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
Salvatore Scolaro, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair Stefanie Achkewich, OCT
Vicki Shannon, OCT
BETWEEN: ) ) Eli Mogil,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Bev Hodsdon,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
) Bernard Hanson,
) Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre ) Cornish LLP,
) for Salvatore Scolaro
SALVATORE SCOLARO ) Marc Spector,
(CERTIFICATE #461628) ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: November 10, 2014
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 10, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated April 5, 2012 was served on Salvatore Scolaro, requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on April 24, 2012 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 10, 2014.
The Member and his Counsel were present at the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member 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 keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);
(c) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1)(c) thereof, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(d) 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
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
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:
Salvatore Scolaro (the “Member”) was at all material times, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached to Exhibit 2, Tab A is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a Transportation Technology teacher at St. Marcellinus Secondary School (the “School”) in Mississauga, Ontario. In this role, the Member instructed and supervised students in the maintenance and repair of vehicles including privately-owned vehicles.
As part of his duties the Member was required to order parts and tools from vendors. When services were performed on privately owned vehicles, the Member was responsible for ensuring that the owner of the vehicle was charged for the cost of the parts.
During and including September 2006 to June 2009, when repairs were performed on privately owned vehicles, the Board expected the Member to charge the owner of the vehicle for the services performed, as well as for the cost of parts, however, there was no written Board or School policy in place to determine who was charged service fees. In the absence of a written policy and/or clear communication by the Board of its expectations, it was left up to the Member to determine who was charged such fees and he generally did so on the basis of whether those requesting service were known to him or not.
During and including September 2006 to June 2009, neither the Board nor the School implemented accounting procedures in respect of transactions arising in the course of the delivery of the Transportation Technology courses at the School and the Member did not keep accurate records of services provided, or of charges, and amounts paid for service to vehicles performed at the School.
The Member also did extensive repairs and/or services for his own personal vehicle and that of his family members using auto parts purchased through the School. He did not charge appropriately for parts and service fees.
In July 2008, after the school year had been completed, the Member purchased auto parts and charged them to the School Budget.
The Member was questioned by the Principal of the School about the lack of monies in the Account and subsequently the Principal involved the Superintendent of the Board.
Ultimately, all monies that were unaccounted for were repaid by the Member and the Account was balanced.
Currently, the Member does not order any items and/or parts for the Transportation Technology Program. That is now done through the School’s secretary.
The Member received a written reprimand by the School Board that was placed in his personnel file. Attached to Exhibit 2, Tab B is a letter from the Superintendent of Employee Relations dated March 2, 2009.
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 11 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts referred to in paragraphs 3 to 8 above, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(10), 1(15), 1(18-unprofessional) and 1(19).
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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he 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) 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.
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.
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 the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(10), 1(15), 1(18 - unprofessional) 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 11 above. The Member acknowledged that the Uncontested Facts referred to in paragraphs 3 to 8 above, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(10), 1(15), 1(18 - unprofessional) and 1(19).
The Committee accepts the Member’s plea, and accepts that the facts in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2) amount to professional misconduct as pleaded to by the Member.
Between September 2006 and June 2009, the Member conducted himself unprofessionally in the mismanagement of school funds, as demonstrated in the purchase of auto parts for his own personal use, using school monies. While there was no School or Board policy for the setting of fees for automotive services rendered, it was clear that there was a limited budget for the purchase of parts and materials for the Transportation Technology program. The Member was aware that he was using School funds intended to support a program for students when he used auto parts purchased by the School for repairs on his personal vehicle and those of his family. Specifically, the Member did not reimburse the School for these purchases until an audit was performed pointing out the irregularities. The Member’s unprofessional behaviour contributed to a significant deficit in the budget for the course. This was acknowledged by the Member by repaying the funds that were inappropriately used. The Member’s actions as a teacher were completely unacceptable.
The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct constitutes acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(10), 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:
direct the Member 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 reprimand will be delivered in person at the offices of the College, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario.
direct the Registrar 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, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics and record keeping;
(ii) within thirty (30) days of 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 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
b. the Member has successfully completed the course.
- 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 were made on that issue.
SUBMISSIONS ON PUBLICATION
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 a reprimand. He noted that the reprimand served as an appropriate deterrent, and that remedial concerns were addressed with the order for course work.
Counsel for the College further submitted that publication of the decision in summary form was only helpful to a degree. Publication with name of the Member would make it clear to members of the profession who are responsible for handling school monies, that they must demonstrate ethical conduct through appropriate record keeping and management of funds.
Counsel for the College argued that publication with the name of the Member ensures that the public interest is satisfied, acts as a specific deterrent to the Member, and serves as a general deterrent for the profession.
College Counsel submitted that the Member was guilty of dishonest behaviour in the purchase of auto parts paid for with school funds, for his own vehicle.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member agreed with the Joint Submission on Penalty as outlined by College Counsel, however disputed the characterisation of the facts. He further submitted that the Member was negligent but not dishonest. Counsel for the Member referred the Discipline Committee to the fact that in the absence of a written policy and clear communication by the Board or the School of its expectations, it was left to the Member to determine who was charged service fees. The Member determined who paid for service on the basis of whether or not those requesting service were known to him.
Counsel for the Member disagreed with College Counsel on the need for publication with name as part of the penalty. It was submitted that the Member’s name should not be published in the College’s publication Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, for the following reasons:
a) the Member’s misconduct in this case was at the low end of the spectrum;
b) the Member had no prior history of misconduct;
c) there was no repetition of the misconduct;
d) the allegations were outdated; and
e) the Member’s acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
The Member continues to teach the Transportation Technology course and has done so for the last 5 years without further incident.
Counsel for the Member presented a Book of Authorities containing seven cases in which he highlighted reasons for non-publication of the members’ names.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
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 Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers 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, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics and record keeping;
(ii) within thirty (30) days of 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 Statement of Uncontested Facts, Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, as well as the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and
b. 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
The Member acknowledged that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct. The Committee agrees that a reprimand is appropriate in this matter and acts as a specific deterrent to the Member. In addition, the course of instruction covering professional ethics and record keeping serves as a remedial measure.
Publication with name serves as a general deterrent to the profession and advises members that engaging in such conduct will result in similar sanctions. These findings, in the circumstances of this case, outweigh the mitigating factors submitted by the Member’s counsel.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Dated: November 20, 2014
______________________________ Robert Gagné
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Stefanie Achkewich, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Vicki Shannon, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel