Ontario College of Teachers v Champion, 2015 ONOCT 10

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Champion, 2015 ONOCT 10

Date: 2015-11-30

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

Wendy Joy Champion, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair

Tom Potter, OCT

Wes Vickers, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Christine Wadsworth,

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,

) Law Clerk

– and – )

WENDY JOY CHAMPION ) Simon Blackstone,

(CERTIFICATE #214896) ) Ursel Phillips Fellows

) Hopkinson LLP,

) for Wendy Joy Champion )

) Julie Maciura,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: November 17, 2015

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 17, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated September 11, 2012 (Exhibit 1) was served on Wendy Joy Champion (the “Member”), requesting her presence on September 25, 2012 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 17, 2015.

The Member was not in attendance for the hearing but had legal representation.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 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 verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) she abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or she engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students of a nature defined in section 1 of the Act;

(d) she 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);

(e) she 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) she contravened a law, the contravention of which caused a student to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);

(g) 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); and

(h) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

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 the following:

1. Wendy Joy Champion is 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Keewatin Patricia District School Board (the “Board”) and was a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX].

3. At all material times, Student 1 was a male Grade [XXX] student at [XXX] School in [XXX], and Student 2 was [XXX] year-old male student at the School.

4. During the 2008-2009 academic year, Student 1 was a friend of the Member’s daughter. The Member sent inappropriate text messages to Student 1. The Member sent hundreds of text messages, including late at night and during class time. On or about March 19, 2009, the parents of Student 1 asked the Member to stop texting their son, and the Member agreed to do so.

5. Despite the parents’ request, the Member continued to text Student 1 numerous times, on a regular basis. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a print-out of text messages sent by the Member to Student 1 on March 30, 2009 and March 31, 2009. As a result of the continued texting, the parents again contacted the Member to express their concerns. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “C” is a copy of e-mail communications between the Member and the parents of Student 1, dated March 31, 2009 and April 1, 2009.

6. The Member’s inappropriate communications to Student 1 were reported to School and Board administrators. The Member was reprimanded by the Board and suspended for five days. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “D” is a copy of the Board’s April 3, 2009 reprimand letter to the Member.

7. During the 2008-2009 school year, Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] student. The Member was responsible for assisting Student 2 to complete community volunteer hours.

8. In June and July 2009, the Member exchanged inappropriate text messages with Student 2. These included many about the use of drugs and alcohol, and the possibility of the Member and Student 2 using drugs together in the future. The messages were sent frequently, including late at night and early in the morning. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “E” is a copy of text messages exchanged between the Member and Student 2 from June 26, 2009 to June 29, 2009.

9. On or around July 25, 2009, Student 2 learned that the body of a friend of his had been found following a boating accident. Thereafter, the Member and Student 2 exchanged several text messages. During their electronic exchange, Student 2 indicated that he wanted alcohol. Thereafter, the Member met Student 2 at a portage between the Winnipeg River and Adamson Lake. Student 2 arrived by boat and the Member arrived by seadoo. The Member gave Student 2 a 26 ounce bottle of whiskey. She watched him consume a small amount of alcohol, smoke a marijuana cigarette, then leave by boat.

10. On March 11, 2010, the Member was found guilty of knowingly supplying liquor to a person under 19 years, contrary to section 30(1) of the Liquor License Act. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “F” is a copy of the transcript from the March 11, 2010 proceedings before His Worship Justice of the Peace R. McNally.

11. On or about September 2, 2010, the Member was advised by the Board’s Human Resources Manager that a motion was being brought to the Board on September 14, 2010, recommending the termination of the Member’s employment. On September 10, 2010, the Member resigned from the Board.

GUILTY PLEA

12. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

13. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).

14. 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading guilty 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 her counsel and counsel for the College 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.

15. 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 Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, 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, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).

Paragraphs 4, 5, 8, and 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).

Paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).

Paragraph 8 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student of a nature defined in section 1 of the Act.

Paragraphs 4, 5, 8, and 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member 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).

Paragraph 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member 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).

Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member contravened a law, the contravention of which caused a student to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17).

Paragraphs 4, 5, 8, and 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member 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).

Paragraphs 4, 5, 8, and 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:

1. direct that, prior to commencing any teaching position in Ontario including in a private school, or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (collectively referred to hereinafter as a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall appear before the Committee to receive a reprimand, on a date to be scheduled with the Hearings Office, which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of nine months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;

3. 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:

(a) the Member shall not return to a Teaching Position until the reprimand referred to in paragraph 1 has been received;

(b) prior to returning to a Teaching Position, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues;

(c) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (b) 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 Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty, made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee; and;

(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course;

(iii) the course shall be completed no more than three months before commencing or returning to a Teaching Position;

4. direct that there be publication of the finding 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 submitted that publication with the name of the Member is appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct in this case. According to College Counsel, the reason that members of the profession do not want their names published is because it is embarrassing. Publication with name therefore serves as a specific deterrent to the Member. It also serves as a general deterrent to other members of the profession by signalling that the type of behaviour in which the Member engaged is not tolerated by the College and will be met with serious consequences. Publishing the name of the Member in the College’s official publication also restores the public trust in the profession and ensures the transparency of the discipline process. Finally, College Counsel submitted that the misconduct in this matter occurred in a small community and that the community is entitled to know the full details of the Member’s discipline hearing, which would require the publication of her name.

College Counsel referred the Committee to four analogous cases regarding inappropriate communications between members and students, and alcohol-related issues involving members and students: Ontario College of Teachers v. Lemieux 2015 LNONCTD 27; Ontario College of Teachers v. Ste-Croix, 2015 LNONCTD 38; Ontario College of Teachers v. Campbell, 2014 LNONCTD 81; and, Ontario College of Teachers v. Kellington, 2015 LNONCTD 15. College Counsel urged the Committee to rely on these analogous cases in which publication with name was ordered.

Submissions of Member’s Counsel

Counsel for the Member submitted that publication with the name of the Member is not warranted in this case and noted that the Committee has the discretion to order publication with or without the name of the Member. According to Member’s Counsel, the Member has taken responsibility for her misconduct by resigning from her teaching position with the intention of never using her teaching certificate again, and by entering a guilty plea in this matter which spared any witnesses from having to testify. Counsel for the Member submitted that the events that have taken place have put an end to the Member’s teaching career even though this is not a case where revocation is being proposed. According to Member’s Counsel, publishing the name of the Member is unnecessary and would add no value as a deterrent, given that the Member will be suspended for nine months (which is a more significant deterrent than publication with name) and that she will not be returning to the teaching profession.

Member’s Counsel also disagreed with the submission of College Counsel that publishing the Member’s name is necessary in order to inform her community of all of the details of her case. According to Member’s Counsel, publishing the Member’s name in the College’s official publication will not achieve the College’s desired outcome because Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is circulated to teachers and not to the public at large. In any event, Member’s Counsel submitted that because decisions of the Discipline Committee are posted on the College’s website, with the name of Member, the public has access to all of the details of the Member’s case, even if the Member’s name is not published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Moreover, Member’s Counsel submitted that because the Member lives in a small, tight-knit community, it is likely that the community would become aware of the outcome of her discipline hearing, even without publishing her name in the College’s official publication.

Counsel for the Member urged the Committee not to rely on the cases submitted by College Counsel, which he submitted were distinguishable, and to instead rely on the following two cases when determining the issue of publication: Ontario College of Teachers v. McCalla, 2015 LNONCTD 53 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Vandermeer, 2014 LNONCTD 118. Publication of the members’ names was not ordered in either of these two cases where the members’ conduct was either similar to or more serious than the Member’s conduct in this matter.

Reply Submissions of College Counsel

In reply, College Counsel agreed that the Committee has the discretion to either order publication with or without the Member’s name; however, unlike Member’s Counsel, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s name should be published in this case. According to College Counsel, publishing the Member’s name is a valuable deterrent. If it added no value as Member’s Counsel had suggested, panels of the Discipline Committee would never order publication of the Member’s name (which is clearly not the case).

College Counsel also responded to the submission of Member’s Counsel that publishing the name of the Member in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is unnecessary in this case given that the Member lives in a small, tight-knit community that would likely learn of the outcome of this matter regardless of whether the Member’s name was published in the College’s official publication. According to College Counsel, because the Member lives in a small community that was impacted by the Member’s conduct, they are entitled to learn the full details of the Member’s case. Publishing the name of the Member in the College’s official publication is warranted because it is one way to achieve this objective. College Counsel also reminded the Committee of the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct, which should lead to the publication of her name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, in order to meet the penalty objectives of deterrence, transparency and protection of the public interest.

Finally, College Counsel submitted that the two cases presented by Member’s Counsel were distinguishable on their facts and urged the Committee not to rely on them.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and makes an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above. With respect to the issue of publication, the Committee directs that there be publication of a summary of the finding and order of the Committee in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, with the name of the Member.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of justice or the discipline process into disrepute. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case.

The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. The reprimand will allow the College to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

The Committee finds that a nine-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances of this case. The Member’s conduct was very serious. She engaged in numerous and repeated inappropriate communications with students, even after being told by the parents of one student to stop texting with their son, and she supplied another student with alcohol and watched him drink and smoke marijuana before allowing him to leave the meeting point by boat. The Member’s conduct was inappropriate, unprofessional, and it jeopardized the safety of one of her students. The nine-month suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and as a general deterrent to other members of the teaching profession by informing them that such behaviour will not be condoned by the College and will result in serious consequences.

Should the Member return to teaching, the Committee finds that the course regarding appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues will assist in her rehabilitation. The coursework will help the Member to communicate with students in an appropriate manner at all times. It will also help the Member to make better decisions with respect to her interactions with students.

The Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted in this case. There were several notable aggravating factors that contributed to the Committee’s determination of this issue. With respect to the Member’s inappropriate communications with her male students, this unprofessional behaviour continued unabated despite being told by the parents of Student 1 to cease these communications. Even a reprimand by her Board and a five-day suspension did not stop the Member from pursuing these inappropriate communications. Two months after the Member’s discipline with the Board, she became involved with a second inappropriate texting relationship with Student 2. The Member also provided alcohol to Student 2, for which she was later found guilty of knowingly supplying liquor to a person under 19 years, contrary to section 30(1) of the Liquor License Act. The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct was extremely irresponsible and unprofessional, particularly given that she allowed a student to drink and smoke marijuana before setting off from their meeting point by boat.

The Committee considered the parties’ submissions with respect to the value of publishing the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession and the impact that the Member’s conduct had on her small community. The Committee recognizes that the Member’s community might learn of the outcome of this matter whether or not the Member’s name is published in the College’s official publication, but determined that publication with the Member’s name remains an important deterrent. Other members of the profession must be made aware of the potential consequences for conducting themselves in a similar manner to the Member. Publishing the Member’s name in the College’s official publication has value in this case, as it helps to achieve this objective.

Publication with the name of the Member identifies to the profession the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct and the consequences of such behaviour. It serves as a specific deterrent to the Member as it holds the Member accountable for her actions. It also serves as a general deterrent by reminding other members of the profession that such behaviour is not tolerated. Moreover, publishing the Member’s name ensures the transparency of the discipline process and reassures the public that the College acts decisively and does not shield its members when matters of this nature are brought to its attention.

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.

Date: November 30, 2015

Vicki Shannon, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Tom Potter

Member, Discipline Panel

Wes Vickers, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel