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
Elias Pantelis Leousis, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo, ) Law Clerk – and – ) ELIAS PANTELIS LEOUSIS ) Howard Goldblatt, (CERTIFICATE # 445629) ) Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, ) for Elias Pantelis Leousis ) Marc Spector, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: April 1, 2015
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 1, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated March 10, 2014 was served on Elias Pantelis Leousis (the “Member”), requesting his presence on April 14, 2014 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for April 1, 2015.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Elias Pantelis Leousis is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 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 abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he signed or issued, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);
(e) 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);
(f) 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);
(g) 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);
(h) 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
(i) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
At the hearing on April 1, 2015, Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b), (f) and (g) of the Notice of Hearing be withdrawn. The Committee was in agreement and these allegations were subsequently withdrawn.
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:
- Elias Pantelis Leousis 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 with respect to the Member.
Background:
The Member received his Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees from Concordia University. He completed his Diploma of Education at McGill University in 1975 and began his teaching career in Quebec.
In 1993, the Member and his family moved to Florida, U.S.A.
If the Member were to testify, he would say that the move had an adverse impact on his family, particularly his teenage daughter, and that on or about May 1995, he believed she was going to run away. This led to a physical altercation resulting in criminal charges.
The Member entered pleas of nolo contendere to three misdemeanour offences – child abuse (x2) and battery – on December 27, 1995. The judge of the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, in Penellas County, Florida adjudicated the Member guilty. The Member was placed on probation with terms for a period of one year for each count, consecutive. He complied with all of the terms of his probation. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a copy of the certified court documents.
The Member moved to Ontario in 2001.
Ontario College of Teachers:
- In 2001, the Member submitted an application to the Ontario College of Teachers. The College’s application form included an “Applicant’s Declaration” which, in turn, included the following “Criminal Record Declaration”:
Criminal Record Declaration
Please answer Yes or No. For every YES answer, please attach a complete, legible explanation of the offence that includes the full identification of the police/court authority concerned.
Have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offence? Yes No
Have you ever been found guilty of an offence relevant to your suitability to practise the profession? Yes No
Are there any criminal charges pending against you? Yes No
I certify that all information given on this declaration is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge.
The Member answered “NO” to all three questions in the Criminal Record Declaration and signed the document immediately below the statement certifying that the information he provided was “true, correct and complete” to the best of his knowledge. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “C” are two copies of the Member’s “Applicant’s Declaration”, the first completed and signed by the Member on April 12, 2000 and the second completed and signed by the Member on April 23, 2001. The handwritten notations dated April 23, 2001 on the two declarations demonstrate that the earlier declaration, which included the signature and stamp of a witness, was accepted by the College along with the latter declaration signed by the Member.
The Member became a member of the College on June 7, 2001.
Board Applications:
In February 2005, the Member applied for an [XXX] Teacher position with the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the “Board”). On February 14, 2005, the date of his interview for the position, the Member completed and signed a “Criminal Offence Declaration” as part of the Board’s “Pre-Employment Screening Form”.
The “Criminal Offence Declaration” contained the following question: “Have you ever been convicted in Canada or in another country of a criminal offence for which you have not received a pardon?” The Member checked off the “NO” box, then dated the form and signed his name directly below the following statement: “I declare that this information is true. I understand that a false statement may disqualify me from employment or cause my dismissal”. The Member was hired by the Board. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “D” is a copy of the Pre-Employment Screening Form with the Member’s signature dated February 14, 2005.
On June 29, 2007, the Member completed and signed a “Pre-Employment Screening Form” as part of his application for a [XXX] position with the Board. Section B of the Pre-Employment Screening Form was a Criminal Offence Declaration that required the applicant to answer the following question, “Have you ever been convicted in Canada or in another Country of a criminal offence for which you have not received a pardon?” The Member checked off the “NO” box, then dated the form and signed his name directly below the following statement: “I declare that this information is true. I understand that a false statement may disqualify me from employment or cause my dismissal”. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “E” is a copy of the Pre-Employment Screening Form with the Member’s signature dated June 29, 2007.
The Member did not disclose his criminal convictions with respect to child abuse and battery out of the Circuit Court in Florida until confronted by Board administrators about this issue in November 2011.
Inappropriate Comment:
The Member began a [XXX] teaching assignment with the Board teaching Grade [XXX] at [XXX] School (the “School”) on January 1, 2011.
On February 16, 2011, the Member had a conversation with a student in his class who has [XXX]. The Member’s perception was that other students in the class were taking advantage of the student’s special needs. The Member told the student not to allow people “to treat him like a cripple”. When asked about this incident by his Principal, the Member explained that in his experience, once students were labeled, they used the label as a crutch and excuse. The Member offered to apologize to the student. Despite the Principal telling him not to speak to the student about it, the Member apologized to the student, which made the student feel uncomfortable.
On February 25, 2011, the Principal, the Member and the Learning Resource Teacher met with the student’s parents to resolve the incident and develop strategies to meet the student’s needs. Near the end of the meeting, the Member summarized the strategies and stated that he would “dumb it down” for the student if that was necessary. The Member immediately apologized to the parents for his comment.
Effective March 7, 2011, the Member was reassigned home with pay. In November 2011, Board administrators learned that the Member had been charged with and pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor offences in Florida in 1995, and advised the Member they wished to question him further about this fact.
The Superintendent of Education informed the Member on January 24, 2012 that he would be recommending that the Board terminate the Member’s employment for cause for his failure to notify the Board and the College about his criminal record in Florida.
The Member resigned his employment with the Board effective March 9, 2012. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “F” is a copy of the Member’s resignation.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-19 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(7.2), 1(12), 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 evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(12), 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 19 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 finds, that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(12), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Committee accepts the Member’s guilty plea, and finds that the facts contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea amount to professional misconduct as pleaded to by the Member.
On or about December 27, 1995, the Member was charged with and pleaded no contest to three misdemeanor offences in Penellas County, Florida. The judge in the matter adjudicated the Member guilty.
The Member moved to Ontario in 2001 and submitted an application form to the Ontario College of Teachers. On his application form, the Member made false statements regarding his criminal history. He was subsequently admitted as a member of the College in June 2001.
The Committee was troubled by the Member’s ongoing dishonesty when he continued to be untruthful about his criminal record while applying for an [XXX] Teacher position and a [XXX] teaching position with the Board.
On or about January 1, 2011, the Member was hired as a [XXX] Teacher by the Board. While teaching at the School, the Member made an inappropriate comment to a student who has [XXX]. Shortly thereafter, the incident was brought to the Principal’s attention. Despite being told by the Principal to refrain from discussing the incident with the student, the Member apologized to the student, causing the student to feel uncomfortable. The Committee was concerned by the Member’s disregard for the student’s wellbeing and his inability to follow the direct instruction of school administration.
Additionally, while at a meeting with the student’s parents, the Member made another inappropriate comment regarding the educational programming for the student by stating that he would “dumb it down” for the student if necessary. Although the Member immediately apologized for the comment, the Committee finds that the Member demonstrated a lack of judgment in his wording and conducted himself in an unprofessional manner in this regard. The Member was subsequently reassigned home with pay.
Ultimately, the Board became aware of the Member’s criminal record in Florida and questioned the Member regarding same. The Member resigned from his employment with the Board in March 2012.
The Committee finds the Member’s ongoing pattern of dishonesty to be disgraceful and unprofessional. The Member committed a serious breach of the ethical standards held by members of the teaching profession when he was repeatedly untruthful on various teaching application forms. The Committee finds that his conduct was deceptive and lacked the professional integrity expected of all teachers.
The Committee further finds that the Member’s thoughtless words caused discomfort to a student and his parents. The Member’s behaviour also demonstrated his lack of sound judgment and disregard for directions given to him by the Principal.
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 suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of six months commencing on March 1, 2015, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on 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) within six months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics;
(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 Orders of the Discipline Committee; and
(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course;
- direct that there 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.
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 six months commencing on March 1, 2015, 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) within six months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics;
(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 Orders of the Discipline Committee; and
(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course.
- The findings and orders 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 determined that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is appropriate under the circumstances. Therefore, the Committee accepted the proposed penalty presented by the parties.
The Committee agreed that the six month suspension, the reprimand and the coursework are both warranted and appropriate under these circumstances. This penalty serves to remind the Member that he is responsible for upholding the standards of the profession at all times, and that he must not engage in conduct unbecoming a member.
The reprimand of the Member by his peers in respect of his inappropriate conduct emphasizes the need for teachers to act with honesty and integrity at all times. The reprimand further serves as a specific deterrent to the Member as it signals that his misconduct will not be tolerated by the profession.
The six-month suspension is an appropriate consequence for the Member’s unethical behaviour. This penalty acts both as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to the profession and the public.
The course on professional ethics will assist in the process of remediation and rehabilitation of the Member. The Member’s misconduct circumvented College and Board processes that are designed to protect and ensure the safety of students and staff members. Furthermore, the course will help to improve the Member’s professional judgment and decision-making in his professional teaching career.
The Committee finds that publication with the name of the Member in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession acts as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to the profession. Publication with name informs the public and the teaching profession that dishonest conduct will not be tolerated and that members of the profession must act ethically and honestly at all times. Publication with name also ensures the transparency of the discipline process.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: April 8, 2015
Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel