DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Daniel James Meeker, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Monique Lapalme Arseneault Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS David Leonard, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
– and –
DANIEL JAMES MEEKER (CERTIFICATE #253772) Patricia D’Heureux and Lauren Sheffield, Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish LLP, for Daniel James Meeker
Julie Maciura, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: December 10, 2014
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on December 10, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated June 1, 2011 was served on Daniel James Meeker (the “Member”), requesting his presence on June 9, 2011 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for December 10, 2014.
The Member was not in attendance at the hearing, but had legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 1, 2011 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Daniel James Meeker is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (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 failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264 thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(c) 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
(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member 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:
At all material times, the Member was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached to Exhibit 2, at Tab A is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
The Member was employed by the Thames Valley District School Board (the “Board”) at all material times and was a [XXX] at [XXX] School (the “School”) in London, Ontario.
At all material times, “A” was a female [XXX] with the Board.
During the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic years, “A” was assigned to work in the Member’s class.
For a period of time in 2006-2007, the Member and “A” engaged in a personal romantic relationship. The relationship ended in or before September 2007.
In or around August 2007, “A” requested that the School’s administration not assign her to the Member’s class for the academic year 2007-2008.
During or around the period October 2007 to September 2008, the Member repeatedly engaged in behaviour towards “A” that made her feel very uncomfortable at work. The behaviour included the following:
(a) he made repeated telephone calls to “A” at her home and on her cell phone;
(b) demanded that “A” request a transfer out of the School;
(c) after the spouse of “A” suffered a brain hemorrhage in October 2007, he asked one or more co-workers “is he dead yet?”;
(d) in May or June 2008, he went to the place of employment of the spouse of “A”, then called “A” and stated “he [the spouse] is so fucked up, you can’t do anything you like anymore”;
(e) after “A” wrote the Member a letter in May 2008 asking that he leave her alone or she would take it to the next level, he asked her what she meant by the phrase “take it to the next level”;
(f) late in the summer of 2008, he called “A” while she was driving and told her not to drive down a particular road as there was construction.
On or around November 8, 2008, “A” reported allegations of harassment to Police, regarding the Member’s behaviour. Criminal charges against the Member were ultimately dismissed.
The Member’s employment was terminated by the Board on or about May 26, 2009. The Member successfully grieved his termination, and in September 2012 returned to teaching with the Board.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member pleads no contest to, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts referred to above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and admits the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18 - unprofessional), and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that he:
(a) understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) understands that by pleading no contest 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) 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) understands that any agreement between his counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, under the 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.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee should 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 Daniel James Meeker committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18 - unprofessional), and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member acknowledged that the facts in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct made against him. The Committee accepts the Member’s plea and the facts contained in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest.
The Member, over a 12-month period, made unwanted phone calls, to “A”, made harassing comments to “A” and to others about “A” and her spouse. The Member’s behaviour made “A” so uncomfortable at work that she asked to be transferred from the Member’s classroom, informed him that if his behaviour continued she would take the matter “to the next level” and even reported allegations of harassment to the police.
In light of the Member’s behaviour and his plea, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18 - unprofessional), 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:
(a) direct the Member to appear before the Committee within sixty (60) days 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”);
(b) direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers to impose the following terms, conditions or 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) that the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, within ninety (90) days of the Decision of the Discipline Committee, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries with colleagues, professional ethics and peer relationships.
(ii) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (i) above, shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating: A. that he or she has reviewed a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and
B. that the Member has successfully completed the course.
(c) direct 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
College Counsel made submissions regarding publication with the Member’s name in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/pour parler profession. Publication with name serves as a specific and general deterrent. It reinforces to the Member the seriousness of his misconduct. It demonstrates to the profession and the public that the College does not take these matters lightly. College Counsel further submitted that publication with name is necessary to promote transparency and to ensure confidence in the discipline process.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member reminded the Committee that it had the discretion to publish the findings and summary, with or without the Member’s name in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/pour parler profession. Member’s Counsel requested that the Member’s name not be published because specific deterrence was adequately addressed through the grievance process, the termination of his employment, the criminal proceedings and this discipline hearing. Member’s Counsel stated that general deterrence is achieved through publication of the facts, findings and penalties ordered.
Member’s Counsel stressed that the Member’s behaviour was not directed at students, but at a colleague. Member’s Counsel indicated that the Member has returned to teaching within the same Board and in the same community and that the publication of his name will damage his reputation and might identify “A”.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee within sixty (60) days from December 10, 2014, the date of the hearing of this matter, to receive a reprimand and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or 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) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, within ninety (90) days of the Decision of the Discipline Committee, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries with colleagues, professional ethics and peer relationships.
(ii) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (i) above, shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating:
A. the course provider has reviewed a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and
B. that the Member has successfully completed the course.
- There shall be publication of the findings and order of the Committee 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 carefully assessed the arguments presented by both parties in determining an appropriate penalty. The Member and the College accepted the fundamental elements of the penalty, which included a reprimand, a course regarding professional boundaries with colleagues, professional ethics and peer relationships, 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.
The Committee agreed that a reprimand was appropriate and would act as a specific deterrent, thereby reinforcing to the Member that his misconduct was unacceptable. The recording of the fact of the reprimand on the Member’s Certificate will also serve as a general deterrent, and will advise the profession and the public that teachers need to maintain appropriate and respectful relationships with colleagues.
The requirement that the Member successfully complete a course regarding professional boundaries with colleagues, professional ethics and peer relationships will address the misconduct engaged in by the Member. This course will also serve to rehabilitate and educate the Member.
The Committee ordered publication of the findings and order, with the name of the Member, for the following reasons. The Member’s misconduct was serious and occurred over a long period of time, causing a colleague, “A”, to be uncomfortable in the workplace and in public to such an extent that “A” reported this harassment to the police. The Committee determined that publication with the Member’s name also acts as a specific deterrent, assures transparency and accountability of the disciplinary process and reinforces the mandate of the College to serve and protect the public interest. Publication with name serves as a general deterrent and reminds the profession that such behaviour is not condoned and has consequences. Publication of the decision and findings of the Committee, with the name of the Member, also serves to inform the public that the College takes seriously its obligation to impose appropriate sanctions on members of the profession who conduct themselves in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances, and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: December 17, 2014
Irene Dembek, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Monique Lapalme Arseneault Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT Member, Discipline Panel