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
Joseph Edouard Richard, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Marie-Claude Yaacov, Chair
Sara Nouini, OCT
Thomas Potter
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
JOSEPH EDOUARD RICHARD ) Adam Beatty,
(CERTIFICATE #310320) ) Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre ) Cornish LLP,
) for Joseph Edouard Richard
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: August 24, 2015
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on August 24, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated August 28, 2013 (Exhibit 1) was served on Joseph Edouard Richard (the “Member”), requesting his presence on October 7, 2013 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for August 24, 2015.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Joseph Edouard Richard is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teacher’s 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 supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(c) 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);
(d) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
At the hearing on August 24, 2015, Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
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:
Joseph Edouard Richard 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher of a [XXX] class at [XXX] School (the “School”).
On or about February 6, 2012, the Member took a group of students from his class on a neighbourhood walk.
As the class was walking across the school yard to return to the School, a group of five students began to lag behind the rest of the group. For a brief period of time the five students were out of the Member’s sight behind a concrete structure and therefore unsupervised by him.
During the time the students were unsupervised, and unbeknownst to the Member, inappropriate sexual interactions took place between the students.
As a result of this incident, a letter of discipline was issued to the Member by the Board. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a copy of the February 24, 2012 letter of discipline from the Board to the Member.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
The Member does not contest the facts referred to above (the “Uncontested Facts”) and agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept these facts as correct for the purposes of this proceeding only.
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(18 – unprofessional), 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 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 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 him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
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 Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, 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(11), 1(18 – unprofessional), and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(18 – unprofessional), and 1(19).
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, failed to adequately supervise a person under his professional supervision, committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, and engaged in conduct unbecoming a member contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(18 – unprofessional), and 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 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
College Counsel submitted that publication with the name of the Member is warranted in this case. According to College Counsel, publication of the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession satisfies the penalty objectives of general deterrence, transparency and accountability.
College Counsel stated that publication with name will inform the profession and serve as a reminder that the failure to adequately supervise one’s students may result in the publication of a member’s name in the College’s official publication.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member submitted that publication with the name of the Member is not warranted in this case. Counsel for the Member stated that the deterrent effect of the penalty is still achieved through publication without the Member’s name. Counsel for the Member further submitted that publication with name amounts to an additional unwarranted sanction. The Member has been forthright and cooperative throughout the process, his conduct was not repeated and it will not be repeated as he has retired from teaching.
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, without 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 Member’s failure to supervise five of his students resulted in inappropriate sexual interactions between some of those students. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. The reprimand will allow the College to directly address its concerns with the Member. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee finds that publication without the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is appropriate given the circumstances of this case. The Committee accepts that the Member’s failure to supervise some of his students, on the occasion in question, was an isolated incident. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Member accepted responsibility and expressed remorse for the incident.
While transparency of the discipline process remains an important concern for the Committee, given that this was a single incident of the Member’s failure to supervise his students, the Committee finds that publication without name is appropriate. The Committee notes that this hearing was open to the public and that a summary of the findings and penalty will be published in the College’s official publication and will be linked to the Member’s certificate. Accordingly, the Committee finds that these measures adequately address the transparency concerns in this matter.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: August 31, 2015
Marie-Claude Yaacov
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Thomas Potter
Member, Discipline Panel