Ontario College of Teachers v Webster, 2015 ONOCT 86

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Webster, 2015 ONOCT 86

Date: 2015-11-30

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

Meghane Elizabeth Webster, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair

Irene Cheung, OCT

Louis Sloan, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Duane Crocker,

) Law Clerk

– and – )

MEGHANE ELIZABETH WEBSTER ) Simon Blackstone,

(CERTIFICATE #469001) ) Ursel Phillips Fellows

) Hopkinson LLP,

) for Meghane Elizabeth Webster

) Julie Maciura,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: November 20, 2015

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 20, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated February 27, 2013 (Exhibit 1) was served on Meghane Elizabeth Webster (the “Member”), requesting her presence on March 18, 2013 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 20, 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 the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers 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 verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

(d) she 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) 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

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

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 the following:

1. Meghane Elizabeth Webster 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was an employee of the Durham District School Board (the “Board”) and was a teacher at [XXX] (the “School”) in Oshawa, Ontario.

3. Student 1 was a male student at the School during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 academic years. The Member taught Student 1 English in the spring of 2011, and taught him [XXX] in the fall of 2011 when he was [XXX] years old.

4. Student 2 was a male student at the School during the 2011-2012 academic year.

5. Both Student 1 and Student 2 played on the School’s [XXX] team. The Member was one of the [XXX] team’s trainers and provided medical assistance.

Warning Regarding Facebook Communications

6. On or about November 8, 2011, two students informed the vice-principal at the School that the Member was friends with and engaged in inappropriate conversations with students on Facebook. The vice-principal met with the Member about this issue on November 10, 2011, and provided the Member with a copy of the College’s Advisory “Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media”. The Member informed the vice-principal that she was Facebook friends with ex-students only, not current students at the School.

7. Following the November 10, 2011 conversation with the vice-principal, the Member deleted Student 1 from her “Meghane Gillard” Facebook profile and invited him to communicate with her through her Facebook profile “Celtic Highlander”. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a copy of the Facebook communication from the Member to Student 1 dated November 10, 2011 from “Celtic Highlander” stating: “Its webster, add me as this please… deleted everyone from the other one”. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “C” is a printout that includes students as the Member’s Facebook friends through her “Celtic Highlander” Facebook page in November 2011.

8. The Member continued to correspond with students via electronic communications after she was spoken to by the vice-principal with respect to this issue on November 10, 2011. Many of these communications were unprofessional in nature.

Inappropriate Electronic Communications with Student 1 – [XXX] Incident

9. In late November 2011, Student 1 was removed from the School’s [XXX] team for swearing at one of the [XXX] coaches. On December 7, 2011, Student 1 was suspended from the School as a result of the incident. When his stepfather arrived to collect him, he was told by the Member that it was “completely ridiculous” to punish Student 1 for swearing because she had witnessed the coach provoke Student 1 and swear at Student 1 first. She told Student 1’s stepfather that she would inform the office about what she had witnessed.

10. During Student 1’s suspension from the School, the Member and Student 1 exchanged text messages wherein she told him that she was fighting to get him back on the team, and provided him with advice on how to fight his removal from the [XXX] team and demonstrate that the vice-principal was “sexist”. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “D” is a copy of the electronic communication from the Member to Student 1 containing a portion of this advice.

11. The Member also communicated with Student 1 via Facebook during this time:

It’s horrible without you, and to top it all off people are talking about it and offering their two cents.

Can I tell you something off record??? Stays between us? About [XXX]… [XXX] and I fought this after school…you know who wants [XXX] off for his “temper tantrum” at the tournament. I am hoping he will let him play…but it appears as though whatever he wrote is all they are hearing judging you both by. We are fighting it though…

I have not seen the note he read, but the office has still not asked me about what happened, nor about [XXX]…it is such bullshit…

Hated practice today…someone was greatly missed…

…its been depressing with out your smile or laugh.

Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “E” are copies of the Facebook communications containing these references.

12. The Member texted Student 1 that she had “put her ass on the line” “fighting to get [him and another student] back on” the team. Student 1 replied to the Member that according to what the vice-principal told his mother, the Member had reported that Student 1 “had attitude”. The Member responded, “Pardon, what a liar”, in reference to the vice-principal. Student 1 went on to explain to the Member that his mother thought the Member was “playin head games with [him] and lying to [him] and tellin the office different”. He added that his mother would be very angry that he told the Member these things, and said he had to go and would delete the conversation before his mother found out. He told the Member to communicate with him through Facebook because his mother had no access to Facebook. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “F” are copies of the electronic communications containing these references.

Other Inappropriate Electronic Communications with Student 1

13. Between September and December 2011 the Member engaged in personal communications with Student 1 including discussions about [XXX] practices and the School’s [XXX] team, requests by the Member to take her young son [XXX] and where to meet up to accomplish this, references to the Member washing Student 1 and Student 2’s [XXX] laundry, offers to pick up and drop off Student 1’s [XXX] bag at his home, and the Member agreeing to pick up Student 1 and/or other students in her vehicle. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “G” are copies of examples of the electronic communications containing these references.

14. The Member also informed Student 1 that she had been told by “two flippin girls how lucky [she] was to coach [him] because they think [he’s] hot”. When Student 1 asked the Member who the girls were, she replied, “if only you knew…you’d be grabbing the garbage can and heading to the bathroom. Lol”. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “H” is a copy of the Facebook communications containing these references.

15. The Member acted on behalf of Student 1, without his permission, regarding personal issues involving Student 1 and his family. For example, via Facebook the Member asked Student 1 not to be angry with her for informing the office about a personal situation involving Student 1’s mother so that the School would “give [Student 1] some slack throughout the year”. Student 1 asked the Member to “try to help [him] get out of baking”, to which the Member agreed to “try [her] damnest”. Student 1 asked the Member to meet at School early to do some work, to which the Member responded, “okay…” Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “H” is a copy of the Facebook communications containing these references.

16. Student 1 broke another student’s [XXX] stick. The Member loaned the other student money to replace his stick, and Student 1 was to repay the Member over time. Student 1 indicated his intention to repay the Member after Christmas, to which the Member responded that she knew he would, when he could. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “I” are copies of the electronic communications referring to this issue.

17. The Member drove Student 1 and Student 2 in her vehicle without their parents’ permission. She subsequently instructed both Student 1 and Student 2 about what they should say if anyone asked them why they were riding with her in her vehicle. She texted the following information to Student 1, “if anyone asks I took u and [Student 2] to [Student 2]’s to get a ride to his interview.” She told Student 2 via Facebook to say the following: “if anyone asks I took you and [Student 1] to your house, so you could get a ride to your interview”, to which Student 2 replied, “ya I know lol its all good”. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “J” are copies of the text messages containing this reference to Student 1, and her instructions to Student 2 through Facebook regarding the same topic.

18. On occasion, instead of attending his scheduled class, Student 1 would spend the period in the Member’s classroom. One electronic communication from the Member to Student 1 stated: “just had my ass ripped. Did you talk to [XXX] today at [XXX]?” When Student 1 indicated that he did, the Member next asked, “K. Did you say last Thursday you were in my class all period?” Student 1 said “Nope”, to which the Member replied, “good. Does your [XXX] teacher think you were? And I said you weren’t”. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “K” are the electronic communications containing these references.

19. In November 2011 alone, the Member sent at least 504 text messages to Student 1, and had engaged in over 30 minutes of long distance calls with him.

Inappropriate Facebook Communications with Student 2

20. The Member and Student 2 communicated through Facebook in November 2011. Their communications revolved around [XXX], taking the Member’s son [XXX], and a number of references to locker boxing each other and kicking each other in the “ass”. Inappropriate comments by the Member in this context include the following:

(a) “u have no better come back…you suck, lol.”, to which Student 2 replied, “if you want a better come back you can scrape it off your teeth lol”, and the Member responded, “well we know you cannot seal the deal after the weekend party…”;

(b) “u still suck. Lol you better get use to looking up at the lights cause Im gonna knock you on your butt in locker boxing…”;

(c) Student 2 replied in the following manner to a message from the Member, “okay nig”, to which the Member responded, “PARDON ME? I Aint no F***ing Nig”

and “I cannot believe you called me a nig…”;

(d) “I’m still gonna kick your ass tomorrow... You better call your doctor and get an appointment to have my foot removed from your ass”;

(e) Student 2 told the Member that Student 1 broke his leg. Before the Member was told it was a joke, she wrote “omg F god…Im gonna murder you guys…like what the f…”;

Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “L” is a copy of the electronic communications referred to above.

21. The Member also communicated with Student 2 via Facebook about Student 1’s removal from the [XXX] team and suspension, stating the following:

We soo have to talk asap off the record between us…theres shit about [XXX] we need to say….im beyond pissed and up set about [Student 1]. You have nooooo idea… I cant get over, or deal with what happened to [Student 1] today. Im beyond angry and frustrated because he has been hurt and I don’t know what to do…why does [Student 1] want out of the [XXX] loop? This is beyond sad…And I have had a very hard time dealing with this….[COLLEAGUE] HAS TO GO‼! He cant do this to [Student 1], or anyone else and think he can get away with it. URG

Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “M” is a copy of the electronic communications referred to above.

Investigation

22. On December 8, 2011, Student 1’s mother provided School administrators and the Durham Regional Police with copies of text messages and Facebook communications between the Member and her son.

