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 Lenford Dale Grant, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair Shanlee Linton, OCT Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Caroline Zayid, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix, ) Law Clerk -and- ) LENFORD DALE GRANT ) Bernard Hanson, (CERTIFICATE # 176554) ) Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre ) Cornish LLP, ) for Lenford Dale Grant ) Erica Richler, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: January 14, 2015
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on January 14, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated November 16, 2012 was served on Lenford Dale Grant (the “Member”), requesting his presence on November 29, 2012 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for January 14, 2015.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing, dated November 16, 2012 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Lenford Dale Grant 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) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students defined in section 1 of the Act;
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(e) he 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);
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and
(g) he practised the profession while in a conflict of interest, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(26).
At the hearing on January 14, 2015, College Counsel requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing be withdrawn. The Committee accepted the request and the allegation was subsequently withdrawn.
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:
Lenford Dale Grant 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 for the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Ottawa Catholic School Board (the “Board”) as an [XXX] teacher. The Member taught at [XXX] School during the 2005-2006 academic year, and at [XXX] School during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years. Both these schools have students from Grades [XXX].
During the 2005-2006 academic year, Student No. 1, Student No. 2, Student No. 3, Student No. 4 and Student No. 5 were Grade [XXX] female students at [XXX] School.
In or around May 20, 2006, the Member approached Students No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5 and invited them to participate in a beauty pageant he was organizing. He subsequently e-mailed the students to give them more details and to ask them to provide further information and descriptions of themselves.
The events described in paragraph 4 above were brought to the attention of the administration at [XXX] School. As a result, the Member was suspended from the Board’s [XXX] teacher list and was directed to view the “Be Wary, Be Wise” video through his federation, and to review certain documents provided by the Board. Copies of correspondence from the Board dated May 4, 2006 and May 24, 2006, which summarize these steps, are attached to Exhibit 2 at Tabs B and C.
On June 7, 2006, the Member was permitted to return to the [XXX] teacher list. He was not permitted to teach at [XXX] School and was cautioned about the need to refrain from conducting personal business in the classroom, and reminded of his duty to be a role model at all times. A copy of the Board’s letter dated June 7, 2006, which sets out this caution, is attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab D.
During the 2007-2008 academic year, Student No. 6, Student No. 7 and Student No. 8 were Grade [XXX] female students at [XXX] School.
In December 2007, while teaching Student No. 6’s class, the Member approached Student No. 6 and told her that:
(a) she was pretty;
(b) she should be a model; and
(c) that he “owned” models and had a “summer camp” for models.
- During a lunch period in the early part of 2008, while Student No. 6 and Student No. 7 were using a computer in the Member’s classroom, the Member:
(a) told Student No. 6 and Student No. 7 that he had a summer camp for models and asked them for their personal contact information in order to provide them with additional information;
(b) asked Student No. 6 and Student No. 7 where they lived;
(c) told Student No. 7 that she was very pretty and that she had great features to be a model or an actress.
During the early part of 2008, the Member, while teaching Student No. 8’s class, approached Student No. 8, and during a discussion with her about extra-curricular activities, told her that he could tell she was a dancer by the shape of her body.
On one occasion during the 2007-2008 academic year, the Member told Student No. 8 and her female friend about his summer camp for models and asked them for their e-mail addresses in order to send them more information.
During the 2008-2009 academic year, Student No. 9 was a Grade [XXX] female student at [XXX] School.
On or about September 17, 2008, the Member approached Student No. 9 during her cheerleading practice. He asked her if she was interested in being in a commercial. He told Student No. 9 that he has was involved in making commercials outside of his teaching responsibilities, and that he would need to meet her outside of the school to discuss her participation in television commercials.
If the Member were to testify at a hearing of this matter, he would say that his comments were not intended to be sexual in nature or to pursue a sexual relationship with any student.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
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 through 14 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts referred to above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and does not contest the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19), and 1(26).
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.
- In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, 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(7) [pre-2008 amendment], 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19) and 1(26). The Committee was not asked to make a finding of sexual abuse as defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Committee makes no finding of sexual abuse as defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member acknowledged that the Uncontested Facts referred to above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. The Committee accepted the Member’s plea and the facts contained in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest.
The Member was an [XXX] school teacher at [XXX] School during the 2005-2006 academic school year. On or about May 1 and 3, 2006 (incorrectly dated May 20, 2006 in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest; see Exhibit 2, Tab B), the Member approached five female Grade [XXX] students, Student No. 1, Student No. 2, Student No. 3, Student No. 4 and Student No. 5 and invited them to participate in a beauty pageant he was organizing. The Member then e-mailed the students with further information about the pageant and requested that the students provide descriptions of themselves to him.
The administration at [XXX] School was advised of what had transpired between the Member and the students and on May 4, 2006 the Member was suspended from the Board’s [XXX] teacher list.
On or about June 7, 2006, the Member was permitted to return to the [XXX] teacher list but was prohibited from teaching at [XXX] School. The Board reminded the Member of his duty to be a role model at all times and further cautioned him to refrain from conducting personal business in the classroom. Despite being suspended and cautioned about his behaviour, the Member repeated this conduct while teaching at [XXX] School during the 2007-2008 academic school year.
In or about December 2007, the Member approached Student No. 6, who was in Grade [XXX] at the time, and told her that she was pretty, she should be a model, that he “owned” models and that he had a “summer camp” for models.
In early 2008, the Member again advised Student No. 6 and Student No. 7 that he had a summer camp for models. At that time, he also told Student No. 7 that she was very pretty and that she had great features to be a model or an actress. The Member went on to ask both students for their personal contact information and where they resided.
During the 2007-2008 academic year, similar events occurred where the Member made unprofessional comments to Student No. 8 and her female friend. He also advised them of his summer camp for models and requested their e-mail addresses. During this incident, the Member made comments about Student No. 8’s body shape saying that he “could tell she was a dancer by the shape of her body”.
Similarly, on or about September 17, 2008, the Member approached a female Grade [XXX] student, Student No. 9, and asked if she would be interested in appearing in a commercial as he was involved in making television commercials outside of his teaching job. He further advised Student No. 9 that if she wanted to discuss the matter further, he would have to meet her off school property.
The Committee found the Member’s repeated conduct to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Member had been previously suspended and placed on probation for his conduct, yet he engaged in similar behaviour at another school during the two following years.
The Member put himself in an obvious conflict of interest by approaching students at the schools where he maintained occasional teaching positions and by attempting to recruit them as models, beauty pageant contestants and for television commercials. The Committee finds that the Member demonstrated a lack of judgment and professionalism and that he did not exercise the appropriate professional boundaries that are mandatory when communicating with students.
In light of the Member’s behaviour, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7) [pre-2008 amendment], 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19) and 1(26). The Committee was not asked to make a finding of sexual abuse as defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Committee makes no finding of sexual abuse as defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), 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:
(a) direct that the Member appear before the Committee 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”);
(b) direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of one month 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.
(c) directs 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) prior to returning to a teaching position or to working in any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding appropriate professional boundaries and boundary violations issues;
(ii) within 30 days of the 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 and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents, made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Orders of the Discipline Committee; and
B. the Member has successfully completed the course.
(d) 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
Counsel for the College submitted that the Member’s name should be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Counsel for the College stated that publication with name is a very important aspect of the general deterrence portion of the penalty. It is the most appropriate way to signal to members of the profession and the public that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated by the College.
Counsel for the College reminded the Committee that the Member was suspended from the [XXX] teacher list in 2006 for making inappropriate comments to five students who may have interpreted those comments as being sexual in nature. It was further submitted by Counsel for the College that despite the events that occurred in 2006, the Member repeated this conduct in the following years at a different school. Counsel for the College referred the Committee to two cases where both members’ conduct was repeated over some time and in those cases, publication with name was ordered. It was submitted that the Member’s repeated pattern of behaviour warrants publication with the name.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member’s name should not be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Counsel for the Member asked the Committee to consider the following factors when deciding whether to order publication with name.
Counsel for the Member submitted that the nature of the Member’s conduct is on the lower end of the spectrum. He also indicated that the Member has no prior history of misconduct, the allegations of professional misconduct date back six to eight years, the Member has received no prior penalties from the College and the Member acknowledges his own wrongdoing. It was submitted that all of these factors warrant publication without name.
Counsel for the Member further submitted that because the Member is an [XXX] teacher, the employment consequences for him have been severe. It was submitted that the Member has not worked for a public school board since the incidents occurred and that publication with name would amount to “professional capital punishment” for the Member.
In response to College Counsel’s submission that the students may have interpreted the Member’s comments as being sexual in nature, Counsel for the Member submitted that there was no evidence to support this claim.
Reply Submissions of College Counsel
In reply, Counsel for the College submitted that although there was no evidence proving that the female students understood the comments to be sexual in nature, the Committee could exercise its “common sense” to interpret how teenage girls might have construed those comments as being sexual. Counsel for the College further submitted that the comments crossed the line and are not appropriate in any school context.
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.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of one month commencing on January 14, 2015, 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.
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:
(a) prior to returning to a teaching position or to working in any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding appropriate professional boundaries and boundary violations issues;
(b) within 30 days of the completion of the course outlined in (a) 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 Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents, made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Orders of the Discipline Committee; and
(ii) 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 considered and accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty. The Committee finds that a one month suspension, a reprimand and a course on appropriate professional boundaries and boundary violations issues is the appropriate penalty for conduct of this nature.
The Committee determined that the suspension is appropriate based on the serious nature of the Member’s conduct and serves as a specific deterrent to the Member. The suspension also serves as a general deterrent to the profession reminding all members that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and will be dealt with accordingly.
The reprimand of the Member by his peers in respect of his inappropriate conduct serves to emphasize the necessity to maintain appropriate professional standards. It further reminds the Member to uphold the standards of the profession and to not engage in conduct unbecoming a member. The fact that the reprimand will be recorded on the Register also serves as a specific deterrent to the Member.
Members of the profession must be aware of expectations regarding professional behaviour and the consequences of engaging in unprofessional conduct. The Member’s behaviour indicated a lack of understanding of student and teacher boundaries. The course in appropriate professional boundaries and boundary violations issues will clarify and reinforce for the Member the need to maintain appropriate professional conduct. The course will also assist in the process of remediation and rehabilitation of the Member.
The Member’s lack of judgment was made apparent by his continued and ongoing misconduct and disregard for the previous warnings he received from the Board. The Committee finds that the Member engaged repeatedly in inappropriate conduct, in a variety of situations, which warrants publication with name.
As a specific deterrent, publication with name reinforces the gravity of the Member’s behaviour and as a general deterrent, the public and the teaching profession will take note of the response of the College in matters such as this. Publication with name is an appropriate penalty in that it informs the profession that members are expected to act professionally with students at all times. The Committee determined that publication with the Member’s name assures transparency and accountability of the disciplinary process and reinforces the mandate of the College to serve the public interest.
Date: January 21, 2015
Robert Gagné
Chair, Discipline Panel
Shanlee Linton, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel