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 George Bohdan Kolos, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair Tom Potter, OCT Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Christine Wadsworth, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
– and –
GEORGE BOHDAN KOLOS (CERTIFICATE #139062) Kim Patenaude, Raven Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP, for George Bohdan Kolos
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 November 25, 2014 (Exhibit 1) was served on George Bohdan Kolos (the “Member”), requesting his presence on December 18, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 17, 2015.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation.
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 comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264 thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(c) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
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:
George Bohdan Kolos was at all material times, 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a vice-principal at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.
Over the course of three weeks, in August and September 2013, the Member made inappropriate comments to one or more female teachers at the School which had a negative impact on the work environment of staff at the School.
Colleague No. 1
Colleague No. 1 was a [XXX] at the School.
During the week of September 9, 2013, Colleague No. 1 was in the School hallway in front of the main entrance of the School. The Member walked by and put his hand on the back of her shirt and tucked in her exposed tag. The Member said words to the effect, “I will be like your husband and tuck your tag in.”
Colleague No. 1 felt uncomfortable with what the Member said and did, but did not say anything to him at that time. To that point, Colleague No. 1 had only spoken briefly to the Member because the Member was new to the School.
On or about September 13, 2013, the Member went to the [XXX] office to discuss a student. The Member had a meeting with Colleague No. 1 and he sat across from her in her office. The office door was open.
Another [XXX] approached Colleague No. 1’s office and offered the Member and Colleague No. 1 some chocolates that a parent had brought in.
The Member was asked whether he would like a chocolate to which he replied yes. Colleague No. 1 was then asked whether she would like a chocolate and she replied words to the effect, “No thanks, I’m good.” The Member then stated words to the effect, “Oh, I know you are GOOD.”
Colleague No. 1 felt uncomfortable and was in shock. The other [XXX] was taken aback by the comment of the Member, and expressed to Colleague No. 1, after the Member left, that the comment was inappropriate although nothing was said to the Member.
On or about September 16, 2013, Colleague No. 1 was seated in a colleague’s office with the principal for a meeting. The office was a small [XXX] office which normally contained a desk and three chairs. Two additional chairs were brought in for the meeting. The Member arrived to the meeting late and sat down next to Colleague No. 1 in the only remaining chair.
The Member sat extremely close to Colleague No. 1 such that his arm was touching hers. Colleague No. 1 leaned away from the Member so their arms would no longer be touching. At one point, the Member reached over to point out something on a paper that Colleague No. 1 was holding and the Member’s left arm crossed over Colleague No. 1’s chest.
Colleague No. 1 felt extremely uncomfortable at the Member’s proximity to her. Colleague No. 1 at that point got up and moved her chair to sit on the other side of the desk next to another colleague. Neither the principal nor the colleagues present commented on the situation.
On or about September 19, 2013, Colleague No. 1 registered for an applied suicide intervention skills training workshop. As was protocol, Colleague No. 1 e-mailed all her administrators, including the Member, to notify them of the days she would be absent to attend this workshop.
Colleague No. 1’s e-mail advised the administrators that she would be attending a “suicide training workshop”. Right after Colleague No. 1 sent the e-mail, the Member arrived at her office and asked, “Do you need help with your suicide problem?” If the Member were to testify, he would say that he was attempting to be humorous.
Colleague No. 1 was confused by the Member’s comment and already very cautious and nervous around the Member. The Member then said words to the effect, “Next time you don’t write suicide training, since that means you are getting trained for suicide.”
On or about September 20, 2013, the Member went to the [XXX] office to speak to Colleague No. 1 about Visa students he had demitted. At the time the Member entered the [XXX] office, Colleague No. 1 was cleaning up old university books and placing new ones on the shelves.
Before the Member began speaking to Colleague No. 1, he tapped her on the arm with his hand and said, “Hey.” Colleague No. 1 stood in front of the Member as he spoke to her. She felt uncomfortable because he was standing too close to her and took two steps back.
Colleague No. 1 then responded and as she was speaking, the Member was not looking at her face, but was scanning her body up and down repeatedly. This made Colleague No. 1 feel extremely uncomfortable and she ended the conversation.
During September 2013, the Member went into the [XXX] office and gave the secretary a document and said to the secretary this is the task I have for you to do. Colleague No. 1 was standing next to the secretary at the time working on timetables.
The Member turned to Colleague No. 1 and said words to the effect, “And for you, I have five tasks for you to do for me” and stared at Colleague No. 1. The Member smiled and then walked out of the office. Colleague No. 1 felt very uncomfortable, but did not say anything to the Member.
Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a copy of the Summary Investigation Report prepared by the Board regarding Colleague No. 1’s complaint dated January 21, 2014.
Colleague No. 2
Colleague No. 2 was a teacher at the School.
On or about September 20, 2013, while Colleague No. 2 was speaking to the secretary in the office, the Member approached Colleague No. 2 to discuss scheduling for the day. The Member stood very close to Colleague No. 2 and he told her that he often confused her with the “other young ladies”.
Colleague No. 2 responded by stating that indeed there were a number of young female staff at the School and stated that it was understandable that the Member could get mixed up.
The Member then clarified his statement by stating that he was comparing Colleague No. 2 to “the young girls in their kilts from another school” and assured her that she was much better looking.
The Member then laughed and stated that “he has to watch what he says around this place so he doesn’t get into trouble.”
Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “C” is a copy of the Board’s Summary Investigation Report regarding the complaint of Colleague No. 2, dated January 21, 2014.
Colleague No. 3
Colleague No. 3 was a teacher at the School.
During the second week of September 2013, Colleague No. 3 was waiting outside a colleague’s office to speak with her. The Member called Colleague No. 3 into his office to ask her how many people on staff were married to each other.
Colleague No. 3 provided an answer to the Member. The Member then told her that there were a lot of people at another school who were married to each other and were having sex in classrooms.
Colleague No. 3 stated that she found that disgusting and the Member said, “But it would make a better story if they weren’t married.” The Member then laughed about it and there were no further discussions on this topic.
On or about September 24, 2013, Colleague No. 3 asked the Member if the on calls were completed. She asked the Member, “If we don’t have anything in our mailboxes, we are good?” The Member replied, “Oh you are always more than good.”
Colleague No. 3 walked away from the Member and the Member said, “How is that for a flirtatious comment?” Colleague No. 3 continued to walk away and did not reply.
Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “D” is a copy of the Summary Investigation Report regarding the complaint of Colleague No. 3, dated January 21, 2014.
Colleague No. 4
Colleague No. 4 was a teacher at the School.
On or about September 11, 2013, there was a morning meeting in the [XXX] office. Colleague No. 4 was late attending the meeting because she was at a [XXX] first.
When Colleague No. 4 arrived at the meeting, the Member asked her whether she was going to present anything as he was waiting for her presentation. Colleague No. 4 looked at the [XXX] department head with a puzzled face and wondered what the Member was talking about.
Colleague No. 4 told the Member that she was not going to present because she had already presented the [XXX] schedule for all classes earlier that morning before she left for her [XXX] meeting. The Member then stood up and looked at her and said, “Do you do the dishes around here? Is that your job?”
Colleague No. 4 responded that she did not and said that other colleagues did their own dishes. She then tried to adopt a joking demeanour and asked the Member, “Is that what you really think of women?” Colleague No. 4 told him that in her household her husband does all the dishes and cooking. The Member laughed and stated that in his house he does all the “manly” chores except vacuuming because it’s too heavy for his wife to lift. At that point, Colleague No. 4 left the office as she was appalled at the whole situation.
Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “E” is a copy of the Board’s Summary Investigation Report regarding the complaint of Colleague No. 4, dated January 21, 2014.
Colleague No. 5
Colleague No. 5 was a teacher at the School.
On or about August 28, 2013, Colleague No. 5 spoke to the Member for the very first time. Colleague No. 5 was at School preparing for the first week of school and decided to introduce herself to the Member. She and another female colleague introduced themselves to the Member.
Colleague No. 5 and the colleague asked how the Member felt at the School thus far, and the Member told them that he was happy to be at an [XXX] school, and that being at an [XXX] school would be a challenge because of [XXX].
On or about September 11, 2013, Colleague No. 5 took her period 1 class to the gym in order to have their school photograph taken. Colleague No. 5 had two [XXX] students in her class. These two students did not have proper [XXX] and so Colleague No. 5 made arrangements with the other vice-principal, to borrow a shirt and tie from the main office for the photos.
The Member approached the two students and told them they could not take a picture without a proper [XXX]. Colleague No. 5 then went beside the two students and explained to the Member that there were arrangements to borrow a uniform from the office for the photos. The Member said that was fine and was unaware that the situation had been taken care of and began walking away.
Within seconds, the Member approached again and stood uncomfortably close to Colleague No. 5. The Member was touching her and leaning against her right arm and shoulder. The Member tapped Colleague No. 5’s right arm and asked her, “Do you always dress men?” Colleague No. 5 was confused by his question and responded, “No, but if they don’t speak English, then I help them.” The Member then responded with “Well in that case, me no speak Inglais.”
Colleague No. 5 felt very uncomfortable, felt that it was very inappropriate, and was worried that students had heard the comment.
The Member approached Colleague No. 5 again and asked, “Can I joke with you some more, or would that be inappropriate?” Colleague No. 5 responded that it would be inappropriate and walked away.
Colleague No. 5 felt uncomfortable every time she walked by the Member because she could feel him staring at her. Every time she walked by the Member’s head turned.
Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “F” is a copy of the Board’s Summary Investigation Report of the complaint by Colleague No. 5, dated January 21, 2014.
Board Action
The Member was first informed that the Board had concerns about his conduct on September 27, 2013, when the Member was told by his Superintendent to stay at home and not to communicate with any staff at the School. On October 7, 2013, the Member was directed to report to the Human Resources Department, where he reviewed the Board’s Respectful Workplace Policy with HR staff. He was then given clerical functions, interview functions and assigned to various elementary schools for varied periods of time during the rest of the school year.
On March 7, 2014, the Member wrote a letter of apology to Rory McGuckin, Superintendent of Education, Human Resources where he expressed regret, offered to attend sensitivity training and offered to apologize to his colleagues if it was deemed appropriate. A copy of the letter is attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “G”.
On March 17, 2014, following the Board’s investigation of the complaints, the Member received a one day unpaid suspension from the Board, was administratively transferred to another school, and was directed to take a one-on-one sensitivity course. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “H” is a copy of the letter from the Superintendent of Education to the Member dated March 17, 2014.
The Member retired from the Board on or about June 30, 2014.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) 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 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 otherwise 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 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 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(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 55 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He 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(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 3, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 44 and 47 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 3, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 44 and 47 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).
Paragraphs 3, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 44 and 47 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 3, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 44 and 47 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 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:
direct 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”);
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) prior to commencing or returning to a teaching position or any other 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 boundaries and boundary violation issues with respect to colleagues;
(b) within 30 days of his 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 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;
- 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 name achieves the penalty objectives of specific deterrence, general deterrence, transparency, and accountability. According to College Counsel, the reason that members of the profession do not want their names published is because it is embarrassing. Publishing the Member’s name will therefore hold the Member accountable for his actions and serves as a specific deterrent. It will also send a message to the profession that this type of conduct is not tolerated by the College and will be met with serious consequences.
College Counsel submitted that there are several aggravating factors that weigh in favour of publishing the Member’s name. These aggravating factors include the severity of the Member’s misconduct, the repeated nature of the misconduct which occurred over a period of three weeks, and the number of colleagues that the Member disrespected through his unprofessional and inappropriate conduct.
College Counsel referred the Committee to two cases involving inappropriate comments and urged the Committee to rely on these cases when making its determination with respect to publication: Ontario College of Teachers v. Watson, 2002 LNONCTD 33 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Buckley, 2014 LNONCTD 33. College Counsel submitted that both of these cases were analogous to the Member’s case and that publication with name was ordered in both instances.
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 penalty objective of deterrence is still achieved by publishing a summary of this decision without the name of the Member, because publishing a summary of the Committee’s finding and order without the name of the Member will demonstrate that the College takes this type of misconduct seriously, and will adequately protect the public interest.
With respect to the mitigating factors in this case, Member’s Counsel reminded the Committee that the Member retired in 2014 and has not worked since his retirement. He also had a lengthy teaching career without any prior discipline history. In addition, the Member volunteers in the Ukrainian community and travels to the Ukraine for various volunteer positions. The Member has an opportunity to assist in organizing Additional Qualification courses in the Ukraine and is concerned that the publication of his name in the College’s official publication will negatively affect his chances of participating in this opportunity.
Counsel for the Member urged the Committee to rely on two analogous Discipline Committee case summaries and one analogous Investigation Committee case study contained in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, where the names of the members involved were not identified in the College’s official publication.
Reply Submissions of College Counsel
In reply, College Counsel submitted that there was no evidence before the Committee to prove that the Member is volunteering or that publishing his name in the College’s official publication would negatively impact any prospective volunteer opportunities. Member’s Counsel made submissions to this effect, but provided no evidence.
With respect to the submissions of Member’s Counsel that publication without the name of the Member adequately achieves the penalty objectives, College Counsel disagreed. According to College Counsel, if this were the case, then publication with name would never be necessary. College Counsel submitted that publication without the name of the Member does not achieve the same level of deterrence as publication with the Member’s name, and it does not foster transparency of the discipline process.
College Counsel submitted that the two Discipline Committee summaries referred to by Member’s Counsel are of limited assistance to the Committee because the summaries do not contain all of the facts of each case. With regard to the Investigation Committee case study, College Counsel submitted that it appeared that a full investigation was conducted and that the matter was not referred to the Discipline Committee. The case study does not, however, provide an explanation as to why the matter was not referred to the Discipline Committee. Without having reviewed the actual decisions of the Discipline Committee to which Member’s Counsel was referring, which contain a fulsome description of the facts of each case, College Counsel submitted that the Committee ought not to rely heavily on the materials presented.
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 his 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 the course regarding boundaries and boundary violation issues with respect to colleagues will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, should he ever return to the teaching profession. The coursework will also help the Member to understand and implement appropriate behaviour and communication with his colleagues, should he return to teaching.
The Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted in this case. The Committee carefully considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at this decision. The Committee recognizes that the Member had a lengthy and unblemished teaching career prior to these proceedings, and was cleared to return to duties as assigned by his Board following a review of the Board’s Respectful Workplace Policy, and after having served a one day suspension without pay; however, these mitigating factors are outweighed by the aggravating factors in this case. The Member’s conduct was serious, it was repeated over the course of several weeks, and it was directed at numerous colleagues.
Although the Member may not have intended for his comments or gestures to be offensive, his conduct demonstrated a troubling pattern of behaviour that he ought to have known was offensive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. The Member’s conduct had a negative impact on his colleagues and it created an uncomfortable work environment. By ordering the publication of the Member’s name, the Committee reminds members of the profession that they must maintain a safe and harassment-free work environment, and it informs them of the consequences for failing to do so. Moreover, publishing the Member’s name holds him accountable for his actions and ensures the transparency of the discipline process. Finally, it reassures the public that the College 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