23. Police initiated an investigation and notified the Children’s Aid Society. Ultimately, police notified the Board that they had completed their investigation and no charges had been laid. The CAS notified the Board by letter that they did not verify any child protection concerns and were closing the file; however, there was evidence that the Member had crossed boundaries by becoming “too involved” with Student 1. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “N” is the CAS Letter, dated February 7, 2012.

24. On December 15, 2011, Board administrators met with the Member and her representative and advised the Member that the content of, and language used, in her electronic communications with Student 1 were not appropriate. Specifically, the electronic communications blurred the boundaries of the professional relationship that should exist between a teacher and a student. The Member was advised to remove her Facebook page, to refrain from further discussion of this type through any form of communication with students, to take a “boundaries” course through her federation, and she was no longer permitted to participate as a staff advisor of and/or coach any boys’ sports teams. The Member was transferred to another school for Semester 2. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “O” is a copy of the Discipline Letter regarding the issues discussed during the December 15, 2011 meeting. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “P” is a copy of a letter confirming that the Member completed the boundaries course on December 22, 2011.

GUILTY PLEA

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

26. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts referred to above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and admits 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 – unprofessional), and 1(19).

27. 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 Counsel and Counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document 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.

28. 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

Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.

Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, 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(7.2), 1(15), 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 24 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 accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional), and 1(19).

Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).

Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).

Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member 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).

Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).

Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 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:

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 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) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics, subject to the following conditions;

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty, made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner 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 practitioner 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 practitioner:

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

3. direct that there be publication of the finding 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. The conduct of the Member involves serious breaches of the professional teaching standards governed by the College. Her relationships with Student 1 and Student 2 crossed professional boundaries and were unacceptable.

College Counsel submitted that publication with the Member’s name serves as a specific deterrent as it will deter her from repeating similar conduct. It also serves as a general deterrent by informing the profession of the nature of the misconduct, by indicating that the College does not tolerate this type of misconduct, and by informing other members of the profession and the public that the College will not shield its members from public scrutiny. Publication with name reminds the teaching profession of the standard to which members are held and the consequences for failing to meet those standards.

College Counsel submitted that publication with name also helps to ensure that the penalty objectives of transparency and accountability are achieved. College Counsel submitted that the College has a mandate to serve and protect the public interest; publishing the name of the Member in the College’s official publication is an important way to satisfy this mandate.

College Counsel further submitted that the numerous aggravating factors in this matter warrant publication with the Member’s name. According to College Counsel, when the Member was first confronted by the vice-principal regarding her communications with students on her Facebook account she did three things: she lied to the vice-principal by advising that she was only friends with former students on her Facebook account when in fact she was friends with both former and current students on this account; she removed both the former and current students from her Facebook page, demonstrating a clear understanding of the vice-principal’s concerns; and she immediately took steps to continue to communicate with Student 1 by inviting him to be friends with her on another Facebook account.

College Counsel urged the Committee to consider the following additional aggravating factors when determining the issue of publication:

(a) the Member sent numerous text messages and made long distance telephone calls to Student 1, which was reported to the School and to the police;

(b) the Member’s conduct with respect to Student 1’s [XXX] team suspension caused distress to Student 1 and to his family;

(c) the Member referred to the vice-principal as a liar;

(d) the Member revealed personal information about Student 1’s family to School administration, without permission;

(e) the Member used her position as a teacher to interfere with Student 1’s schooling by allowing him to stay in her classroom when he had other scheduled classes and by agreeing to try to get him out of other classes;

(f) the Member suggested meeting with Student 1 and Student 2 outside of the School;

(g) the Member drove Student 1 and Student 2 in her car without their parents’ permission and she instructed the students to lie if anyone asked what they were doing;

(h) the Member washed Student 1 and Student 2’s [XXX] laundry; and

(i) the Member used deplorable language to communicated with Student 2 through Facebook.

According to College Counsel, the Committee ought to order publication with the Member’s name because there is no good reason not to publish the Member’s name that outweighs the interests of transparency and the protection of the public interest.

College Counsel urged the Committee to rely on the following three cases involving inappropriate communications between members and students, when determining the issue of publication: Ontario College of Teachers v. Pott, 2014 LNONCTD 110; Ontario College of Teachers v. Campbell, 2014 LNONCTD 81; and, Ontario College of Teachers v. Wierenga, 2012 LNONCTD 56. College Counsel submitted that these cases were similar to the Member’s case and that publication with name was ordered in each case.

College Counsel also referred the Committee to the Ontario College of Teachers Professional Advisory regarding the “Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media”, which the Member was given to review during her November 10, 2011 meeting with the vice-principal. College Counsel submitted that, had the Member read the advisory, she would have realized that her conduct involving Student 1 and Student 2 was inappropriate and unprofessional.

