Ontario College of Teachers v. Slater, 2015 ONOCT 73

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Slater, 2015 ONOCT 73 Date: 2015-08-31

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

Michael Grant Slater, 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 – )

) Michael Grant Slater ) was not present or represented

MICHAEL GRANT SLATER )

(CERTIFICATE #311476) )

) 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 (Exhibit 1), dated January 7, 2015 was served on Michael Grant Slater (the “Member”), requesting his attendance before the Committee on January 30, 2015 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for August 24, 2015.

The Member was not in attendance for the hearing and did not have legal representation.

Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo (Exhibit 2) sworn August 21, 2015, to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty being sought. In this affidavit, Ms. De Bartolo, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, outlines her communications with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents. Based on this affidavit, the Committee was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and was aware of the time and date of the hearing and the penalty being sought. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

PUBLICATION BAN

In R. v. Slater, 2014 ONSC 4017 (“Slater”), Madam Justice Parfett of the Superior Court of Justice issued the following restriction on publication pursuant to subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada:

By court order made under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the complainant […] and the witnesses […] and […] may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner. This judgment complies with this restriction so that it can be published (see Exhibit 5 at Tab E).

The Committee is therefore required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, there shall be no publication of any information that might tend to identify the victims or witnesses involved in this matter.

THE ALLEGATIONS

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

IT IS ALLEGED that Michael Grant Slater 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 strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section 13 of the Regulation made under the Teaching Profession Act made pursuant to section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, (the “TPA Regulation”);

(b) he failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation;

(c) he failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils contrary to subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation;

(d) he failed to comply with subsection 22(1)(c) of the Schools Administration Act, R.S.O. 1960, Ch. 361 and amendments thereto;

(e) he failed to comply with subsection 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 129 and amendments thereto.

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

(g) 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);

(h) 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);

(i) 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);

(j) 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

(k) 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 (g) of the Notice of Hearing be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Michael Grant Slater is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Carleton Board of Education and/or the Ottawa Carleton District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Ottawa, Ontario.

3. At all material times, the Student was a male student at the School.

4. Between September 1968 and June 1970, the Member:

(a) had sexual contact with the Student;

(b) had a sexual relationship with the Student;

(c) had an inappropriate personal relationship with the Student.

MEMBER’S PLEA

As the Member was not present and did not have legal representation, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.

THE EVIDENCE

College Counsel entered into evidence the Registered Member Information for Michael Grant Slater (Exhibit 4), which indicates that the Member was a member of the College at the time of the alleged events. The College also entered into evidence a Brief of Court Documents - Her Majesty The Queen v. Michael Grant Slater (Exhibit 5), which contains the following documents:

1. Certified Copy of Indictment;

2. Certified Copy of Prohibition Order Imposed at Sentencing dated June 24, 2014;

3. Certified Copy of Prohibition Order dated June 24, 2014;

4. Transcript of Verdict before the Honourable Madam Justice Parfett at Ottawa dated March 1, 2014; and

5. Transcript of Trial Continuation and Reasons for Sentence before the Honourable Madam Justice Parfett at Ottawa dated June 24, 2014.

The evidence presented in Exhibit 5 confirms that on March 1, 2014, in the Superior Court of Justice, the Member was found guilty of one count of indecent assault, three counts of gross indecency and one count of buggery, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Exhibit 5 further confirms that on June 24, 2014, the Member was sentenced to three years’ incarceration, and ancillary orders were made that include a section 109 weapons prohibition for 15 years, a [XXX] order, a section 161 order (clauses a, b & c) for 20 years, and a S.O.I.R.A. order for life. The Member appealed his conviction and subsequently filed a notice abandoning his appeal with the Court of Appeal for Ontario (see Exhibit 3). No further appeal is available.

SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL ON FINDING

College Counsel submitted that the Member’s case was at the extreme end of the spectrum of professional misconduct, as it involved the sexual abuse of two male students. According to College Counsel, the Member’s conduct, as detailed in the record of the criminal proceedings (Exhibit 5) and the resulting criminal convictions, provided a sufficient basis to justify a finding of professional misconduct under all of the heads of misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

College Counsel further submitted that at the time of the sexual abuse, both victims were [XXX] years old students in the Member’s classroom, and the sexual abuse of the two boys was separated by a span of 14 years. College Counsel added that these incidents had had a profound and lasting impact on the victims, including depression, guilt, self-doubt, suicidal thoughts, a loss of trust, shame and nightmares.

College Counsel referred the Committee to a Prohibition Order (see Exhibit 5 at Tab C) within which the Member is prohibited from, amongst other things, being in the presence of children under the age of 16 without court approved supervision for a period of 20 years.

College Counsel reminded the Committee that the Member’s criminal trial was held before a jury, that he was represented by legal counsel and that he was found guilty of all five criminal charges against him. College Counsel further stated the Member was sentenced to three years’ incarceration in a federal institution.

Finally, College Counsel referred the Committee to the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Committee’s Rules”) and reminded the Committee that they must accept the findings of fact contained in the Reasons for Sentence of Madam Justice Parfett as being proof of the facts in this hearing.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE MEMBER ON FINDING

Although the Member was not present, he prepared written submissions which College Counsel presented to the Committee. The Member submitted that the evidence of the students at the criminal trial was not credible. He further submitted that the jurors in his criminal trial found him guilty in error. Throughout his written submissions, the Member proclaimed his innocence.

DECISION

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and 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, contrary to section 13 and subsections 14(d) and 14(f) of the TPA Regulation, subsection 22(1)(c) of the Schools Administration Act, R.S.O. 1960, Ch. 361 and amendments thereto, subsection 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 129 and amendments thereto, and Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.3), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

In accordance with Rule 13.03 of the Committee’s Rules, inter alia, the Committee accepts the certified copy of the Indictment as proof, in this case, that the Member committed the criminal offences outlined therein. The Member was found guilty and convicted of multiple criminal offences before a Canadian Court, his appeal was abandoned and no further appeal is available.

In addition, pursuant to Rule 13.04 of the Committee’s Rules, the Committee admits as ancillary to the certified copy of the Indictment, the findings of fact contained in the decision of the Superior Court of Justice in Slater. The Committee further relies on the transcripts of the Verdict and Reasons for Sentence, to support its finding of professional misconduct.

The College has established on a balance of probabilities that, between September 1968 and June 1984, the Member committed sexual offences against two [XXX] year old male students while he was a teacher at the students’ school. In 2010, the Member was arrested and charged with one count of indecent assault, three counts of gross indecency and one count of buggery, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. On March 1, 2014 the Member was found guilty of all charges and sentenced to three years’ incarceration.

The evidence establishes that the Member abused his position of trust and authority in the gravest manner. He isolated his victims from their peers, provided them with alcohol, forced them into acts of oral and anal sex, and used threats to ensure their silence (see Exhibit 5 at Tab E).

Having considered the whole of the evidence before the Committee, the Committee finds that the Member contravened section 13 and subsections 14(d) and 14(f) of the TPA Regulation, subsection 22(1)(c) of the Schools Administration Act, R.S.O. 1960, Ch. 361 and amendments thereto, subsection 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 129 and amendments thereto, and Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.3), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19). As such, the Committee finds the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

College Counsel submitted that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and publication with name are appropriate penalties considering the gravity of the Member’s conduct. College Counsel stated that revocation is the harshest penalty that can be imposed by the Committee and is reserved for the most extreme cases. College Counsel submitted that this is one of those cases. According to College Counsel, revocation is the only way to ensure the protection of the public, the preservation of the public confidence in the disciplinary process and the maintenance of the high professional standards expected of all teachers. The Member exploited his position of trust and authority as a teacher and caused long-term emotional harm to his victims who were his students (see Exhibit 5 at Tab E).

College Counsel submitted that the Member did not oppose having his Certificate of Registration and Qualification revoked. She referred the Committee to a written letter provided by the Member in which he advises that he “will gladly turn over my teaching certificate to the College” (see Exhibit 2 at Tab C). College Counsel also noted that the Member’s submissions dealt with the College’s allegations and supporting evidence but did not address the issue of penalty.

College Counsel further submitted that publication with the name of the Member is warranted in this case. Publication with name speaks to the specific deterrence, general deterrence, transparency and accountability objectives of penalty orders. According to College Counsel, general deterrence, transparency and accountability are of the utmost importance in this case, in order to satisfy the College’s mandate to protect the public interest.

College Counsel added that the Committee’s denunciation of the Member’s conduct through the publication of his name demonstrates to the public that the most serious acts of professional misconduct attract the most serious consequences. Moreover, publication with the Member’s name is important because it informs the public and other members of the profession that matters before the Committee are resolved in an open and transparent manner. College Counsel submitted that to best serve the public interest, revocation and publication with the name of the Member is expected and justified.

College Counsel referred the Committee to two cases involving sexual abuse: Ontario College of Teachers v. O’Keefe, 2013 LNONCTD 54 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Allen, 2013 LNONCTD 5. College Counsel submitted that although the members in both cases received lesser criminal sentences since their acts of sexual abuse did not involve anal penetration, publication with name was ordered in both instances.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member; and

2. 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

The Committee finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is appropriate in this case. Based on the excerpts from the victim impact statements contained in Madam Justice Parfett’s Reasons for Decision on Sentencing, the Member’s victims have suffered severe psychological and emotional harm as a result of the Member’s actions. The Member’s conduct has also adversely impacted the public’s trust in the teaching profession as not only did the Member prey on children, but he used his classroom as a “hunting ground” (see Exhibit 5 at Tab E). In her Reasons for Sentence, Madam Justice Parfett observed that the Member had not expressed remorse or accepted responsibility for the offences (see Exhibit 5 at Tab E).

The Committee further finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted. 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. Publication with name serves as a general deterrent by reminding 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 finding and the penalty order protect the public interest and uphold the standards of the teaching profession.

Dated: August 31, 2015

Marie-Claude Yaacov Chair, Discipline Panel

Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Thomas Potter Member, Discipline Panel