Ontario College of Teachers v. Ste-Croix, 2015 ONOCT 75

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Ste-Croix, 2015 ONOCT 75

Date: 2015-05-12

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

Johanne Ste-Croix, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair

Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT

Vicki Shannon, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Caroline Zayid,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,

) Law Clerk

– and – )

JOHANNE STE-CROIX ) Caterina Gucciardi,

(CERTIFICATE #453908) ) Fleming Garrett Sioui, ) for Johanne Ste-Croix

) Marc Spector,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: May 5, 2015

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on May 5, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated May 22, 2012 was served on Johanne Ste-Croix (the “Member”), requesting her presence on June 12, 2012 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for May 5, 2015.

The Member was in attendance for the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1) of the Ontario College of Teacher’s Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:

(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(c) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

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

(e) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1)(c) thereof, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) she 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

(g) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

At the hearing on May 5, 2015, Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b) and (d) 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:

1. At all material times, Johanne Ste-Croix was 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario (“the Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] (“the School”), [XXX].

3. During the 2010-2011 academic year, the Student was a male Grade [XXX] student at the School. The Member was his teacher.

4. During the 2010-2011 academic year, the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with the Student.

5. The inappropriate relationship included the Member:

(a) paying special attention to the Student outside of the classroom;

(b) attending the Student’s [XXX] games on a regular basis;

(c) providing personalized tutoring to the Student outside of school hours;

(d) visiting the Student’s residence;

(e) allowing the Student to sleep at her home on two occasions;

(f) inviting the Student to attend a [XXX] game in [XXX] with her and her family;

(g) wrestling with the Student at her home;

(h) hugging the Student.

6. In the 2010-2011 academic year, the Member communicated with the Student regularly via e-mail and/or telephone and/or text messaging during the evening and/or weekend and/or school holidays. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” are examples of the e-mail communications the Member engaged in with the Student. Attached at Exhibit 2 at Tab “C” are English translations of the emails.

7. In March 2011, the Student’s [XXX] team qualified for the provincial finals. The Student’s family had previously made arrangements to take a March break vacation at the relevant time. The Member offered to have the Student stay at her home for a week. The student’s parents declined the offer and made other arrangements.

8. The provincial finals were played out of town near [XXX], Ontario. The Student’s family arranged for him to travel there with another family whose son was on the same team and to stay in the hotel room of that family for one night and with a second team member’s family the next night.

9. The Member and her family travelled to the provincial tournament and stayed at the same hotel as the Student. The Member’s children did not play on the team and the Member had no role in the team. The Member offered to have the Student stay in her hotel room and travel back home in her car. The Member told the family the Student was staying with that the Member was like a “second mom” to the Student. The Student spent one night in a hotel room with the Member and her family, sharing a bed with the Member’s son.

10. When the Student returned home from the [XXX] area, his grandmother was staying with him until his family returned from vacation. One night that week, the Member came to visit the Student at his home after 10:30 p.m. The Member and the Student went down to the basement while the Student’s grandmother remained upstairs. They wrestled together, played [XXX] mini-sticks and talked. The member left the Student’s house at approximately midnight after the grandmother had already gone to bed.

11. The next evening, the Member again came to the Student’s house after 10:30 p.m. The Member sat on the couch with the Student and spoke French to him which the grandmother did not understand. The Member also hugged the Student while sitting on the couch. Sometime after midnight the grandmother asked the Member to leave the house.

12. Eventually, the Member went to the door and placed candy in the Student’s [XXX] and [XXX] bag.

13. Before leaving the Student’s home, the Member told the Student “you are taking me for granted”. She also said to the grandmother “I love [the Student] very much but he makes me very angry.”

14. After the Member left, the Student told his grandmother “She thinks she is my girlfriend. I like her as a teacher but I don’t want her as a girlfriend.” He asked his grandmother not to tell his parents.

15. The following day the Member again attended the Student’s [XXX] game at the local arena. After the game, the Member went into the locker room and spoke to the Student. When his grandmother realized that the Member was in the locker room, she asked the grandmother’s husband to go into the locker room to find the Student and escort him out. He did so.

16. When the Student’s parents returned from vacation, his grandmother told them what she had observed and felt. The parents reported the matter to the police.

17. The Member was initially suspended from the Board with pay, from March 22, 2011 to May 11, 2011. As a result of its investigation, the Board suspended the Member from her position without pay, from May 12, 2011 to June 24, 2011.

18. Since the events at issue the Member has completed, on her own initiative, a course dealing with professional boundary violations.

GUILTY PLEA

19. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 through 18 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

20. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).

21. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she 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 her name, may be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement between her and Counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

22. 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(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 18 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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(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.

During the 2010-2011 academic year, the Member developed an inappropriate relationship with the Student who was in Grade [XXX] at the time. The Member regularly communicated with the Student via e-mail, text message and telephone. On numerous occasions, the Member met with the Student outside of the School. The meetings consisted of having the Student sleep at her home, visiting the Student at his home and attending the Student’s [XXX] games.

On one occasion, the Member and her family traveled to [XXX], Ontario where the Student was participating in a [XXX] tournament. Neither the Member nor her family had any involvement in the [XXX] tournament whatsoever. During the tournament, the Member received permission from the family caring for the Student to have the Student sleep in her hotel room as she described herself as being like a “second mom” to the Student. The Student slept in the Member’s hotel room, with her family, for one night.

Following the [XXX] tournament, the Member attended the Student’s home on two consecutive nights, after 10:30 p.m., and visited with the Student until after midnight. During the visits, the Member engaged in inappropriate behaviour. On one occasion, the Member and the Student went to the basement while the Student’s grandmother remained upstairs. At that time, the Member wrestled and played [XXX] mini-sticks with the Student. The next night, while at the Student’s home, the Member sat on the couch with the Student, hugged him and spoke French to him which the grandmother could not understand. After midnight, the Student’s grandmother asked the Member to leave. Prior to leaving, the Member told the Student “you’re taking me for granted” and also told the grandmother that she loved the Student but that he made her very angry.

After the Member left, the Student advised his grandmother that the Member thought she was his girlfriend but he did not want her as his girlfriend. Although the Student did not want his grandmother to disclose this information to his parents, she ultimately relayed this information and her own observations to the Students parents. The Student’s parents reported the matter to the police and as a result of her actions, the Member was suspended from the Board for a period of three months.

The Committee determines that the Member’s actions were unprofessional and constitute conduct unbecoming a member. The Member demonstrated a lack of sound judgment by communicating with the Student in personal messages and visiting him outside of school hours when she ought to have known that such behaviour was, and is, inexcusable and inappropriate with any student. The Member crossed the professional teaching boundaries governed by the College, and this Committee finds the Member’s behaviour to be disgraceful and dishonourable.

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:

1. 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”);

2. direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three months to be served as follows, and to be recorded on the Register:

(a) a period of one month from May 24, 2011 onward; and

(b) a period of two months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.

3. 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) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, within 120 days of the Decision of the Discipline Committee, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations, subject to the following conditions:

(i) within 30 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Orders, the Member will provide to Donat Boulerice, or another course provider approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty, documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Orders;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course provider will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course provider stating that:

(i) the Member has successfully completed the course and the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

4. 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 RE: PUBLICATION

Submissions of College Counsel

Counsel for the College submitted that publication with the name of the Member is clearly appropriate and necessary in the circumstances. Counsel for the College submitted that publication with name is one of the most important tools the Committee has for deterrence. It sends a strong message to the profession that this type of behaviour is not tolerated and is taken seriously by the College.

Counsel for the College further submitted that although the Member’s relationship with the Student may have started with good intentions, it strayed beyond an appropriate relationship or what is considered to be an acceptable relationship. Counsel for the College stated that even though there was no sexual misconduct in this case, transparency is still an important aspect of the penalty.

Counsel for the College submitted that the manner in which the Member developed a relationship with the Student was improper. Counsel for the College referred to e-mails contained the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and submitted that the content contained in those e-mails fostered something beyond a professional relationship. Counsel for the College stated that although the Member understands the inappropriateness of her relationship with the Student, publication with name still advises the public and the profession that the College will address misconduct of this nature.

Counsel for the College further submitted that transparency of the discipline process is important as some members of the teaching profession may believe that if a situation does not involve ‘touching’, then no form of misconduct has been committed. Counsel for the College stated that members of the profession must understand that even the conduct in this case, regardless of whether it involves touching, constitutes professional misconduct.

Submissions of Member’s Counsel

Counsel for the Member submitted that the e-mail evidence found in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrated the relationship between a teacher and a student. The Member previously taught the Student in Grades [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX], and Counsel for the Member stated that the Student’s interaction with the Member over such a period of time is reflected in those e-mails. However, Counsel for the Member admitted that this was not an excuse for the Member’s behaviour and acknowledged that she violated the accepted student-teacher boundaries governed by the College.

Counsel for the Member submitted that publication with name was not warranted in this case. According to Member’s Counsel, the Member was devastated by the investigation of both the police and the Board in this matter. Counsel for the Member also submitted that the Member participated in many months of therapy and counselling and has not been in a classroom since the allegations arose. Counsel for the Member further submitted that this has already been a learning experience for the Member and publication with name would only prove to be difficult for the Member as she comes from a small community. Counsel for the Member stated that the Notice of Hearing has already been posted on the College’s website for years and it is not something that can be retracted.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. 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.

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three months to be served as follows, and to be recorded on the Register:

(a) a period of one month from May 24, 2011 to June 24, 2011; and

(b) a period of two months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee which ends on July 3, 2015;

3. 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) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, within 120 days of the Decision of the Discipline Committee, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations, subject to the following conditions;

(i) within 30 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Orders, the Member will provide to Donat Boulerice, or another course provider approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course provider will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course provider stating that:

(i) the Member has successfully completed the course and the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

4. 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 determined that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member. Therefore, the Committee accepted the proposed penalty presented by the parties.

The Committee finds that the Member engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the Grade [XXX] Student and accordingly, the reprimand of the Member by her peers in respect of her inappropriate conduct is warranted in the circumstances. The fact of the reprimand being recorded on the Member’s Certificate will also advise the public that the Member has been reprimanded.

The Committee concurs that the three month suspension is an appropriate penalty for the misconduct committed by the Member. The recording of the suspension on the Register acts as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to members of the profession and the public. It advises the Member, the teaching profession and the public that this type of conduct is not tolerated by the College and will be dealt with accordingly. This penalty will also remind the Member of her responsibility to uphold the standards of the profession at all times and to not engage in conduct unbecoming a member.

The course of instruction regarding boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member and will allow her to understand the conduct required of teachers in order that she may interact with students appropriately in the future.

The Committee finds there are compelling reasons for publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Publication with name identifies to the profession the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct and the consequences of such behaviour. Publication, in this case, is necessary as it acts as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to the profession. Publication with name also reassures the public that the profession acts decisively 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: May 12, 2015

Robert Gagné, Chair

Chair, Discipline Panel

Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Vicki Shannon, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel