Ontario College of Teachers v Seymour, 2014 ONOCT 97

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Seymour, 2014 ONOCT 97

Date: 2014-05-01

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

Rowan Edwin Seymour, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Wes Vickers, OCT, Chair Pauline Smart

Ruth Ann Penny, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Beverley Hodsdon,

) Law Clerk

• and – )

ROWAN EDWIN SEYMOUR ) Mary Catherine Chambers

(CERTIFICATE # 194351) ) Buset & Partners LLP,

) for Rowan Edwin Seymour

) Marc Spector,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) Heard: January 30, 2014

) Written Submissions delivered:

) March 13, 2014

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on January 30, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated March 13, 2013 was served on Rowan Edwin Seymour (the “Member”), requesting his presence on April 9, 2013 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for January 30, 2014.

The Member was in attendance at the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated March 13, 2013 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Rowan Edwin Seymour is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act in that:

(a) 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);

(b) 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);

(c) 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);

(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).

Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member requested the withdrawal of allegations (a) and (d) of the Notice of Hearing. College Counsel submitted that allegation (d), which speaks of “disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional” actions, contrary to subsection 1(18) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97(the “Regulation”), has already been captured under allegation (e), which alleges that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of the Regulation.

With respect to allegation (a), which relates to a failure to comply with the Education Act or its regulations, in contravention of subsection 1(15) of the Regulation, Counsel for the Member submitted that Ontario Regulation 521/01 made under the Education Act only requires school boards to collect information relating to criminal offences. As the Member did not contravene the Criminal Code, it was the position of Member’s Counsel that subsection 1(15) did not apply to this matter.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:

1. At all material times, the Member, Rowan Edwin Seymour (the “Member”) was 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 Lakehead District School Board (the “Board”) as the Principal of Churchill Public School (the “School”).

The Conduct

3. On June 16, 2011, the Member entered Canada from the United States by vehicle at approximately 9:16 p.m. at Pigeon River, Ontario. The Member declared that he was entering Canada with goods valued at $475.00.

4. The Customs and Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) systems contained a lookout for firearms attached to the license plate for the vehicle being driven by the Member. When the Member was asked by the CBSA whether he was importing any firearm or weapons, pepper spray or mace, any handguns, Tasers or anything of a similar nature, he replied that he was not.

5. The CBSA officers searched Mr. Seymour’s vehicle. During the search they found a large cardboard box in the backseat with ‘ROWAN SEYMOUR” written in black on the side of the box. The CSBA officers opened this box. Inside they found four large clear red packages containing clear plastic Airsoft rifles. It is legal to import these items.

6. The CBSA officers then found in the box 6 smaller boxes. Each contained an Airsoft replica of a sub-machine gun. The officers found a box in the trunk of the car containing two additional Airsoft replicas of sub-machine guns.

7. Airsoft weapons are either clear or coloured plastic, or are true replicas of real weapons, made of metal. The metal replicas are the same size, have the same markings and design, and they have the same weight and feel of the real weapons. The metal replicas have a coloured plastic tip on the barrel which can be removed. Once the plastic tip is removed, except for the bore size of the barrel, they are visually identical to the real weapon. It is illegal to import the metal replica weapons into Canada and accordingly they were seized by the officers.

8. The CBSA officers continued their search and discovered two invoices for the replica weapons. Both listed Rowan Seymour as the person who ordered the replica weapons and as the person to whom they were to be shipped. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Canada Border Services Media report dated July 28, 2011 with attached photos of replica firearms.

The Proceedings Under the Customs Act

9. On or about June 22, 2012, the Member pleaded guilty to one charge of smuggling of replica firearms, replica handguns, replica assault rifles, replica sniper rifles and replica sub machine guns between the 1^st day of August, 2010 and the 11^th day of June, 2011, at the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) Port of Entry at Pigeon River, Ontario, contrary to Section 15 9 of the Customs Act, thereby committing an offence under section 160 of the said Act.

10. A copy of the transcript of the proceedings for the guilty plea is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C”. The plea was based on an Agreed Statement of Facts. A copy of that statement outlining the facts admitted by the Member is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D”.

11. The Member was found guilty. He was sentenced to twelve (12) months’ probation and fined $5,000.00. The Court also required that the Member participate in lectures to students with respect to the dangers of possession and use of replica firearms. To date, the Member has complied with this requirement. The Crown Attorney advised the Court that the Crown had agreed not to seek incarceration specifically because at the time of sentencing the Member had resigned as a Principal with the Board.

The Member’s Circumstances

12. Effective June 21, 2012, the Member resigned from the Board. He has not been employed as a teacher since then.

13. The fact that charges that had been laid against him, and the resulting sentencing, was publicized in Thunder Bay.

14. At the time of the events in question, the Member’s children were enrolled in a high school within the Board.

15. If the Member were to testify, he would say that the publicity surrounding the trial proceedings has been difficult for the Member and his family.

GUILTY PLEA

1. By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 15 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

2. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts referred to in paragraph 3 to 9 above constitutes 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(16), 1(17) and 1(19).

3. 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty 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 his counsel and counsel for the College 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.

4. In light of the admitted facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

DECISION

Having considered the request of the College and the Member to withdraw allegations (a) and (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely subsections 1(15) and 1(18) of the Regulation, the Committee grants this request and withdraws these allegations.

Further, 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 Rowan Edwin Seymour committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(16), 1(17) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member acknowledged that the Admitted Facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2) constitute behaviour that is professional misconduct and pleaded guilty to allegations of professional misconduct against him. The Committee accepts the Member’s guilty plea and the statement of facts tendered by the parties.

The Committee finds the Member’s decision to repeatedly import items not permitted under the Customs Act to be evidence of a serious lack of professional judgment and a violation of the trust placed in him by his colleagues, students, school community and wider community. The Committee is also of the view that even though the items imported were not weapons, but rather prohibited devices, the Member’s decision to commit illegal acts in order to support his son is evidence of poor professional judgment, particularly in someone charged with the responsibility of school leadership.

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 receive a reprimand 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 reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. directs the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two (2) months, from December 10, 2012 to February 10, 2013. The fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register, immediately.

3. 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 and limitations to be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as they are fulfilled:

(i) that the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding ethical expectations of teachers and education leaders;

(ii) that within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (i) above, the member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating:

A. that he or she has reviewed a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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. that the member has successfully completed the course.

4. 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.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

Submissions of College Counsel

Counsel for the College submitted that the proposed penalty serves the functions of specific deterrence, general deterrence, public protection, rehabilitation, remediation and the maintenance of public confidence in the teaching profession. College Counsel asserted that the reprimand will, in addition to specifically deterring the Member, act as a general deterrent to members of the profession given that the fact of the reprimand will be on the College’s public register. College Counsel went on to submit that the proposed course would serve to rehabilitate and remediate the Member, while the publication of the Committee’s findings and orders in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession ensures transparency and public protection.

Counsel for the College addressed the proposed suspension, noting that it is backdated to a December 2012-February 2013 timeframe. College Counsel explained that this retroactive suspension would not affect the Member’s current standing with the College but that the fact of the suspension would appear in the status history of the Member’s public register record. The parties agreed that a retroactive suspension is appropriate given that the Member has not been employed for some time. To illustrate that suspension in this form is acceptable, College Counsel referenced two Discipline Committee decisions in which panels ordered retroactive suspensions, namely Mollenhauer and Waugh.

College Counsel also spoke to the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case. With respect to mitigating factors, Counsel for the College referred to the Member’s age, his plea of guilt, his previously unblemished record and the fact that the incident did not occur in school or affect any of the Member’s students. College Counsel asserted that the Member took responsibility for his actions, cooperated with the authorities during the incident and now gives lectures with the CBSA to educate his community about replicas and to address the misconception that such products are harmless toys. Counsel for the College stated that the events of June 2011 have affected the Member’s family and has had an impact on his reputation, indicating that the Member lost his position with the Board and had to pay a large fine.

With regard to aggravating factors, College Counsel submitted that the Member displayed a remarkable lack of judgment. Counsel for the College asserted that the Member had been trying to purchase the replicas for his underage son and that these replicas can be used to intimidate people during crimes. While there is no evidence that the models the Member purchased have been used for any kind of criminal activity, College Counsel stated that it is still important to address the seriousness of the Member’s conduct.

In the College’s submission, the jointly proposed penalty strikes a balance between the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case and is therefore an appropriate sanction.

Counsel for the College submitted that the Member’s name should be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession as this measure serves the functions of specific deterrence, general deterrence and transparency. It was the College’s view that there needs to be an extremely compelling reason to withhold the Member’s name given that the hearing itself is open. To support this position, College Counsel cited the Callaghan decision in which a panel of the Discipline Committee denied a member’s request for anonymity and stated that “in the absence of a compelling reason not to publish the Member’s name, the name should be published”. Counsel for the College also referenced the Discipline Committee case Andreacchi, and in this matter, the member’s name was published even though his conduct occurred outside of the classroom.

College Counsel submitted that the Member was in a position of trust and that people looked up to him. It was the College’s position that the Committee should publish the Member’s name so as to send a message to the public and the profession that misconduct outside the classroom is not accepted and will result in consequences.

Submissions of Member’s Counsel

Counsel for the Member submitted that the public interest can be met and the functions of transparency and deterrence can be served without the publication of the Member’s name. Member’s Counsel cited Discipline Committee decisions Blanchard and Williams and stated that in both matters, a Discipline panel determined that deterrence could be achieved even if the member in question remained anonymous. Regarding the circumstances of the present case, Member’s Counsel asserted that general deterrence can be accomplished with a reprimand and suspension, adding that the public has already been deterred given the publicity that the Member’s proceedings garnered in Thunder Bay.

Counsel for the Member further submitted that specific deterrence has been met, citing the Member’s fine, his Customs Act conviction, his loss of employment and the suffering of his family. Expanding on the hardship experienced by the Member’s family, Counsel stated that the Member’s charges were publicized in a local newspaper. His children have since been the subject of teasing and his wife the target of questions and judgment at her place of employment. If the Member’s name is published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, his family, Counsel argued, will have to suffer again.

Counsel for the Member spoke to the mitigating factors of the case, stating that no students have been put at risk by the Member’s actions and that a violation of the Customs Act is not a breach of the Criminal Code. In support of this position, Member’s Counsel turned the Committee’s attention to legislative authorities, referencing Ontario Regulation 521/01, which requires school boards to conduct background checks into criminal offences but not Customs Act convictions, and the Human Rights Code, which prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual based on non-criminal offences.

Acknowledging that the Member made a serious mistake, Counsel submitted that the Member has nonetheless been a long-serving member of the College, who had a spotless career up until this point. Counsel stated that the Member currently has an education consulting business and asserted that publication with name could affect his attempt to get back on track.

In response to the decisions cited by College Counsel, Counsel for the Member submitted that these cases are very different from the one presently before the Committee in that the Callaghan case was about dishonest conduct, while the Andreacchi matter involved criminal convictions of assault.

Reply Submissions of College Counsel

Counsel for the College acknowledged that the Callaghan and Andreacchi matters involved different facts than the present case but asserted that both decisions stressed the need for compelling reasons to merit non-publication of name. College Counsel argued that personal suffering or hardship experienced by a member’s family are not sufficient reasons for anonymity as all members who come before the Discipline Committee could make submissions of this kind.

In response to the submissions of Member’s Counsel regarding the publicity that the Member’s proceedings garnered in Thunder Bay, College Counsel submitted that the goal of publication is not publicity but rather awareness among members of the public and of the profession.

FURTHER SUBMISSIONS ON JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

In reviewing the facts of the case, the Committee had questions and concerns regarding the Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3) and requested clarification around the significance of the December-February timeline as well as further submissions on the length of the proposed suspension. The Committee had reservations about a two-month suspension, given the serious nature of the misconduct.

Submissions of College Counsel

Counsel for the College submitted that while a two-month timeframe is on the low end of the spectrum for suspensions, it falls within an acceptable penalty range in light of the circumstances. College Counsel stressed that replica weapons are used for a game called Airsoft and reiterated that the Member is now giving lectures on the problem of gun promotion and has worked with the CBSA to retrieve other replicas in the community. Counsel for the College further submitted that the Committee’s concerns can be addressed through publication with name and urged the Committee to accept the joint submission.

Submissions of Member’s Counsel

Counsel for the Member clarified that the December-February 2012 timeframe in the

Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3) is a mistake, explaining that the dates were originally based on the misdated cover page of the transcript for the Member’s court proceedings. The cover page indicated that the Member’s court date was on December 10, 2012, but the proceeding had actually taken place on June 21, 2012. Member’s Counsel therefore proposed that the proposed suspension be modified to commence on June 22, 2012 and to end on August 22, 2012.

With respect to the length of the suspension, Counsel for the Member submitted that the joint submission has been negotiated by experienced Counsel and that a two-month timeframe is appropriate in the circumstances. Member’s Counsel stated that the possibility that an agreement of this nature could be overturned is troubling and expressed concerns about the type of precedent that would be created if the Committee rejected the joint submission.

Written Submissions on Penalty

After considering the oral submissions of College Counsel and Member’s Counsel, the Committee still had concerns that the proposed penalty did not fall within an acceptable penalty range given the misconduct in question. As such, the Committee requested written submissions on the issue, and the parties delivered further submissions on March 13, 2014.

Written Submission of College Counsel

Counsel for the College submitted that it is important for committees operating in a regulatory context to give deference to joint submissions on penalty. College Counsel cited Nanson v. Saskatchewan College of Psychologists, which states that the negotiations needed to arrive at a joint submission can only work effectively if the parties have a considerable amount of confidence that their agreement will be implemented. The Saskatchewan trial court was of the view that negotiations will be undermined if joint submissions are too readily rejected by a sanctioning body.

Counsel for the College reiterated that the Committee should only reject a joint submission on penalty if it concludes that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and argued that the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the College and the Member is appropriate in the circumstances. In support of this view, College Counsel cited three previous Discipline Committee cases, namely Andreacchi, Pratt and Corrigan. In each of the three matters, the member in question was found guilty of professional misconduct for criminal or quasi-criminal behaviour that was unrelated to his or her teaching practice. The penalties in these cases ranged from no suspension to a six-month suspension, and in the College’s view, these cases demonstrate that the proposed two-month suspension for the Member falls within an acceptable range of penalties and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

College Counsel highlighted the mitigating factors of the case, indicating that the Member’s offence did not occur at his school, was not related to school activities and did not involve his students. The Member was bringing replica weapons into Canada for his son rather than his own personal use, and as such, he did not benefit from the products in any way. Counsel for the College emphasized the fact that replica weapons are not real firearms and are, instead, used for a sport called Airsoft, adding that the Member was only convicted under the Customs Act, not the Criminal Code of Canada. College Counsel further submitted that the length of the proposed suspension takes into consideration the fact that the Member resigned his position with the Board and has not returned to teaching.

College Counsel stressed that the two-month suspension is only one component of the joint submission and advised the Committee to also take into account the reprimand and coursework when assessing the proposed penalty.

Counsel for the College requested that the Committee consider these factors and accept the Joint Submission on Penalty.

Written Submissions of Member’s Counsel

Counsel for the Member asked the Committee to adopt the Joint Submission on Penalty and cited mitigating factors to support this position. Member’s Counsel submitted that the misconduct in this matter did not involve the Member’s teaching duties or his students and that the Member was fully cooperative in the investigation against him under the Customs Act. Counsel for the Member asserted that the Member has already suffered consequences for his actions as he was fined $5,000.00, placed on probation for twelve months and required to provide lectures about replica guns within his community. During the Member’s court proceeding, the Crown Prosecutor stated that the Member’s resignation from his position with the Board demonstrated that he had accepted responsibility for his actions and that specific deterrence was therefore not a serious concern. The Crown Prosecutor also went on to argue that the Member’s plea of guilt, his cooperation and his resignation met the goals of general deterrence and denunciation.

Counsel for the Member submitted that deference should be accorded to joint submissions on penalty and referenced the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision Rault v. The Law Society of Saskatchewan. In this decision, the court of appeal stated that there is an obligation on adjudicators to give serious consideration to a joint submission unless the penalty is unfit, unreasonable or contrary to the public interest.

Member’s Counsel submitted that the Joint Submission on Penalty, including the proposed two-month suspension, is well within the range of penalties that could be considered reasonable in the circumstances. In support of this assertion, Counsel cited six Discipline Committee decisions, De Petrillo, Andreacchi, Spencer, Geekie, Ward and Corrigan. In each of the matters, the member in question was found guilty of professional misconduct for committing a criminal or regulatory offence outside of the classroom. The penalties in these cases varied from no suspension to a twelve-month suspension with six months remitted if the member were to complete coursework. Member’s Counsel stated that the six decisions demonstrate that a two-month suspension is well within an acceptable penalty range, especially given the many mitigating factors of the Member’s case.

Counsel for the Member emphasized that paint-ball guns, Airsoft guns and gun-play are not illegal activities in Canada. Member’s Counsel further indicated that gun-play is extremely popular in Northwestern Ontario, and while the Committee may not approve of this past-time, this personal preference should not influence its decision on penalty.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Member is required 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.

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two (2) months, from June 22, 2012 to August 22, 2012. The fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register, immediately.

3. 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 and limitations to be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as they are fulfilled:

(i) that the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding ethical expectations of teachers and education leaders;

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

A. that he or she has reviewed a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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. that the Member has successfully completed the course.

4. 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 DECISION

The Committee appreciated its obligation to give serious consideration to the Joint Submission on Penalty. Although the Committee was reluctant to adopt a two-month suspension in this matter, the Committee does accept that the Joint Submission on Penalty is, on the whole, within the appropriate range.

The Committee notes that specific deterrence has been achieved through the Member’s Customs Act conviction, his fine and his continuing obligation to give presentations regarding the dangers of possession and use of replica firearms.

However, the Committee was concerned that the two-month retroactive suspension was rather lenient and would not serve as a strong general deterrent to members of the profession. As such, the Committee directed Counsel to make further submissions on the rationale for a suspension of this length.

As a secondary school principal in a small community, the Member held a position of trust and authority and had a responsibility to be a leader and to set a positive ethical example to youth. While in this role, he made a conscious decision to smuggle prohibited devices into the country in order that his underage son could sell and use them. Moreover, the Committee was concerned that these particular devices have been known to be used in the commission of crimes and not solely for their intended purpose. The Committee was not persuaded by the argument that the Member’s misconduct warranted a less serious penalty because the acts did not occur on school property or directly affect the students in his charge. As Justice Valente stated in his decision regarding the Member’s violation of the law, the Member’s lapse of judgment was “both profound and indeed breathtaking”. The Committee considers that such actions on the part of a member bring the profession into disrepute.

Despite these concerns, the Committee accepts the proposed penalty, when taking into account all the elements of the joint submission, including a reprimand, a suspension and the imposition of terms and limitations to be noted on the Member’s certificate.

The Committee heard arguments regarding publication with name during this proceeding. The Committee determined that publication with the Member’s name was paramount when considering the requirement of transparency. In the absence of a compelling reason not to publish with name, the Committee directs that the case be published with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. In the Committee’s opinion, the details of this matter must serve as a general deterrent to members of the teaching profession. It is important to indicate to both the profession and the public that behaviour that breaches the standards of the profession will be sanctioned appropriately by the College, even if the behaviour occurs outside of the classroom.

Date: May 1, 2014

Wes Vickers, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

Pauline Smart

Member, Discipline Panel

Ruth Ann Penny, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel