Ontario College of Teachers v Fair, 2016 ONOCT 21

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Fair, 2016 ONOCT 21

Date: 2016-04-21

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

Dorothe Joan Fair, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair Irene Cheung, OCT Jane Ishibashi

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Ava Arbuck, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Daniela De Bartolo, Law Clerk

– and –

DOROTHE JOAN FAIR (CERTIFICATE #142222) Dorothe Joan Fair, Self-represented

Rebecca Durcan, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: February 22, 2016

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on February 22, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated April 22, 2013 (Exhibit 1) was served on Dorothe Joan Fair (the “Member”), requesting her presence on May 16, 2013 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for February 22, 2016.

The Member was not in attendance for the hearing and she did not have legal representation.

Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo (Exhibit 2) sworn on February 19, 2016, to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against her, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty being sought. In this affidavit, Ms. De Bartolo, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, outlines her communications with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents. 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. As a result of the above, and the fact that the hearing actually commenced well after the official start time, the Committee heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

This matter was contested in part, but some of the allegations against the Member were admitted through an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 3). The Committee heard viva voce evidence with respect to the contested portions of this hearing.

OVERVIEW

These proceedings arose as a result of two main incidents involving the Member in 2010 and 2011. The Member was a vice-principal at all material times. First, the Member is alleged to have sent an inappropriate email to staff members using the Board’s email accounts, which contained jokes of a sexual nature (the “Inappropriate Email Incident”). In Exhibit 3, the Member admitted to having sent this email. Second, the Member is alleged to have inappropriately touched a colleague on his buttock during an awards assembly in a crowded auditorium (the “Inappropriate Touching Incident”). The Member denied this allegation.

The Committee’s task is to determine whether the facts giving rise to the allegations, set out below, have been proven on a balance of probabilities, and if so, whether they give rise to a finding of professional misconduct. For the reasons that follow, the Committee has determined that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct.

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) 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 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

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

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Dorothe Joan Fair is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was a vice-principal at [XXX] (the “School”) in the Upper Grand District School Board (the “Board”).

3. During the 2009-2010 school year, the Member asked Colleague 1, who was promoting a [XXX] event at the School, if he would be wearing a [XXX] and stated that she would like to see that.

4. On or about May 26, 2011, the Member grabbed hold of Colleague 2’s right buttock.

5. In March 2011, the Member swatted Colleague 3 on the buttocks.

6. On or about May 6, 2010, the Member sent an email to staff members, which contained jokes of a sexual nature.

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

College Counsel submitted that, through Exhibit 3, the Member has admitted the particularized allegations contained at paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 of the Notice of Hearing (reproduced above) and has agreed that the conduct outlined therein amounts to professional misconduct, in that she breached subsections 1(5), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The particularized allegations contained at paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Notice of Hearing, however, remain contested and were not admitted by the Member.

College Counsel indicated that she will tender additional evidence in order to prove the allegation particularized at paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing, but that she would not be calling any evidence in support of the allegations particularized at paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Notice of Hearing.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 3) provides the following:

1. Dorothe Joan Fair is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Member’s Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Upper Grand District School Board as a vice-principal at [XXX] in Guelph, Ontario.

3. In May 2010, the Member forwarded a joke she had received to some members of her staff using the Board’s email accounts. Some staff members felt uncomfortable when they read the joke, and felt the joke was inappropriate, but they were afraid to say anything to the Member about it. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the email forwarded by the Member.

4. The Member was sent home with pay on May 30, 2011, pending the Board’s investigation into her inappropriate conduct. On August 8, 2011, the Member was advised that she would be suspended without pay for ten days, and would be transferred to another school. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated August 23, 2011.

5. On March 31, 2012, the Member retired from the Board.

GUILTY PLEA

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

7. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(18) [unprofessional], and 1(19).

8. 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 otherwise 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 and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and without the advice of legal counsel.

9. 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.

MEMBER’S PLEA

The Committee recognizes that the Member has pleaded guilty to having breached subsections 1(5), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, given her admission contained in Exhibit 3. As the Member was not present and did not have legal representation, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegation that her conduct in relation to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 was also disgraceful and dishonourable. The Committee notes that the College must prove this allegation and that paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the Notice of Hearing have not been admitted. Accordingly, the Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the portions of the allegations that had not been admitted by the Member.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

College Counsel called the following three witnesses to address the particularized allegation contained at paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing: [XXX]; Ms. Melissa McDowall; and, Mr. Reginald Robert G. Goldston. All three witnesses gave evidence about their observations in relation to the May 26, 2011 incident in which the Member grabbed [XXX] buttock, as alleged at paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing.

[XXX] is referred to in paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing as “Colleague 2”, and he is the victim of the Inappropriate Touching Incident. His career in education began in 1994 and he started working at the School during the 1999-2000 academic year. He taught at the School at the time of the events in question and continued to teach there at the time of this hearing. The Member was his vice-principal at all material times. [XXX] described the Inappropriate Touching Incident and the events related to it. He testified with clarity and he was able to recall the events in question in considerable detail.

Ms. McDowall’s career in education began in 2001, when she began working at the School. She was a teacher at the School at all materials times, and she continued to teach at the School until 2015 when she changed her employment and started working at the Board as a curriculum leader in the area of Student Success. Ms. McDowall testified about the Inappropriate Touching Incident, which she had witnessed. Her evidence was consistent with that of [XXX] and corroborated key portions of his version of events.

The Committee finds the evidence of [XXX] and Ms. McDowall to be credible because they were able to observe and recall the events in question, and because the key portions of their evidence in relation to the Inappropriate Touching Incident were externally consistent. In particular, [XXX] evidence that the Member grabbed his buttock and directly told him to go take pictures was consistent with the evidence of Ms. McDowall, who was an eyewitness to the incident.

Mr. Goldston’s career in education began in 1980 and he taught at the School for more than 30 years. Over the course of his teaching career, he had crossed paths professionally with the Member on several occasions and he testified that he had a good working relationship with her. At the time of the Inappropriate Touching Incident, Mr. Goldston was retired, but he had returned to the School for an awards ceremony and was able to observe portions of the incident. His evidence was somewhat consistent with that of the other two witnesses, with respect to the portions of the incident that he was able to observe.

The Committee finds that Mr. Goldston’s evidence is credible because he limited his testimony to the portions of the Inappropriate Touching Incident that he was able to observe. Mr. Goldston’s evidence was not overstated. For instance, he testified that he heard the Member tell [XXX] to get busy and to take pictures, but he did not give evidence about the Member grabbing [XXX] buttock, because he could not see this alleged conduct from his vantage point. As a retired teacher who was merely a bystander during the events in question, Mr. Goldston had no interest in the outcome of the hearing that might cloud his recollection.

In the reasons that follow, the Committee will highlight the key portions of the witnesses’ evidence in greater detail.

SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

College Counsel submitted that the evidence presented in the Agreed Statement of Fact and Guilty Plea and the evidence entered through the three College witnesses is sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the particularized allegations contained at paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Notice of Hearing. According to College Counsel, the evidence establishes that the Member caused some members of her staff to feel uncomfortable by sending them an inappropriate email using the Board’s email accounts, and she grabbed [XXX] buttock during the Inappropriate Touching Incident. Accordingly, College Counsel submitted that the Committee ought to find the Member guilty of professional misconduct, in that her conduct contravened subsections 1(5), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

College Counsel noted that the Member only pleaded guilty to having breached subsections 1(5), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, but that the College is seeking a finding of guilt against the Member for having breached subsections 1(5), 1(18) [disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional] and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

DECISION

Onus and Standard of Proof

The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, which is proof on a balance of probabilities. The allegations must be supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence in order for the Committee to make a finding of professional misconduct.

Decision

Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, the witness testimony and the submissions of College Counsel, 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(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to some of 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(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19). Based on the additional evidence presented by the College, the Committee further finds that the Member’s conduct breached subsection 1(18) [disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional] of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

The Inappropriate Email Incident

The Member admitted that, in May 2010, she forwarded a joke to some members of her staff using the Board’s email accounts. Some staff members felt uncomfortable when they read the joke, and felt that the joke was inappropriate, but they were afraid to say anything to the Member about it (see Exhibit 3). The Member acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Inappropriate Email Incident gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct.

The Committee finds that this incident demonstrated poor judgment on the part of the Member. The joke was emailed to three of the Member’s male colleagues and it contained sexual innuendo (see Exhibit 3 at Tab B). As a vice-principal, the Member is expected to be a leader and to support her staff in such a way that they feel comfortable approaching her with concerns. The Member’s conduct, however, had the opposite effect. By sending the inappropriate email to members of her staff, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, she acted unprofessionally, and she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession.

The Member also misled the Board during its investigation, which further demonstrates her poor professional judgment. Among other things, the Member had initially denied any knowledge of an email containing sexual innuendo, during the Board investigation, but the Board subsequently brought to her attention that it had a copy of the inappropriate email that she had forwarded to her colleagues (see Exhibit 3 at Tab C).

The Inappropriate Touching Incident

The Committee finds that there is sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing evidence to prove the Inappropriate Touching Incident on a balance of probabilities, and that the Member’s conduct in relation to this incident gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct.

The College’s three witnesses, who were able to observe the incident to varying degrees, testified with respect to the Member’s conduct on May 26, 2011. [XXX], who was the victim of the Member’s inappropriate touch, explained the series of events leading up to the incident, the incident itself, and the action that he took following the incident. Ms. McDowall was an eyewitness to the incident and she corroborated [XXX] testimony with respect to what the Member said and did to [XXX] during the incident. Mr. Goldston was unable to see the inappropriate touch itself because of where he was standing during the incident, but his testimony corroborated the evidence of [XXX] and Ms. McDowall that the Member admonished [XXX] during the Inappropriate Touching Incident.

The Committee accepts [XXX] version of events with respect to the Inappropriate Touching Incident, which is as follows.

On May 26, 2011, [XXX] arrived at school at approximately 8:45 a.m. to prepare for an annual awards assembly that was occurring that morning. He had a number of responsibilities at the assembly, which included taking pictures and delivering speeches. At approximately 9:00 a.m. or shortly before that time, [XXX] received an “on-call” notice from the Member informing him that he needed to cover for another teacher during first period. As he needed to be at the awards assembly, [XXX] told the Member that a mistake had been made and that he would not be able to cover another class. [XXX] testified that this upset the Member, who insisted that he find someone else to cover the class. [XXX] responded that this was not his responsibility and he suggested that the unsupervised class be brought to the assembly so that the other teachers at the assembly could supervise the students.

Following this encounter with the Member, [XXX] left her office and went into the reception area of the main office. The Member then entered the reception area and loudly told [XXX] to go do his job in front of the office staff. [XXX] perceived the Member’s intervention to be a public chastisement stemming from their previous encounter. The Committee finds that the Member acted inappropriately and should not have chastised a staff member in public.

[XXX] then proceeded to the auditorium shortly after 9:00 a.m., where the awards assembly was held. The auditorium was full of staff and approximately 400 students. The lights were dimmed but the stage lights were on, so it was not completely dark in the auditorium. [XXX] went to speak to Mr. Goldston, who was located towards the front, left-side of the auditorium, near the stage (see Exhibit 7), because he needed to organize some of the morning’s proceedings with the retired teacher who was being honoured at the assembly. There was a row of students sitting to [XXX] immediate right and he was also very close to the stage and to the orchestra.

During his brief conversation with Mr. Goldston which lasted no more than a couple of minutes, [XXX] was suddenly hit on the right buttock and he felt a distinct grab at the end of the unwanted contact. [XXX] testified that he felt embarrassed and angry, and that he was concerned that the nearby students would have seen this inappropriate incident. He immediately turned to see who had hit him, and he saw the Member standing within a couple of feet from him, with nobody standing in between them. They made eye contact and the Member told him, in a fairly loud and disdainful voice, to take some pictures. [XXX] testified that the Member had a furrowed brow and a sarcastic tone of voice which led him to believe that she was angry. The Member then walked away and made her way onto the stage for the awards assembly.

[XXX] testified that Ms. McDowall approached him right after the Member inappropriately touched him and indicated that she had seen what had happened. [XXX] recalls Ms. McDowall saying “Wow. You just got grabbed. That is sexual harassment.”

Following the incident, [XXX] spoke to a colleague about what he should do, and he then recorded his account of the incident in writing. The day after the incident, on May 27, 2011 at approximately 9:00 a.m., [XXX] told his union representative about the incident. [XXX]never saw the Member again at the School after the incident.

Ms. McDowall’s testimony corroborated key portions of [XXX] evidence. She testified that she was a couple of meters away from [XXX] when the incident occurred (see Exhibit 9). Ms. McDowall explained that she saw the Member approach [XXX] and that the Member reached out and placed her hand on [XXX] buttock. Ms. McDowall also heard the Member tell [XXX], in a very direct voice, to go take pictures. Ms. McDowall saw [XXX] reaction of shock and annoyance. Right after the incident, Ms. McDowall spoke to [XXX] and confirmed that she had witnessed the incident. Ms. McDowall said to [XXX], “Aren’t you a naughty boy?” [XXX] said, “That woman.”

Although Ms. McDowall’s recollection of what words were exchanged between her and [XXX] differed from [XXX] evidence to some extent, the Committee finds that the differences between their testimonies in this regard was not significant and that it was understandable due to the passage of time. The key factor for the Committee was that that the two of them had acknowledged that the Member had done something inappropriate.

Mr. Goldston’s testimony was also somewhat consistent with [XXX] evidence, to the extent that he was able to see the incident from his vantage point. According to Mr. Goldston, the Member walked by him and [XXX] during their conversation, and she made a comment to [XXX] that Mr. Goldston perceived as an admonishment. He could not recall precisely what was said, but he testified that the Member had told [XXX] to get busy and to take pictures. Because Mr. Goldston was facing [XXX], he was unable to see [XXX] behind and he gave no evidence with respect to the inappropriate touch itself. Mr. Goldston does not recall the Member stopping while she said this to [XXX]. Mr. Goldston did not make any mention of [XXX] moving forward towards him. Mr. Goldston confirmed that Ms. McDowall and [XXX] had a brief exchange following the incident and that they seemed to acknowledge that something strange had just occurred, but Mr. Goldston did not engage in this conversation.

