Ontario College of Teachers v. Legros-Stewart, 2014 ONOCT 57

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Legros-Stewart, 2014 ONOCT 57

Date: 2014-11-14

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

Polly Anne Legros-Stewart, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Pauline Smart, Chair

Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT Hanno Weinberger, OCT

BETWEEN: ) David Leonard,

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,

) Law Clerk

• and – )

POLLY ANNE LEGROS-STEWART ) William Markle,

(CERTIFICATE # 106404) ) Markle Schmid Munoz LLP,

) for Polly Anne Legros-Stewart

) assisted by Melissa Widdifield, ) Paralegal

) Rebecca Durcan,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: November 13, 2014

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 13, 2014, at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated November 4, 2010 was served on Polly Anne Legros-Stewart (the “Member”), requesting her presence on November 16, 2010 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for November 13, 2014.

The Member was in attendance at the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated November 4, 2010 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Polly Anne Legros-Stewart is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in sections 30(2) and 40 (1.1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (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 abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

(d) 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);

(e) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and

(f) she engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students of a nature defined in sections 1 and 40 (1.1) of the Act.

At the hearing on November 13, 2014, College counsel requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) (e) and (f) of the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) be withdrawn. College counsel stated that the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Notice of Hearing were subject to a proceeding not before the Ontario College of Teachers. At that proceeding, the Member was found not guilty and therefore College counsel was seeking to withdraw these allegations. The Committee was in agreement and these allegations were subsequently withdrawn.

STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:

1. Polly Anne Legros-Stewart (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 Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. During the 2007-2008 academic year, the Member was a [XXX] and [XXX] teacher at the School and Students A, B, C, and D were Grade [XXX] students at the School. Students A and D were male; Students B and C were female. Student C dropped out of school in November 2009. Students A, B and D and the Member were involved in the [XXX] Club.

4. During the 2007-2008 academic year, the Member engaged in a relationship and activities with Students A, B, C and D which crossed professional boundaries. While the parties do not agree entirely on the specifics of that conduct, it included:

(a) attending at a movie theatre with students, including Students A, B, C and D, to watch the movie “American Gangster”;

(b) accompanying Students A, B, C and/or D on a trip to [XXX] University on a school day and without following the School’s policies and procedures for such a trip;

(c) allowing Student B to drive the Member’s motor vehicle on the trip to [XXX] University described above;

(d) allowing Student A to drive her motor vehicle on a couple of occasions;

(e) allowing Student D to drive her motor vehicle;

(f) going with several students to a coffee shop in [XXX] outside of school hours; and

(g) going with Students A and/or B and/or C and/or D on occasion to have lunch together at a local restaurant.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

5. By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

6. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts referred to above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly a breach of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsection 1(18 - unprofessional).

7. 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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading no contest 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 counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;

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

8. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

9. In light of the uncontested facts and circumstances, 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 Polly Anne Legros-Stewart committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly a breach of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18 - unprofessional).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee accepts the Member’s admission of the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 above. The Member acknowledged that the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly a breach of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18 - unprofessional).

The Committee agreed with the parties that although the individual particulars of the allegation did not constitute professional misconduct, when viewed as a whole, the totality of the conduct met the threshold of professional misconduct.

The Committee accepts the Member’s plea, and accepts that the facts in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest amount to professional misconduct as pleaded to by the Member.

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 be counselled which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the counselling is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

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:

(a) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, within ninety (90) days of the Order of the Committee, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations;

(b) within thirty (30) days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:

(i) he or she has reviewed a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts, Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and

(ii) 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.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY AND PUBLICATION OF NAME

Submissions of College Counsel

Counsel for the College submitted that the joint submission on penalty was appropriate with regard to the order to take a course and to receive counselling. He noted that the right balance in deterrence was struck with the Member being counselled, and that remedial concerns were addressed with the order for course work in boundary violations.

College counsel submitted that the Member’s name should be published. Counsel stated that the hearing is open to the public and that the decision will be available on the public register. Therefore, for the sake of transparency, it makes sense to publish the Member’s name in the official publication of the College.

Submissions of Member’s Counsel

Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member’s name should not be published in the official publication of the College. Counsel for the Member argued that the Committee can serve the purpose of general deterrence without publishing the Member’s name.

For the Member, publication is the most difficult aspect of the pending penalty. It was submitted that the Member has rebuilt her career and her reputation. Member’s counsel questioned what purpose would be served in “putting her name out there”. Member’s counsel stated that with the exception of this one incident in 2009, the Member has had an unblemished career and since her transfer to a new school has had four more years of excellent service.

Member’s counsel further submitted that publishing the Member’s name would impair her ability to continue providing excellent service. Member’s counsel stated that transparency is not the only consideration for publishing the Member’s name. The Committee should strike a balance between the public interest and the interest of the Member. It was submitted that the Committee should consider the mitigating factors in this matter and appreciate what the Member has already endured.

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 be counselled which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the counselling 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:

(a) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, within ninety (90) days of the Order of the Committee, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations;

(b) within thirty (30) days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:

(i) the course provider has reviewed a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts, Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and

(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course.

3. There shall be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form, without the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Member acknowledged that the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest constitute conduct which is professional misconduct. The Committee agrees that counselling is appropriate in this matter and acts as a specific deterrent to the Member. In addition, the course of instruction regarding boundary violations serves as a remedial measure.

Publication in summary serves as a general deterrent to the profession and advises members that engaging in such conduct will result in similar sanctions. The Committee agrees with College counsel that there are no strong aggravating factors in this case. The Committee considered the following mitigating factors as outlined in this case, which include, inter alia:

(a) this being the first time the Member has appeared before the College;

(b) that the Member has had a 24 year unblemished teaching career;

(c) that the Member accepted responsibility for the misconduct and agreed to enter a plea of no contest, thereby avoiding a lengthy hearing and ensuring that no students were required to testify;

(d) that the matter was not egregious; and

(e) that the allegation was on the minor end of the spectrum.

The Committee finds that publication without the Member’s name is appropriate in this circumstance.

The Committee further finds that it is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstance and serves and protects the public interest.

Date: November 14, 2014

Pauline Smart

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Hanno Weinberger, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel