DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) and Ontario Regulation 437/97 thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Francis Patrick Ubertelli, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair Vicki Shannon, OCT Louis Sloan, OCT
BETWEEN: ) ) Christine Lonsdale and Dina Awad, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers – and – ) FRANCIS PATRICK UBERTELLI ) Kelly Doctor, (CERTIFICATE #523850) ) Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, ) for Francis Patrick Ubertelli ) Renée Kopp, ) Jones Harley LLP, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: February 9, 2015
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on February 9, 2015 at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated March 10, 2014, was served on Francis Patrick Ubertelli (“the Member”) requesting his attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on March 24, 2014 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for February 9, 2015.
The Member was not in attendance at the hearing.
ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Francis Patrick Ubertelli is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of 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 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);
(e) 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);
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Counsel for the College informed the Committee that the parties had reached an agreement on the facts, and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Plea of No Contest (“the Agreement”) (Exhibit 2).
Francis Patrick Ubertelli is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. A copy of the information concerning the registered member of the Ontario College of Teachers is attached as Appendix A.
During the period from November 2007 to December 2011, the Member was employed by Conseil scolaire Viamonde as a teacher at the [XXX].
On or about November 16, 2009, the Member wrote the following comment concerning the abortion policies of the President of the United States in a blog: “Shame on this imposter, with his skin as black as tar, shame on this covert murderer….”
On or about April 15, 2010, the Member told a female student that:
(a) homosexuals are bad for society because they are unable to have children;
(b) the student ought to be open to the idea that homosexuality is bad for society because of this fact;
(c) it is the natural order for a child to need a mother and a father; and
(d) God is the judge who will decide all.
- On or about October 3, 2011, the Member was asked to meet with his principal to discuss an e-mail the Member had sent him in the latter’s capacity as Principal of the [XXX]. The e-mail was sent on September 21, 2011 and the Member had expressed certain opinions regarding homosexuality and the high rate of suicide among homosexual students. The Member had described his opinions as personal ones.
During this meeting, the Member stated in answer to questions from his principal that:
(a) homosexuality is against nature;
(b) perhaps homosexual teenagers kill themselves because homosexuality is against nature;
(c) homosexuality has no place in the Ontario Curriculum and the school board ought not to encourage it;
(d) the school board ought not to organize sessions to combat discrimination against homosexuals, because by doing so it would make an exception to other prohibited grounds of discrimination which also enjoy protection.
- While he was employed by the school board as a teacher, the Member wrote and/or posted inappropriate comments on his web site, and/or supported the content of sites for which he provided the links:
(a) “Considering pederasty, lesbianism, bisexuality, transsexuality (mutilation and an attack on the body’s finitude), sodomy, zoophilism and coprophagia within a new anti-moral social order is seeking to ascribe them legitimacy for the sake of building a ‘culture.’”
(b) “Thus, homosexual desire is not metaphysically ‘absolutely desirable,’ because it is acquainted not with honour and the common concern, but with self-love, which is egocentric, narcissistic and often bestial.”
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 above (the “agreed facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the aforementioned agreed facts constitute professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of sections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
The Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document, he is consenting to the evidence, as set out in the agreed facts, being produced for the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving his right to require the College to prove the case against him, and his right to have a hearing on this matter;
(d) he understands that any agreement between the College and the Member with respect to penalty is not binding on the Discipline Committee; and
(e) he understands this Agreement and acknowledges that he is signing it 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, as amended, for the purpose of this proceeding under the College of Teachers Act, S.O. 1996, chapter 12, as amended, and for no other purpose. The Member’s Plea of No Contest does not constitute an admission by him as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In view of the aforementioned admitted facts and the Plea of No Contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee ought to find that the Member’s actions constituted professional misconduct.
DECISION
In the matter of Francis Patrick Ubertelli and based on the Agreed Statement of Facts, the plea of no contest and the submissions by counsel, the Committee finds that the evidence supports a finding of professional misconduct and finds that Francis Patrick Ubertelli is guilty of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of sections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as set out in the Notice of Hearing.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member has admitted the accuracy of the facts as set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Agreement and acknowledges that the facts referred to in paragraphs 3 to 6 show that his actions constitute professional misconduct.
The Committee accepts the Agreed Statement of Facts and Plea of No Contest as produced by the parties.
The Committee considered the following:
The Member’s comments posted to a blog concerning the abortion policies of the President of the United States, and the inappropriate comments posted on his own web site.
The Member’s remarks to a female student, that is, his opinion on homosexuality.
The e-mail to the principal expressing certain personal opinions regarding homosexuality and the high rate of suicide among homosexual students.
The Member’s answers to his principal’s questions concerning the e-mail the Member sent.
The Blog
The Committee found that the comments posted by the Member to a blog concerning the abortion policies of the President of the United States (“Shame on this imposter, with his skin as black as tar, shame on this covert murderer….”) are offensive, inappropriate, discriminatory and inconsistent with the standards of the teaching profession.
Discussion with a Female Student
The Committee found that the discussion between the Member and a female student was highly inappropriate when it came to discussing social and religious morals. It is not the Member’s role to impose his personal views on homosexuality. In the Committee’s opinion, no school board would approve of such a discussion. A teacher’s role during such discussion is to be respectful, and to protect and provide a safe environment for all students.
E-mail to the Principal
In the Committee’s opinion, the Member’s comments in his e-mail, which attempted to make connections between homosexuality and the high suicide rate among homosexual students, are unprofessional and indicative of conduct unbecoming a member of the College. Such conduct on this teacher’s part is indicative of a lack of awareness and poor judgement.
Meeting with the Principal
During the Member’s meeting with his principal, the discussion in reply to the latter’s questions support the fact that the discriminatory content of the e-mail contradicted the policies of the Ministry of Education and his own school board.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
The Ontario College of Teachers and the Member jointly submit that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee is as follows:
The Discipline Committee requires the Member to appear before the Committee on March 5, 2015 to receive a reprimand delivered in person at the College’s offices at 101 Bloor Street West in Toronto, Ontario, with the fact of the reprimand to be recorded in the public register.
The Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification for one month from the date of the Committee’s decision and to publish a notation to this effect in the public register.
The Committee directs the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification, and to publish this decision in the public register:
(a) within 12 months following the date of this order, the Member must, at his own expense, enrol in and successfully complete a course, approved in advance by the Registrar, on maintaining appropriate boundaries, subject to the following conditions:
(i) within 60 days of the date of the Discipline Committee’s Decision and Reasons for Decision, the Member must submit to a Registrar-approved course provider a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Plea of No Contest and the Joint Submission on Penalty produced in evidence at the hearing into this matter, in addition to the Discipline Committee’s Decision and Reasons for Decision;
(ii) after a review of the documents referred to in paragraph (i), above, the course provider must submit to the Registrar, for his approval, a detailed description of the course in question, which specifically addresses the concerns of the Discipline Committee with respect to the Member’s professional misconduct. The course description proposed by the course provider must also specify the length of said course, and its objectives;
(b) within 30 days of completion of the course described in paragraph (a), above, the Member must provide the Registrar with proof in writing from the course provider stating that:
(i) the Member has successfully completed the course, and describing the Member’s progress with respect to the stated objectives of said course.
- The Committee directs that a summary of its decision and order be published in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. The parties have failed to reach agreement on the matter of the publication of the Member’s name. Submissions on this issue will thus be made to the Discipline Committee. The College will seek the publication of the Member’s name, and the Member will not oppose the petition.
COLLEGE’S SUBMISSION ON PUBLICATION
Counsel for the College urged the Committee to publish the Member’s name in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/ Pour parler profession. She argued that the publication of his name would serve to expose his actions, act as both a specific and general deterrent and make the members of the teaching profession aware that the College will not tolerate such professional misconduct.
Counsel concluded her submission by stating that the publication of the Member’s name would ensure transparency and protect the public interest.
MEMBER’S SUBMISSION ON PUBLICATION
Member’s Counsel did not object to the petition but reminded the Committee that it had discretion not to publish the Member’s name.
PENALTY AND ORDER
The Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order as to penalty:
The Discipline Committee requires Francis Patrick Ubertelli to appear before the Committee on March 5, 2015 to receive a reprimand delivered in person at the College’s offices at 101 Bloor Street West in Toronto, Ontario, with the fact of the reprimand to be recorded in the public register.
The Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification for one month from the date of the Committee’s decision and to publish a notation to this effect in the public register.
The Committee directs the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification, and to publish this decision in the public register:
(a) within 12 months following the date of this order, the Member must, at his own expense, enrol in and successfully complete a course, approved in advance by the Registrar, on maintaining appropriate boundaries, subject to the following conditions:
(i) within 60 days of the date of the Discipline Committee’s Decision and Reasons for Decision, the Member must submit to a Registrar-approved course provider a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Plea of No Contest and the Joint Submission on Penalty produced in evidence at the hearing into this matter, in addition to the Discipline Committee’s Decision and Reasons for Decision;
(ii) after a review of the documents referred to in paragraph (i), above, the course provider must submit to the Registrar, for his approval, a detailed description of the course in question, which specifically addresses the concerns of the Discipline Committee with respect to the Member’s professional misconduct. The course description proposed by the course provider must also specify the length of said course, and its objectives;
(b) within 30 days of completion of the course described in paragraph (a), above, the Member must provide the Registrar with proof in writing from the course provider stating that:
(i) the Member has successfully completed the course, and describing the Member’s progress with respect to the stated objectives of said course.
- The Committee directs that a summary of its decision and order be published in Professionally Speaking/ Pour parler profession, including the Member’s name as it appears in the College’s public register.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee carefully weighed the arguments put forward by the parties. The fact that the parties have reached an agreement indicates that an appropriate balance of interests has been achieved.
The Committee found that the Member and the College had reached agreement on the chief elements of the penalty, that is, a one-month suspension, a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries and a reprimand. The parties further agreed on the publication of a summary of the decision and order of the Committee in the College’s official publication.
In view of the seriousness of the Member’s actions and the fact that the proposed penalty addresses the expectations of the teaching profession with respect to discipline, the Committee upholds the Joint Submission on Penalty.
The reprimand by his peers delivered on behalf of the teaching profession acts as a deterrent on the Member. The fact that he has been reprimanded will appear on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for three years, thereby acting as a deterrent on the teaching profession in general.
The one-month suspension is appropriate, because the Member’s conduct is indicative of a lack of judgement so serious that, in the Committee’s opinion, a severe penalty is necessary, which will also act as a specific deterrent.
The course on maintaining appropriate boundaries which the Member must take addresses his conduct and should assist the Member in deepening his understanding of the seriousness of his actions and the fact that they violate school-based societal values and standards.
In the Committee’s estimation, the publication of the Member’s name as it appears in the College’s public register is appropriate in this case given the seriousness of the actions and the repeated nature of the Member’s damaging behaviour.
The publication of a summary of the decision and order of the Committee in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking /Pour parler profession, including the Member’s name, serves and protects the public interest, ensures the transparency of College discipline proceedings and conveys to the public that the College acts decisively and consistently when such conduct is brought to its attention.
The Committee finds that its decision and order are appropriate in the circumstances and that they serve and protect the public interest.
February 16, 2015
Robert Gagné Chair, Discipline Panel
Vicki Shannon, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________,
Louis Sloan, OCT Member, Discipline Panel