The Committee accepts the evidence described above and accordingly finds that the Member made inappropriate contact with [XXX] right buttock, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing. The Committee further finds that the Member inappropriately and publicly chastised [XXX] on at least two occasions: in the reception area of the office and in the crowded auditorium.

The Committee therefore concludes that the Member’s conduct contravened subsections 1(5), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, her conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, and her conduct was unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. The Member assaulted [XXX] by intentionally applying force to him without his consent; she embarrassed him in front of students, staff, and guests of the School; she failed in her responsibilities as a leader at the School and set a poor example for staff and students; and, she abused her position of trust and authority as a vice-principal at the School. These are not the actions expected of a member of this College.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

College Counsel submitted that the Committee ought to order the following penalty:

1. a reprimand;

2. a suspension of one to three months in duration;

3. terms, conditions or limitations which generally include the condition that the Member successfully complete a course regarding professional interactions and boundary violation issues with colleagues, prior to returning to teaching or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required; and

4. publication of the finding 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.

College Counsel submitted that the reprimand should be delivered in person, within 90 days of the Committee’s order, so that the Committee can directly convey to the Member that her conduct was unacceptable.

According to College Counsel, a suspension in the range of one to three months is appropriate in this case because it would reinforce the seriousness of the Member’s misconduct and it would demonstrate that conduct of a similar nature will not be tolerated. College Counsel presented the Committee with two cases to assist with its determination of the appropriate length of suspension to impose in this matter: Ontario College of Teachers v. Buckley, 2014 LNONCTD 33 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Ciraco, 2015 LNONCTD 47.

College Counsel further submitted that the coursework component of the proposed penalty would help to rehabilitate the Member should she decide to return to the teaching profession. It would also help to ensure the protection of the public, and it would deter other members from engaging in similar conduct.

Finally, College Counsel submitted that publication with the Member’s name is appropriate in this case given the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct. According to College Counsel, publication with name helps to achieve the penalty objectives of specific and general deterrence, and it helps to ensure the transparency and accountability of the discipline process.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. Within 90 days of the date of the order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, the Member is directed to appear before the Committee on a date to be arranged by the Member through the Hearings Office, 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. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three months, commencing on the date of the order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;

3. The Registrar is directed 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) prior to any return to teaching or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional interactions and boundary violation issues with colleagues, 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 made an exhibit at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course provider 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 provider 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.

4. There shall be publication of the finding 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 carefully considered the submissions of College Counsel with respect to penalty and reviewed the relevant jurisprudence provided. The Committee believes that the penalty outlined above satisfies the objectives of deterrence, transparency, rehabilitation, and protection of the public interest, and that it is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member.

The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct and poor judgment warrant a reprimand by her peers. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and it will serve as a deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will inform the profession and the public that the Member has received discipline for her professional misconduct.

The Committee finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances of the Member’s case. It demonstrates the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct and it informs the profession of the consequences for engaging in similar misconduct, which in turn protects the public interest. The Committee did not rely heavily on the cases presented by College Counsel, because these cases were largely distinguishable on the basis of their facts. In determining the appropriate duration of the Member’s suspension, the Committee carefully considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case.

The Committee finds that the aggravating factors significantly outweigh the mitigating factors in this matter. While the Committee recognizes that the Member admitted certain facts and pleaded guilty to some of the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing, which helped to conserve judicial resources, the aggravating factors in this matter were numerous and important.

First, the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct on more than one occasion, as demonstrated by the Inappropriate Email Incident and the Inappropriate Touching Incident.

Second, her misconduct was very serious: among other things, she assaulted one of her staff members in a crowded auditorium.

Third, the Member publicly embarrassed a colleague on more than one occasion and she did so in the presence of staff and students.

Fourth, the power imbalance in this case was a significant aggravating factor. The Member was a vice-principal who was expected to be a school leader and a role model, but she abused her position of trust and authority. The Board found her conduct to be so serious that it imposed a 10-day suspension and transferred her to a different school.

Fifth, the Member misled the Board during its investigation into her conduct (see Exhibit 3 at Tab C). Accordingly, the Committee finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances.

The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding professional interactions and boundary violation issues with colleagues will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and vice-principal and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with colleagues.

Finally, the Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted in this case. Publication with the Member’s name identifies to the profession the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct and the consequences of such behaviour. It holds the Member accountable for her 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 penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.

Date: April 21, 2016

Vicki Shannon, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

Irene Cheung, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Jane Ishibashi Member, Discipline Panel