DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Dennis Alan McDermott, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers
PANEL: Stefanie Achkewich, OCT, Chair Pauline Smart Hanno Weinberger
BETWEEN: ) ) David Leonard,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Law Clerk
- and – )
) Dennis Alan McDermott was ) not present or represented
DENNIS ALAN MCDERMOTT )
(CERTIFICATE # 240529) )
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: June 5, 2014
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 5, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated February 5, 2014 was served on Dennis Alan McDermott (the “Member”), requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee on March 25, 2014 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for June 5, 2014.
The Member was not in attendance at the hearing, nor was he represented.
Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo, sworn June 3, 2014 (Exhibit 2) to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty being sought. In this affidavit, Ms. De Bartolo, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault, outlines her communications with the Member and provides proof of proper service of all required documents. On March 12, 2014, the Member advised Ms. De Bartolo that he had no intention of attending the hearing (Exhibit 2, paragraph 6).
In light of this affidavit, the Committee was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and was aware of the time and date of the hearing and the penalty being sought.
The Committee therefore proceeded to hear the matter in the absence of the Member.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 5, 2014 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Dennis Alan McDermott 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(d) he 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) 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);
(f) he contravened a law, the contravention of which may cause a student to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);
(g) 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
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Dennis Alan McDermott (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] School in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, the Student (the “Student”) was a [XXX] year old former female student of the Member.
In or about July 2012, the Member:
(a) had an inappropriate personal relationship with the Student;
(b) engaged in sexual touching with the Student;
(c) had a sexual relationship with the Student.
- On or about April 16, 2013, the Member was found guilty of the following charge, in that he:
(a) on or about the 17th day of July in the year 2012 at the Township of [XXX] in the Regional Municipality of [XXX] did, being a person who was in a position of trust and authority towards a young person, with a part of his body, for a sexual purpose, directly touch the body of that young person, namely the Student, contrary to Section 153, subsection (1.1) of the Criminal Code (Canada).
On or about April 16, 2013, the Member was sentenced to thirty (30) days imprisonment and twelve (12) months probation.
The Member has not appealed the conviction and/or sentence.
PUBLICATION BAN
A non-publication order (Exhibit 4, Tab A) was issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code (Canada), in the proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice. The Committee is therefore required to uphold this publication ban imposed in the matter of Her Majesty the Queen v. Dennis McDermott in the Ontario Court of Justice. There shall be no publication of any information that might tend to identify the victim involved in this matter.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was not present or represented by counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.
THE EVIDENCE
College Counsel entered into evidence the Registered Member Information for Dennis Alan McDermott (Exhibit 3), which indicates that the Member was registered with the College during the period of the alleged events. Counsel for the College also provided the Committee with a Brief of Court Documents: Her Majesty The Queen v. Dennis McDermott (Exhibit 4) which contained the following documents:
TAB
DOCUMENT
PAGE No.
A.
Warning and Certified Copy of Information dated 18 July 2012
1-3
B.
Certified Copy of Probation Order dated 16 Apr 2013
1-2
C.
Certified Copy of Prohibition Order dated 16 Apr 2013
1-2
D.
Transcript of Plea Proceedings Justice P. Tetley at Newmarket dated 16 April 2013
1-12
E.
Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment before Justice P. Tetley at Newmarket dated 16 April 2013
1-6
The evidence presented in the Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 4) confirms that on or about July 17, 2012, the Member, a person who was in a position of trust and authority towards a young person, did, with a part of his body, for a sexual purpose, directly touch the body of that young person, namely the Student, contrary to Section 153, subsection (1.1) of the Criminal Code (Canada). On April 16, 2013, the Member was sentenced to thirty (30) days imprisonment and twelve (12) months probation.
SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING
College Counsel submitted the Brief of Court documents (Exhibit 4) in support of the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. The Member was represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings.
College Counsel made submissions that the Member’s conduct was egregious and a breach of his position of trust and authority. College Counsel stated that the Member’s behaviour as detailed in the record of the criminal proceedings and the resultant criminal conviction provided a sufficient basis to justify a finding of professional misconduct under all the heads of misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing.
DECISION
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by College Counsel, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Dennis Alan McDermott committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Given the information provided in the Brief of Court Documents (Exhibit 4), the Committee accepts as fact that on April 16, 2013, the Member was convicted of sexual exploitation and was sentenced to thirty days imprisonment and twelve months probation. The Member has not appealed the criminal conviction and sentence.
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 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 and conviction in a Canadian court, provided that there is no evidence to the contrary and that no appeal has been granted.
The Committee finds that the Member’s actions and subsequent criminal conviction for sexual exploitation constitute acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
College Counsel submitted that the Member abused his position of trust and authority and took advantage of one of his vulnerable students. Counsel stated that the Member used the power imbalance between himself and the student to advance a sexual relationship and take advantage of her.
College Counsel submitted that the only appropriate penalty is to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member and to publish his name in the summary of the Committee’s findings in the College’s official magazine, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Committee directs the Registrar to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member; and
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
The Member abused the authority and trust vested in him in his role as a teacher to take advantage of and engage in sexual abuse of a student. He pleaded guilty to the charge, that being in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, did for a sexual purpose touch the young person with a part of his body, contrary to subsection 153, subsection (1.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Committee agrees with the Honourable Justice P. Tetley in his Reasons for Judgment (Exhibit 4, Tab E, page 4), who stated that, “while the incident in question occurred after the student/teacher relationship had expired and the complainant in the matter had graduated, those facts do little to diminish the seriousness of the offence.” The Member’s objectionable behaviour has brought the profession into disrepute.
The conduct of the Member was unacceptable and in conflict with the duty of a teacher to protect students. The Member, as a result of his conduct, has forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession. This egregious misconduct requires that the Member receive the maximum penalty, revocation of his certificate of qualification and registration.
Publication of the findings and order of the Committee, in summary, along with the name of the Member, identifies to the profession the nature of the Member’s misconduct and the consequences for such behaviour. Publication, in this case, acts as a general deterrent and informs the profession that such behaviour will not be tolerated and will result in the harshest penalty, revocation. Publication serves the public interest by reassuring and informing the community that the profession acts decisively when matters of this nature are brought to its attention.
The Committee is satisfied that the finding and penalty protect the public interest and uphold the standards of the teaching profession.
Dated: June 5, 2014
Stefanie Achkewich, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Pauline Smart Member, Discipline Panel
Hanno Weinberger Member, Discipline Panel