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
William Robert Wallace, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Louis Sloan, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Beverley Hodsdon,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
WILLIAM ROBERT WALLACE ) Jaye Hooper,
(CERTIFICATE #102837) ) Williams McEnery
) Barristers and Solicitors, ) for William Robert Wallace
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: May 1, 2015
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on May 1, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated July 29, 2014 was served on William Robert Wallace (the “Member”), requesting his presence on September 3, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for May 1, 2015.
The Member was not 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 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) 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 physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in Section 1 of the Act;
(c) 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);
(d) 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);
(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);
(g) 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 Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 495 and as amended thereafter; and
(h) he failed to comply with Section 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 129 and amendments thereto.
At the hearing on May 1, 2015, Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) 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:
William Robert Wallace 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 held an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Carleton Board of Education (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, the Student was an [XXX] year old male student of the Board.
On or about August 29, 1984, the Member attended a party at the Student’s parents’ home. After consuming three alcoholic drinks, the Member asked if he could stay overnight because he did not want to drive home after drinking.
The Student’s parents offered the couch to the Member to sleep on for the night. The couch was L-shaped, and the Student was already asleep on the shorter portion. The Member agreed to sleep on the longer portion of the couch.
During the night, the Member fondled the Student’s buttocks, testicles, and penis. The Student went into his parents’ bedroom and told them what happened. The Member was arrested for sexual assault the following morning.
On December 5, 1984, in the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) of Ontario, the Member pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, committing a sexual assault on the Student. The trial Judge sentenced the Member to a conditional discharge with three years of probation. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a certified copy of the Court Information and the Probation Order.
The Member retired from the Board in June 2003.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-9 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 that he failed 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 Regulation 63/55 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 495 and as amended thereafter, and failed to comply with Section 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 129 and amendments thereafter.
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 in this document 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. The Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly that he failed 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 Regulation 63/55 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 495 and as amended thereafter, and he failed to comply with Section 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 129 and amendments thereafter.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 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 that he failed 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 Regulation 63/55 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 495 and as amended thereafter, and he failed to comply with Section 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 129 and amendments thereafter. The Committee accepts the Member’s guilty plea.
The Committee is particularly concerned with the following incidents. On or about August 29, 1984 the Member attended a party at the home of the Student’s parents. After consuming three alcoholic beverages, the Member asked the Student’s parents if he could stay overnight to avoid driving home after drinking. The Member was given permission to sleep on the part of the couch that was not being used by the Student, who was already asleep on the couch. The Member admitted that, during the night, he fondled the Student’s buttocks, testicles and penis. The Student immediately informed his parents of the sexual assault. The Member was arrested the following morning, and on December 5, 1984, the Member pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of sexual assault.
The Committee finds the Member’s conduct to be appalling, reprehensible and disgraceful. His actions and the resulting conviction as outlined herein, undoubtedly constitute professional misconduct.
The sexual assault of a student represents the most egregious breach of trust by a person in a position of trust and authority over a student. The Member was invited into the home of the Student by the Student’s parents, one of whom was a personal friend of the Member. The Member abused the authority and trust vested in him by the Student and the Student’s parents without any regard for the well-being of the Student.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), 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 the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which Certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar;
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 the purpose of any decision of the Committee is to protect
the public interest, to maintain high professional standards and to preserve public confidence in the teaching profession. In order to achieve these goals there are four principles that must be considered: specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation of the Member and protection of the public.
Counsel for the College submitted that, because the Member has been retired since 2003, publication with his name will have little to no effect with regard to the specific deterrent or rehabilitative aspect of the penalty. Therefore, general deterrence, protection of the public, and transparency should become the central focus of the Committee’s penalty order. College Counsel further submitted that the College is responsible for informing the public when conduct of this nature occurs. The College, as a self-regulatory body, is accountable to the public and the teaching profession. It cannot shield its members when misconduct of a serious nature occurs.
Counsel for the College further submitted that sexual assault is the most egregious form of misconduct and deserves the harshest penalty. Revocation and publication with name are proportionate to the Member’s misconduct. Publication with name identifies the serious misconduct of the Member and the consequences for such behaviour. Counsel for the College referred the Committee to three cases involving single incidents of sexual abuse. In all three cases, publication with the member’s name was ordered.
Counsel for the College reminded the Committee that it is the College’s mandate to act in the public interest. Therefore, publication with the name of the Member is both expected and justified in cases such as this.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member submitted that publication with the Member’s name is not appropriate
in this case. According to Member’s Counsel, the Member’s misconduct and his ensuing criminal conviction occurred in 1984, prior to the creation of the College. Counsel for the Member provided documentation to demonstrate that this case was disposed of in 1984 by the proper authorities at the time. Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member cooperated with the police and the Board and subsequently entered into an agreement in 1984, which imposed conditions on the Member. Counsel for the Member stated that there is no evidence before this Committee indicating that the Member has breached any of these conditions.
Member’s Counsel further submitted that the Committee’s decision with respect to publication should reflect the objectives of general deterrence, the maintenance of the public’s confidence in the teaching profession, the timely resolution of disciplinary matters, and transparency. Counsel for the Member submitted that publishing the name of the Member would not achieve these goals; it would have the opposite effect. Informing the public of the Member’s 1984 conviction and his subsequent continuation in the teaching profession until 2003 would not instil public confidence, but rather it would diminish public confidence.
Counsel for the Member responded to the three cases submitted by College Counsel and submitted that they were all distinguishable from the Member’s case and should not be relied on. Unlike the Member’s case, the members in the cases presented were dealt with by the College within a reasonable amount of time following their criminal convictions. Counsel for the Member reminded the Committee that the Member was charged and convicted of sexual assault more than 30 years ago, in 1984. Counsel for the Member submitted that the public expects the College to act promptly in matters involving serious professional misconduct, and in this case, it did not do so. According to Counsel for the Member, publication with name would only serve to diminish the public’s confidence in the College and therefore does not align with the goals of the penalty.
Reply Submissions of College Counsel
In reply, Counsel for College stated that the Committee’s duty is to act in the public’s interest in the year 2015. Counsel for the College submitted that the fact that the Member continued teaching until 2003 is not an issue. The key issue is that the Member sexually assaulted [XXX], and in so doing, seriously breached the trust and abused the authority bestowed on him by the Student and the Student’s parents.
Counsel for the College acknowledged that the Member was disciplined by the Board in 1984 but stated that members are frequently disciplined by their school boards prior to appearing before the College. College Counsel submitted that the Board was not acting in the public’s interest given that its mandate was to act in its own interest. Although the Member did enter into an agreement with the proper authority in 1984, that authority (the Member’s employer) did not serve the same purpose or have the same mandate as a self-regulating body like the College.
Counsel for the College also disagreed with Counsel for the Member’s assertion that the College has been sitting on this case since the College’s inception. Rather, Counsel for the College stated that the matter was promptly addressed when it was brought to the College’s attention. College Counsel further submitted that, notwithstanding the Board’s agreement with the Member in 1984, the College’s duty is to act now.
Counsel for the College submitted that the Board’s disciplinary action in 1984 was “irresponsible”, and urged the Committee to not make the same mistakes. College Counsel reminded the Committee of its mandate to protect the public, to maintain high professional standards and to preserve public confidence in the teaching profession.
Counsel for the College reiterated that revocation and publication with name are appropriate penalties that will maintain the high standards of the profession and preserve public confidence.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Registrar is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar.
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 finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member. Therefore, the Committee accepts the proposed penalty presented by the parties. The parties did not agree on whether to publish the summary of the findings and order of the Committee with or without the Member’s name. The Committee finds that publication with name is appropriate in this case.
Sexual misconduct warrants the most severe penalty available to the Discipline Committee. The Member’s heinous conduct undoubtedly justifies the revocation of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. Revocation also serves as a general deterrent as it informs members of the profession that such misconduct can result in the forfeiture of their membership in the profession. Members of the profession must understand that they are held to a high standard and that the failure to adhere to that standard can result in the College’s harshest penalty.
The Committee considered Counsel for the Member’s submissions with respect to publication and ultimately determined that publication with name is appropriate in this case. Publication with the name of the Member serves the public interest by ensuring the transparency of the discipline process. Moreover, the public and the teaching profession must be made aware that the College will act decisively when matters of this nature are brought to its attention, and that it does not shield its Member’s from public scrutiny, regardless of prior disciplinary action taken by a member’s school board.
While the Committee carefully considered the submissions of Member’s Counsel with respect to publication, the Committee does not accept that it is unnecessary to publish the Member’s name in this case. Member’s Counsel submitted that publication with name would diminish public confidence, in this case. The Committee disagrees. Although the Member continued to teach until 2003, despite his 1984 conviction, it is not appropriate for the Committee to shield his name from the public. The Committee accepts the College’s submission that it acted promptly when this matter was finally brought to the College’s attention. Now that this matter is before the Committee, it is important to ensure the openness and transparency of the discipline process, which would be undermined by publishing a summary of the findings and order of the Committee without the Member’s name.
The Committee also heard submissions from Member’s Counsel that it would be inappropriate to
publish the Member’s name in this case, because the matter was disposed of by the Board in 1984 and the Member has not breached any of the conditions of his agreement with the Board since then. While the Committee appreciates these mitigating factors, the fact that the Member received previous discipline from his Board does not preclude the Committee from imposing further penalties. Members are frequently disciplined by their school boards prior to appearing before the College, and the Committee recognizes that the Board and the College have different mandates. Given the College’s public interest mandate, as well as the nature of the misconduct in this case and the penalty objectives of transparency, general deterrence, and public protection, the Committee finds that publication with name is warranted in this case.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: June 8, 2015
Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Louis Sloan, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel