Ontario College of Teachers v McLeod, 2015 ONOCT 93

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v McLeod, 2015 ONOCT 93

Date: 2015-01-29

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

Norman Neil G. McLeod, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers at the time of the conduct dealt with in this matter.

PANEL: Stefanie Achkewich, OCT, Chair Christine Bellini, OCT

Robert Gagné

BETWEEN: ) ) Ava Arbuck,

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,

) Law Clerk

• and – )

) Norman Neil G. McLeod ) was not present or represented

NORMAN NEIL G. MCLEOD )

(CERTIFICATE #328065) )

) Julie Maciura,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: December 18, 2014

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on December 18, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated February 19, 2014 was served on Norman Neil G. McLeod, requesting his attendance before the Committee on March 10, 2014 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for December 18, 2014.

The Member did not attend the hearing and he did not have legal representation.

Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo (Exhibit 2) sworn December 16, 2014, detailing service of documents and communications that Ms. De Bartolo, a Law Clerk from McCarthy Tétrault LLP, had sent to the Member with respect to the date and time of the hearing. Based on this affidavit, the Committee was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and was aware of the time and date of the hearing and the penalty being sought.

THE ALLEGATIONS

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

IT IS ALLEGED that Norman Neil G. McLeod is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers 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 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);

(c) he contravened a law, the contravention of which has caused and/or may cause a student to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);

(d) he committed acts, that having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and

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

(f) 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. 1960, Ch. 393 and as amended thereafter;

(g) he failed to comply with Section 229(1)(c) of the Education Act 1974, c.109, and as amended thereafter;

(h) he failed to comply with Section 22(1)(c) of the Schools Administration Act, R.S.O. 1960, Ch. 361 and amendments thereto, and similar provisions of the Schools Administration Act, R.S.O. 1970, Ch. 424.

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Norman Neil G. McLeod (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member held a certificate of qualification and registration under this Act or an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate.

3. Between March 1965 and December 1979, the Member engaged in sexual touching and/or sexual assault of male children between the ages of [XXX] years old.

4. On September 9, 2013, in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Member was found guilty of 13 counts of indecent assault and one count of gross indecency, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada:

(a) the Member was found guilty of indecent assault and gross indecency with respect to “A”, between January 1, 1966, and December 31, 1967;

(b) the Member was found guilty of two counts of indecent assault with respect to “B”, between January 1, 1974, and December 31, 1979;

(c) the Member was found guilty of two counts of indecent assault with respect to “C”, between September 1, 1975, and June 30, 1978;

(d) the Member was found guilty of three counts of indecent assault with respect to “D”, between January 1, 1973, and December 31, 1974;

(e) the Member was found guilty of two counts of indecent assault with respect to “E”, between January 1, 1974, and December 31, 1976;

(f) the Member was found guilty of two counts of indecent assault with respect to “F”, between January 1, 1968, and February 9, 1974;

(g) the Member was found guilty of indecent assault with respect to “G”, during July and August, 1979.

PUBLICATION BAN

In R. v. McLeod, 2014 ONCJ 671 (“McLeod”), Justice D.P. Cole of the Ontario Court of Justice ordered a publication ban (Exhibit 4, Tab C) pursuant to subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code (Canada). The Committee is therefore required to uphold this publication ban. The publication ban states the following:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:

486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences:

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347,

(ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or

(iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).

(2) Mandatory order on application.— In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 Offence.—(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Given the publication ban reproduced above, there shall be no publication of any information that might tend to identify the victim or witnesses involved in this matter.

MEMBER’S PLEA

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

THE EVIDENCE

College Counsel entered into evidence the following additional documents:

Registered Member Information (Exhibit 3); and Brief of Court Documents - Her Majesty The Queen v. Norman Neil McLeod (Exhibit 4).

The Brief of Court Documents with respect to the criminal proceedings contained the following documents:

TAB

DOCUMENT

A.

Certified Copy of Information

B.

Transcript of Guilty Plea Proceedings before Justice D. P. Cole in the Ontario Court of Justice, dated September 9, 2013

C.

Transcript of Reasons For Sentence, Justice D.P. Cole in the Ontario Court of Justice, dated December 11, 2014

SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING

College Counsel submitted the Brief of Court Documents in support of the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Member had legal representation during the criminal proceedings.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s the Member was an [XXX] school teacher and [XXX]. As a trusted member of the community, parents allowed the Member to take their children to his cottage. While at the cottage, the Member would invite the children to enjoy recreational activities in exchange for performing and participating in a variety of sexual acts. In 1979, six [XXX] complained to the local police about the Member’s sexual touchings. The Member was arrested and charged with indecently assaulting six children. He pleaded guilty to these charges in 1980, for which he was sentenced to six concurrent custodial terms of three months, followed by probation for three years. His employment with the Board was subsequently terminated.

In the fall of 2011, a new victim came forward and the police conducted a second investigation, part of which was to encourage other victims to come forward. Six other victims came forward for a total of seven victims. The Member was found guilty of 14 counts of sexual abuse during the period from 1968 to 1979. He was sentenced to three years’ incarceration. Counsel for the College further submitted that the assaults were premeditated to satisfy the Member’s own sexual desires, with total disregard for the boys’ wellbeing. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct was one of the most egregious cases of abuse brought before the College. College Counsel stated the Member’s behaviour, as detailed in the record of the criminal proceedings and the resultant criminal convictions, provided a sufficient basis to justify a finding of professional misconduct under all of the heads of misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

DECISION

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College, 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(16), 1(17) 1(18) and 1(19), section 13 of Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act, 1960, section 229(1)(c) of the Education Act, 1974, section 22(1)(c) of the Schools Administration Act,1960, Ch. 361 and amendments thereto, and similar provisions of the Schools Administration Act, 1970, Ch. 424.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The law of evidence and Rules 13.03 and 13.04 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers allow the Committee to accept a certified copy of a Court Information as proof that an offence was committed by a person, where there is a finding of guilt and conviction in a Canadian court, provided that there is no evidence to the contrary and that no appeal has been granted. Given that the Member was found guilty and convicted in a Canadian Court and that no appeal has been granted, the Committee accepts the certified copy of the Court Information as proof, in this case, that the Member committed the criminal offences outlined therein.

It is uncontested that between March 1965 and December 1979, the Member engaged in sexual touching and/or sexual assault of male children between the ages of [XXX] years old. On September 9, 2013, before the Ontario Court of Justice, the Member was found guilty of thirteen counts of indecent assault and one count of gross indecency, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, for which he was criminally convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. These contraventions of the law are relevant to the Member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration and have caused children to be put at risk contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16) and 1(17).

The Committee accepts the evidence that the Member committed thirteen counts of indecent assault and one count of gross indecency. The sexual assault ranged from a single incident in the case of one child to hundreds of incidents in the case of another victim. The Committee finds that these actions constitute acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(16), 1(17) 1(18) and 1(19), section 13 of Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act, 1960, section 229(1)(c) of the Education Act, 1974, section 22(1)(c) of the Schools Administration Act,1960, Ch. 361 and amendments thereto, and similar provisions of the Schools Administration Act, 1970, Ch. 424.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

Counsel for the College submitted that revocation of the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration, and publication with name are appropriate penalties considering the gravity of the Member’s conduct. This is an egregious case of sexual abuse, where the Member demonstrated a complete disregard for children’s wellbeing through his repeated targeting of vulnerable children. The Member exploited his trusted, dual role as teacher and [XXX] and gave parents and members of the community a false sense of security.

According to College Counsel, revocation and publication with the Member’s name achieve all three goals of penalty: they ensure the protection of the public; they maintain the high standards of the profession; and they preserve the public’s confidence in the teaching profession.

Publication with name addresses specific and general deterrence, transparency and accountability. College Counsel submitted that the Member “cannot hide by resigning before these proceedings” and “the College will not shield members of the profession”. Counsel for the College emphasized the importance of transparency as it was through publicity of this case that six additional victims came forward.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the certificate of qualification and registration of the Member; and

2. There shall be publication of the findings and order of the Committee, in summary form, with the name of the Member in the official publication of the College Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

In a criminal court, the Member was found guilty of thirteen counts of indecent assault and one count of gross indecency for sexual crimes perpetrated against young boys between March 1965 and December 1978. He was subsequently sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

Revocation of the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration is appropriate in this case. The conduct of the Member towards young children was abhorrent and reprehensible. The victim impact statements, contained within the Justice Cole’s decision in McLeod, demonstrate the deep psychological and emotional damage that still afflicts the Member’s victims today. The disgraceful behaviour of the Member requires that he receive the maximum penalty that the Committee can order: revocation. The Member’s conduct has brought the profession into disrepute and has jeopardized the public’s trust in the teaching profession.

Publication with name serves to advise the profession and the public that sexual misconduct of this severity will result in the harshest penalty available and public denunciation. As a specific deterrent, publication with the Member’s name signals to the Member that there are serious consequences to jeopardizing the safety of children to inappropriately satisfy one’s sexual desires. Publication with name serves as a general deterrent as it informs the profession of the consequences for the type of conduct in which the Member engaged. Teachers must know that they are held to a high standard and that there are severe consequences for failing to adhere to this standard.

Finally, although the Member is currently resigned from the College, because his misconduct occurred while he was still a member of the College, the Committee has jurisdiction to make the findings and orders outlined above.

The Committee is satisfied that the finding and the penalty protect the public interest and uphold the standards of the teaching profession.

Dated: January 29, 2015

______________________________ Stefanie Achkewich, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel ______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Robert Gagné

Member, Discipline Panel