Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and Ontario Regulation 437/97 thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Joseph René Gilles Gosselin, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Monika Ferenczy, OCT, Chair Marie-Louise Chartrand Darlene Mead, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Christine Lonsdale and Dina Awad of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers
– and –
JOSEPH RENÉ GILLES GOSSELIN (CERTIFICATE #299215) Joseph René Gilles Gosselin was not present at this hearing nor was he represented by legal counsel
Paul Marshall, Emond Harnden LLP, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: February 4, 2014
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on February 4, 2014 at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated August 21, 2012, was served on Joseph René Gilles Gosselin (“the Member”) requesting his attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on September 17, 2012 to set a date for a hearing.
The Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was he represented by legal counsel.
ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 2), dated August 21, 2012, are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Joseph René Gilles Gosselin is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1) of 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 abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3), and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(f) he failed to supervise adequately a person(s) under the professional supervision of the Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(g) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(h) 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
(i) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AND IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED that Joseph René Gilles Gosselin is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act, pursuant to section 2 of Ontario Regulation 437/97, in that a finding of professional misconduct has been made against Joseph René Gilles Gosselin by the Nova Scotia Department of Education that is based on facts that would constitute professional misconduct as defined in section 1 of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and particularly those subsections referred to above.
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Joseph René Gilles Gosselin also known as Gilles Joseph René Gosselin (the “Member”) is a member of the College.
At all material times, the Member held a teaching certificate from the Province of Nova Scotia.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial (the “Board”) as an Assistant Principal at [XXX] and a teacher at [XXX] (the “Schools”) in Nova Scotia.
On or about February 10, 2011, the Minister of Education in Nova Scotia cancelled the Member’s certificate.
During the period from 2007-2009, the Member’s conduct constituted professional misconduct and was the basis for the cancellation of the Member’s certificate in Nova Scotia. The Member’s misconduct was as follows:
(a) conducted experiments in the classroom which included the use of such chemicals as mercury;
(b) left students unattended and unsupervised during a class field trip to a plaster plant;
(c) discussed the relationship between his wife and his girlfriend during class time;
(d) discussed with students his relationships with other women as a married man;
(e) spoke about his sister’s abortion during class time;
(f) asked a colleague to check his pubic area for lice;
(g) used the girls’ bathroom on a school day;
(h) told two male Grade [XXX] students that a female student had nice breasts;
(i) went out for dinner with a female student;
(j) asked several married colleagues if they would like to go skating and/or go for a drive and/or have a glass of wine and/or go dancing;
(k) put his hand on the leg of female colleagues during meetings in his office;
(l) stared at the private area of a female colleague during a meeting;
(m) rubbed up against a female colleague in the school hallway;
(n) described sexual scenarios to female colleagues and solicited their interest in same.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was he represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the assumption that he denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
NOTICE TO THE MEMBER
After reading the Affidavit of Annie Lacroix (Exhibit 1), the Committee was satisfied that every possible attempt was made to notify the Member.
The Member was informed of the discipline proceeding against him. According to the Affidavit, he received the Notice of Hearing on August 31, 2012 (Tab A, Exhibit 1). The College’s legal firm sent him an e-mail on November 13, 2013 informing him that the hearing had been scheduled for February 4, 2014 (Tab K, Exhibit 1). On January 14, 2014, the Member advised the law firm that he did not intend to attend the hearing (Tab R, Exhibit 1). The Committee found that the Member had received adequate notice of the hearing date and of the allegations against him and proceeded with the hearing in his absence.
EVIDENCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE
Proof of Membership
Counsel for the College produced two proofs of membership. At all material times, the Member was employed as a teacher under the jurisdiction of the Nova Scotia Department of Education, as stated in the letter dated May 30, 2011 in which the Nova Scotia Registrar conveyed her Department’s decision to the College (Exhibit 13). The Member has also held an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate since November 7, 1988 as stated in his Certification of Qualification (Exhibit 14).
Counsel for the College told the Committee that the facts and allegations in this matter were based on a finding of professional misconduct against the Member by the Nova Scotia Department of Education. The College therefore called a single witness: Paul Cantelo, Director and Registrar of Teacher Certification for the Nova Scotia Department of Education.
Testimony of Paul Cantelo
Testifying in English, Paul Cantelo (“Mr. Cantelo”) stated that he had been Director and Registrar of Teacher Certification for the Nova Scotia Department of Education since April 2012. His position includes responsibility for monitoring the certification process, investigating teacher conduct and making recommendations to the Minister of Education with regard to investigation findings. Mr. Cantelo testified that he was not Registrar at the time when the Member held a Nova Scotia teaching certificate.
He explained that a number of provincial and territorial bodies responsible for regulating the teaching profession in their respective jurisdictions follow a procedural information-sharing protocol for the suspension and cancellation of teaching certificates (Exhibit 3).
Using a policy document, Mr. Cantelo provided an overview of the 10 steps involved in the investigation and decision-making procedure followed by the Nova Scotia Department of Education (Exhibit 4). In most cases, the procedure commences when a school board submits a report on a teacher’s conduct to the Department. First, the Registrar sends the teacher a notice in writing advising him or her of the report and the Departmental investigation procedures (Step 1). Then, the Registrar conducts an investigation (Step 2), during which the teacher may ask to meet in person with the Registrar (Step 3). Once the investigation is over, the Registrar prepares a preliminary report. The teacher receives this report and has 30 days to respond in writing (Step 4). After this response wait time, the Registrar submits a final report to the Minister containing his recommendations concerning the steps to be taken (Step 5). The teacher receives this report and has 30 days to respond in writing (Step 6). During this 30-day period, the teacher is also entitled to ask for a meeting with the Minister or Deputy Minister (Step 7). If he or she does so, a meeting is scheduled and the teacher may be accompanied by a representative (Step 8). When the procedure is over, the Minister may decide to suspend the teacher’s certificate, to cancel it or to take no action (Step 9). He notifies the teacher in writing of his decision, stating the reason for the decision (Step 10).
After receiving the Minister’s decision, the teacher has the right to contest it by filing a grievance. If the grievance is warranted, the matter may go to arbitration; the Minister’s decision may be overturned and the teacher’s certificate reinstated.
After describing the overall procedures followed by the Department when making a decision relating to the status of a teacher’s certificate, Mr. Cantelo testified concerning the investigation regarding the Member. Darren Osborne (“Mr. Osborne”) was Registrar when the Member was still a certified teacher in Nova Scotia. Mr. Osborne received a notice in writing from the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial (Exhibits 5, 6) stating that it had investigated allegations against the Member and that the teacher had resigned from his position with the school board.
Mr. Osborne sent the Member a notice of the commencement of an investigation (Exhibit 7), advising him of the report and the Departmental procedures (Step 1). The following day the Department received a letter from the Member expressing the teacher’s perception of the matter (Exhibit 8). During the investigation by the Registrar (Step 2), the Member did not request a meeting with Mr. Osborne (Step 3). When the investigation was complete, the Registrar issued a preliminary report setting out the findings for the Member and advising him that he had 30 days in which to respond (Exhibit 9) (Step 4).
The Member did not respond to the preliminary report within the prescribed 30 days. Janine Kerr, his representative with the Nova Scotia Teachers Union, requested an extension to the response deadline. Despite this extension, the Registrar received no written response from the Member. He therefore prepared a final investigation report including his recommendation to the Minister (Step 5) and issued a copy of the report to the Member (Exhibit 10) (Step 6). Following the final investigation report, the Deputy Minister sent the teacher a letter (Exhibit 11) advising him of the Minister’s decision to cancel his teacher’s certificate (Steps 9 and 10).
With regard to Steps 7 and 8 of the investigation procedure, Mr. Cantelo stated that the teacher failed to respond to the preliminary report or request a meeting with the Minister or Deputy Minister during the extension period he was granted. Although the Member contested the Minister’s decision, his application was rejected at Step 2 of the grievance procedure and he received notice in writing to this effect (Exhibit 12). According to Mr. Cantelo, a rejection at Step 2 means that the investigation process was not in question. The Member never requested that the matter be arbitrated.
In accordance with the procedural information-sharing protocol (Exhibit 3), Mr. Osborne sent a letter to the Registrar of the College (Exhibit 13) advising him of the cancellation of the Member’s certificate. At the time, the Member was an Ontario Certified Teacher (Member’s Certificate of Qualification, Exhibit 14).
SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE
Counsel for the College submitted that the investigation procedure of the Nova Scotia Department of Education had been adhered to, that the Member had an opportunity to respond to the allegations and that he had been represented by a lawyer from his teachers’ union. Counsel for the College argued that the Committee could find the Member guilty of professional misconduct on the basis of the final investigation report drafted by Mr. Osborne, which states that the Member acknowledged most of the allegations made by the Registrar. Counsel for the College emphasized the Member’s cavalier approach in the wording of his responses. The teacher exhibited no remorse and could see nothing wrong with his conduct. At the end of the procedure, the Minister cancelled the Member’s certificate, a decision which was upheld when the grievance filed by the teacher was dismissed.
Counsel for the College argued that there was an unbroken connection between the actions and incidents described in Mr. Osborne’s final investigation report (Exhibit 10) and the particulars of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 2) which led the Committee to find that the allegations made by the College were well substantiated, with the exception of clauses 5(b) and (g) of the Notice of Hearing, for which the College produced no supporting evidence at the hearing.
Counsel for the College asked the Committee to give due respect to the Departmental investigation and decision-making procedure. Instead of finding that it would have noted additional facts or taken other steps, the Committee ought to defer to the Nova Scotian authorities.
In support of her submissions, Counsel referred to the decision in Latour. In this case, the College accused Mr. Latour of professional misconduct further to a finding of professional misconduct against him in the Northwest Territories. The panel accepted the statement of facts by the authorities in the Northwest Territories and found Mr. Latour guilty of professional misconduct.
Counsel for the College stated that in view of the facts proven by the Registrar’s report and the finding of guilt made against the Member in another jurisdiction, the Committee was urged to find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
With respect to the Member, having examined the exhibits filed, and based on the evidence and the submissions made by Counsel for the College, the Discipline Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct and find Joseph René Gilles Gosselin guilty of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5) and 1(7 – sexual, verbal, psychological or emotional abuse – prior to May 2008), 1(7 – after 2008), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18 – disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional acts) and 1(19), as set out in the Notice of Hearing.
The Committee also finds the Member guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 437/97, section 2, in that a finding of professional misconduct or a similar finding against the Member was made by the Nova Scotia Department of Education, based on facts that would constitute professional misconduct as defined in Ontario Regulation 437/97, section 1, in particular the aforementioned subsections.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The decision by the Committee is based on section 2 of Ontario Regulation 437/97 made under the Act, which reads as follows:
A finding of incompetence, professional misconduct or a similar finding against a member by a governing authority of the teaching profession in a jurisdiction other than Ontario that is based on facts that would, in the opinion of the Discipline Committee, constitute professional misconduct as defined in section 1, is defined as professional misconduct for the purposes of subsection 30(2) of the Act.
Finding of Facts
Counsel for the College produced evidence showing that the Member’s teaching certificate was cancelled by the Nova Scotia Department of Education on the grounds of his unacceptable conduct. Mr. Osborne’s final investigation report is particularly useful to the Committee because it supports the College’s allegations. With the exception of clauses 5(b) and (g) in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 2), all of the particulars of the allegations in the Notice are present in the Registrar’s report.
As stated in the Notice of Hearing, the final investigation report notes that the Member discussed with students his relationship with his wife, his relationships with other women and his sister’s abortion. He made sexual comments to his female colleagues in front of students and went out to dinner with a female student. Moreover, the Notice of Hearing and the Nova Scotia investigation report state that the teacher conducted experiments involving chemicals, and show that the Member invited several married female colleagues to go out with him, put his hand on the leg of female colleagues while meeting with them in his office, stared at the private area of a female colleague during a meeting and rubbed up against a female colleague in the school hallway.
In view of the close similarities between the College’s Notice of Hearing and the facts set out in Mr. Osborne’s investigation report, the Committee finds it plausible that the alleged incidents took place. The College has therefore met the burden of proof by relying on clear, cogent and convincing evidence and has achieved the standard of proof of the balance of probabilities.
Finding of Professional Misconduct
In view of the findings, the Committee accepts the College’s premise that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct.
In discussing his sister’s abortion and his own relationships with women in class or in front of students, the teacher failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
His invitations to married female colleagues and his sexual comments were utterly inappropriate. By making these unacceptable remarks, the Member abused his students and his colleagues verbally, emotionally and sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7 – after 2008), 1(7.2) and 1(7.3).
The Committee further notes that the Member disregarded his students’ well-being. He conducted experiments with mercury in class and failed to ensure his students’ safety. His conduct contravenes his duties under section 264 of the Education Act. The Member failed to comply with the Education Act or the regulations made thereunder, and failed to adequately supervise persons under his professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(11) and 1(15).
The Committee finds that the Member’s touching of his female colleagues and his decision to go out to dinner with a female student constitute acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional and conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) and 1(19).
In its assessment of the Member’s conduct, the Committee agrees with the analysis provided by Mr. Osborne in his final investigation report (Exhibit 10). He states that over three years, the teacher adopted inappropriate behavioural patterns by jeopardizing the safety of his students, sexually harassing his colleagues and crossing the boundaries that must be respected between a teacher and his students. The Committee therefore finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct and that his behaviour falls short of the expectations for the teaching profession.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY BY COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE
Counsel for the College submitted that the Committee ought to revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, as did the Nova Scotia Department of Education. Referring to the aggravating factors in the case, Counsel for the College stated that the incidents took place over a three-year period, that they were sexual in nature and that the teacher has never exhibited remorse. She also recommended publication of the Member’s name in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, arguing that its publication was necessary to maintain public trust.
In support of the proposed penalty, Counsel for the College referred to two previous decisions by the College’s Discipline Committee, Latour and Deans. Both cases involved a sexualized context and the panel directed that the certificate of the teacher in question be revoked. Although Mr. Deans’s name was not published, Counsel for the College noted that the panel hearing the matter stated in its Reasons for Decision that it would have ordered the publication of his name if the Ontario Court of Justice had not issued a publication ban.
PENALTY AND ORDER
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
It directs the College Registrar to revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
It directs that the decision and order of the discipline panel be published in summary form in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, including the Member’s name as it appears on the public register.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION AND ORDER
The Committee agreed with the submissions of Counsel for the College and accepted that there was evidence of inappropriate behaviour in this case. The Member’s wrongdoing undermines trust in the members of the teaching profession. These actions warrant revocation and the publication of the Member’s name in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
The revocation of the Certificate of Qualification and Registration is warranted by the decision of the Nova Scotia Department of Education. The Committee is not convinced that the Member fully comprehends the importance of respecting the boundaries between students and teachers which should not be crossed. The revocation is necessary for the purposes of ensuring students’ safety and of serving and protecting the public interest.
The Committee believes that it is also necessary to publish its findings and order with the name of the Member, because that will act as a deterrent for both the teaching profession and the Member. Publication with the Member’s name sends a message both to this Member and to the members of the profession that the Member’s actions are unacceptable. The publication of the Member’s name also serves the interests of the public by providing reassurance and letting the community know that the teaching profession takes decisive action when facts of this nature are brought to its attention.
In conclusion, the Committee finds that the penalty serves and protects the interests of the public and of the teaching profession.
February 27, 2014
Monika Ferenczy, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Marie-Louise Chartrand Member, Discipline Panel
Darlene Mead, OCT Member, Discipline Panel