ATTENTION: Publication or broadcast of any information that might identify the victim or a witness in this matter is prohibited, pursuant to the order of the Honourable Justice J. Loignon of the Ontario Court of Justice dated September 4, 2013.
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the 1996 Ontario College of Teachers Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Léon Hébert Beaulieu, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair
Sara Nouini, OCT
Ravi Vethamany, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Alexandre Blanchard, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for Ontario College of Teachers
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS )
) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
LÉON HÉBERT BEAULIEU ) Léon Hébert Beaulieu was not present, nor was he (CERTIFICATE #: 161753) ) represented at this hearing
) Renée Kopp,
) Jones Litigation Counsel, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: July 27, 2016
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
The matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Disciplinary Committee (the “Committee”) on July 27, 2016 at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated April 23, 2015 was served on Léon Hébert Beaulieu (the “Member”), specifying the charges and requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on July 7, 2015 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for July 27, 2016.
The Member was not in attendance at this hearing, nor was he represented.
Counsel for the College submitted the Affidavit of Annie Lacroix (Exhibit 3), sworn July 20, 2016, indicating that the Member was informed of the allegations against him and was aware of the time and date of the hearing, as well as of the penalty that might be imposed on him. In this Affidavit, Ms. Lacroix, Law Clerk at McCarthy Tétrault LLP, provided details of the communications she had with the Member and submitted evidence of service of all required documents. Based on this Affidavit, the Committee is satisfied that the Member received the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents, and that he was aware of the date and time of the Hearing and of the penalty that might be imposed on him. The Committee delayed the start of the hearing by approximately 15 minutes to allow the Member time to appear. The Member did not appear. The Committee then proceeded with the hearing in his absence.
PUBLICATION BAN
In the matter of R. v. Léon Héber [sic] Beaulieu, the Honourable Justice J. Loignon of the Ontario Court of Justice issued a publication ban and non-broadcast order (Exhibit 4, Tab E). The committee is required to uphold this order and is prohibited from publishing or broadcasting any information that might tend to identify the victim or any witnesses involved in this matter, including the undercover police officer, pursuant to the order of the Honourable Justice Loignon dated September 4, 2013.
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 (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 failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E2, and specifically section 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(c) he contravened a law 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, such that the contravention has caused or may cause a student who is under the Member’s professional supervision 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); and
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19);
PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS;
The Member is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
The Member was employed by several school boards in Ontario as a teacher up to 2011.
In January 2013, the Member:
(a) accessed the Internet by means of a computer in order to lure another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years;
(b) transmitted sexually explicit material via the Internet to another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years; and
(c) was in unlawful possession of a firearm.
- The Member was found guilty:
(a) of a charge of having made use of the Internet to lure another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years, contrary to subsection 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code;
(b) of a charge of having made use of the Internet to transmit sexually explicit material to another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years, contrary to subsection 171.1(2) of the Criminal Code; and
(c) of a charge of having unlawfully possessed a firearm, contrary to subsection 91(3) of the Criminal Code.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was neither present nor represented by counsel, 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, therefore entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.
EVIDENCE
Counsel for the College entered into evidence the Registered Member Information of the Member (Exhibit 2), which indicates that the Member was a member of the College at the time the alleged events took place, as well as the brief of court documents – Her Majesty the Queen v. Léon Hébert Beaulieu (Exhibit 4), which consists of the following:
Indictment and appearances;
[XXX]
Prohibition order, dated January 8, 2014;
Probation order;
Transcript: R. v. Leon [sic] Heber[sic] Beaulieu, Guilty Plea before the Honourable Justice J. Loignon, dated September 4, 2013;
Transcript: R. v. Leon[sic] Heber[sic] Beaulieu, Decision before the Honourable Justice J. Loignon, dated January 8, 2014;
Exhibit 4 proves and confirms that the Member was found guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice of a charge that he made use of the Internet to lure another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years, contrary to subsection 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code; of a charge that he made use of the Internet to transmit sexually explicit material to another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years, contrary to subsection 171.1(2) of the Criminal Code; and of a charge of having unlawfully possessed a firearm, contrary to subsection 91(3) of the Criminal Code.
SUBMISSIONS AS TO FINDING
Counsel for the College described in detail the Member’s criminal activities and submitted that this matter was very serious. The Member made use of a computer to access the Internet in order to lure another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years; he transmitted sexually explicit material to another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years; and he was in unlawful possession of a firearm.
Counsel of the College also argued that the Member’s behaviour as described in the criminal charges (see Exhibit 4), and the resulting conviction, justified finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct with respect to all allegations outlined in the Notice of Hearing. The Member was represented in the criminal proceedings.
DECISION
Having considered the evidence and 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, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
By virtue of the law of evidence and Rule 13.03 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, among others, in this case the Committee accepts the Certified Copy of the Indictment as proof that the Member committed the criminal offences in question. The Member was found guilty and sentenced for three criminal offences by a Canadian court of law. No appeal was filed and the appeal period has expired.
In addition, in accordance with Rule 13.04 of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee accepts, on an ancillary basis and in addition to the Certified Copy of the Indictment, the establishment of facts contained in the related decision of the Ontario Court of Justice concerning the Member. In order to explain its reasons for finding the Member guilty, the Committee also accepts, on an ancillary basis, the transcript of the trial in which he was found guilty.
Based on the evidence contained in the court documents, the College proved, based on a balance of probabilities, that the Member: made use of the Internet in order to lure another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years, contrary to subsection 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code; transmitted sexually explicit material to another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years, contrary to subsection 171.1(2) of the Criminal Code; and was in unlawful possession of a firearm, contrary to subsection 91(3) of the Criminal Code.
Specifically, on January 30, 2013, an undercover police officer responded to an advertisement posted on “Craigslist” in which the Member was seeking a male aged 18 to 22 years with whom to engage in sexual relations. The advertisement also contained a photo of a sexually explicit nature. In responding to the advertisement, the undercover police officer indicated that he was 14 years old. The Member had no issue with the age indicated by the undercover police officer and attempted to arrange a meeting with him. The Member also sent the undercover police officer a photo of the Member’s genitals. Conversations between the Member and the undercover police officer continued to February 8, 2013, when the Member was arrested. When the police searched the Member’s residence, they found two firearms for which the Member did not have permits.
The Committee finds the Member’s aforementioned conduct to be reprehensible and that it constitutes professional misconduct in contravention of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18), and 1(19).
SUBMISSIONS AS TO PENALTY
Counsel for the College submitted that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration and publication of his name is the appropriate penalty for misconduct of this severity. According to counsel, this is a matter in which the Member was found guilty of making use of the Internet to lure another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years, contrary to subsection 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code; of making use of the Internet to transmit sexually explicit material to another person who was, or who the Member believed was, under the age of 16 years, contrary to subsection 171.1(2) of the Criminal Code; and of having unlawfully possessed a firearm, contrary to subsection 91(3) of the Criminal Code. Revocation of a member’s Certificate is an appropriate penalty in such severe cases.
Counsel for the College added that publication of the Member’s name is warranted. Publication acts as a specific deterrent to the Member and to members of the profession in general. Counsel affirmed that in denouncing the Member’s conduct by publishing his name, the Committee will demonstrate to the public that his acts constitute professional misconduct carrying serious consequences. In addition, publication is important because it informs members of the public and the profession that matters brought before the Committee are resolved in an open and transparent manner.
Counsel for the College drew the Committee’s attention to two cases in which a member had committed similar acts: Ontario College of Teachers v. Rouse, 2013 LNONECD 61 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Ditchfield, 2008 LNONECD 22. Counsel stated that these cases were similar to that of the Member and that in each case, publication of the member’s name was ordered.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member; and
The Committee directs that there 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 the conduct of the Member to be reprehensible. The Committee is of the opinion that no members of the profession should conduct themselves in such a manner. The member abused his position of trust and authority in a disgraceful fashion. The Committee observed that Justice Loignon of the Ontario Court of Justice imposed an extremely strict prohibition order on the Member that includes the following conditions:
a) Prohibition against being in a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, school ground, playground, or community centre.
b) Prohibition against seeking, obtaining, or engaging in work, whether paid or unpaid, or carrying out volunteer work, the functions of which suppose a relationship of trust or authority with persons under the age of 16 years.
c) Prohibition against having contact, that is, communicating by any means, with a person under the age of 16 years, unless the offender does so under the supervision of a person deemed appropriate by the court.
d) Prohibition against making use of the Internet or any other digital network, unless in accordance with the conditions imposed by the court.
It is important to note that children are frequent users of the Internet and are vulnerable members of society. They must be safeguarded against predators who use this tool to attract, exploit, and abuse them. This crime requires a denunciation and a deterrent. Consequently, the Committee orders the revocation of the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, who has forfeited the privilege of being a member of the teaching profession.
The Committee finds that publication of the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted. This publication advises the profession of the severity and consequences of the Member’s misconduct. The publication of the Member’s name acts as a specific deterrent to the Member as it holds the Member accountable for his actions. It also serves as a general deterrent by reminding 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 findings and penalty protect the public interest and maintain the standards of the teaching profession.
August 24, 2016
Robert Gagné
Chair, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Ravi Vethamany, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel