name speaks and contributes to the transparency of the discipline process. 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 to the Member and a general deterrent to the profession while advising and serving the public interest.

Publication with name serves the public interest by informing the community that the profession acts decisively when matters of this nature are brought to its attention.

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.

Dated: June 30, 2014

______________________________ Stefanie Achkewich, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel ______________________________ Monique Lapalme Arseneault Member, Discipline Panel

Wes Vickers

Member, Discipline Panel