Submissions of Member’s Counsel

Counsel for the Member submitted that publication with the name of the Member is not warranted in this case. According to Member’s Counsel, the Committee ought to consider the following mitigating factors, among others, when determining the issue of publication: the Member attended the hearing; she took responsibility for her actions by entering a guilty plea in this matter, which spared any witnesses from having to testify; and, she is prepared to take coursework as a remedial measure.

Counsel for the Member disagreed with College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s name should be published absent a good reason not to publish her name. Member’s Counsel submitted that the relevant legislation does not require the Committee to publish the Member’s name in the College’s official publication; the Committee has the discretion to order the publication of a summary of its finding and order with or without the Member’s name. According to Member’s Counsel, if publication with name was always in the public interest, the Committee would not have been given this discretion.

Member’s Counsel also made submissions with respect to the nature of the Member’s conduct and agreed with College Counsel that this is a serious case, but only to the extent that this case may have a serious impact on the Member’s teaching career, and that she has taken the case very seriously. According to Member’s Counsel, the conduct in this case falls at the low end of the spectrum of professional misconduct. The events in question took place during a relatively short period of time and there is no evidence that the Member has repeated her misconduct.

With respect to the submission of College Counsel that publication with name is necessary to ensure that the penalty objectives of transparency and accountability are achieved, Member’s Counsel submitted that there was actually no added value in publishing the Member’s name in the College’s official publication. The public will be able to access the Committee’s decision, including the Member’s name, on the College’s website, which satisfies the penalty objectives of transparency and accountability.

Member’s Counsel urged the Committee to rely on the following two cases when determining the issue of publication: Ontario College of Teachers v. McCalla, 2015 LNONCTD 53 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gowans, 2014 LNONCTD 48. Publication of the members’ names was not ordered in either of these two cases where the members’ conduct was either similar to or more serious than the Member’s conduct in this matter. Member’s Counsel submitted that the Committee should not to rely on the cases presented by College Counsel, which he claimed were distinguishable because all of the members in those cases had retired, unlike the Member who continues to teach.

Reply Submissions of College Counsel

In reply, College Counsel responded to the submission of Member’s Counsel that the Member should receive credit for being present at the hearing. According to College Counsel, although it is good that the Member attended her discipline hearing, members are expected to attend their discipline hearings. An important part of joining a self-regulating body, like the College, is that members are expected to partake in the College’s processes and to meet the College’s expectations.

In response to the submission of Member’s Counsel that the legislation does not require the Committee to order publication with the Member’s name, College Counsel reiterated her earlier submission that, to protect the public interest and absent a good reason not to publish the Member’s name, the Committee should order publication with the name of the Member. Publishing the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession will help to fulfil the College’s public interest mandate by demonstrating that the College does not shield its members from public scrutiny when matters of this nature are brought to its attention.

In response to the submission of Member’s Counsel regarding the seriousness of the Member’s misconduct, College Counsel insisted that the Member’s conduct does not fall at the low end of the spectrum of professional misconduct. According to College Counsel, the Member’s conduct was serious. College Counsel referred to the repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct, to the ongoing lies that she told in order to continue her inappropriate communications with Student 1, and to the blatant disregard that she showed towards the vice-principal’s authority and towards the College’s Professional Advisory regarding the “Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media”.

Finally, College Counsel submitted that the cases presented by Member’s Counsel were distinguishable given that the members in both cases had previously gone through very public criminal trials and were acquitted. Given this important distinction, College Counsel urged the Committee not to rely heavily on the cases presented by Member’s Counsel in which publication with name was not ordered.

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, with 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 Committee finds that the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Additionally, recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of the ethical standards expected of her as a teacher and it will reinforce that teacher-student relationships that cross the acceptable professional boundaries are strictly forbidden. This remedial coursework will help the Member to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

The Committee recognizes that it has the discretion to order the publication of a summary of its finding and order in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, with or without the Member’s name. The Committee finds that publication with name is warranted in this case given the Member’s recurrent inappropriate communications with Student 1 and Student 2 and her repeated disingenuous, manipulative, and self-serving behaviour. Furthermore, the Member abused her authority as a teacher by keeping Student 1 from attending scheduled classes and by revealing information that should have been held in confidence regarding Student 1’s family. The Committee finds that these and the other numerous aggravating factors, as set out above, far outweigh the mitigating factors in this case.

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. It will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member by holding her accountable for her actions. It will also serve as a general deterrent by reminding other members of 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 penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.

Date: November 30, 2015

Tom Potter

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Irene Cheung, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Louis Sloan, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel