Ontario College of Teachers v Kras, 2016 ONOCT 30

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Kras, 2016 ONOCT 30

Date: 2016-07-12

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

Matthew Paul Kras, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair

Wes Vickers, OCT

Marie-Claude Yaacov

BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo

) Law Clerk

– and – )

MATTHEW PAUL KRAS ) Jerry Raso,

(CERTIFICATE #459441) ) Ontario English Catholic Teachers’

) Association ) for Matthew Paul Kras

) Erica Richler,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: July 6, 2016

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on July 6, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated September 26, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Matthew Paul Kras (the “Member”), requesting his presence on October 30, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for July 6, 2016.

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 Matthew Paul Kras is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1) 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 abused a student verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

(d) he abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) and/or 265(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) 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

(g) he 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. Matthew Paul Kras was at all material times, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Waterloo Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Waterloo, Ontario.

3. At all material times, the Member was assigned as a [XXX] and as head of the Co-op and Business Program at the School.

4. At all material times, the Student was a [XXX]-year-old female student in the Member’s co-op class. The Student was considered a [XXX] student and the Member was aware of her history.

5. Co-op placements for the Member’s students began in March 2014. Students attended classes in the mornings, and attended their co-op placements in the afternoons. The Member exchanged contact information with his students to address potential issues with respect to their co-op placements.

6. The Member tried to motivate the Student to attend her co-op placement. He drove the Student alone to her co-op placement on occasion without the Student’s father’s knowledge or permission, and without the knowledge of the School administration.

7. At some point in March 2014, the Member and the Student began to engage in inappropriate texting and personal conversations in the evening hours. They shared personal information with each other.

8. In or around early April, the Student told the Member, “I think I want to hook up with you.” The Member did not respond directly to the Student’s comment. The Member did not report the Student’s comment to the School Administration.

9. On or about April 9, 2014, at approximately 10:30 p.m., the Student and her friend were talking on the telephone, when the Student noticed that the Member was calling her. The Student accepted the Member’s call and initiated a three-way call with herself, the Member, and her friend. The Student did not tell the Member that her friend was listening in on their conversation.

10. The Member and the Student spoke while the Student’s friend remained silent on the other end of the call. During the course of the conversation, the Member referred to the Student’s comment about “hooking up” and said to the Student words to the effect of, “I think you are a likable person, but I won’t be able to hook up with you.”

11. The following morning, on or about April 10, 2014, the Member asked the Student to step outside the classroom. Their conversation started in the hallway and then they moved to a stairwell of the School for privacy. During this conversation, the Member referred to their conversation the previous evening about “hooking up” and said to the Student words to the effect of, “We all have wants, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.” The Member’s remarks made the Student feel awkward.

12. At approximately 9:30 p.m. that evening, the Student contacted the Member via Blackberry Message (“BBM”) Chat. During their BBM conversation, the Member engaged in inappropriate personal electronic communications with the Student. When the Student referred to the fact that the Member had said he wanted to “hook up” with her, the Member replied:

(a) “So sorry things got weird lets just put that behind us… if that’s possible”;

(b) “needs and wants are separate things”;

(c) “and I was trying to say that we all have wants.”

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the transcribed BBM chat between the Member and the Student.

13. The Member was given a three day unpaid suspension by the Board from June 16 to 18, 2014 inclusive. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board Employee Work Incident Report dated June 13, 2014.

GUILTY PLEA

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

15. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

16. By this document the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that depending on the penalty ordered by the Discipline Committee, the decision of the Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, may be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

17. 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 (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.

Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, 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), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 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, 10, 11 and 12 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).

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

Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 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) and/or 265(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, and 12 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 disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).

Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 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 suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of one month 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. 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 three months after the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues, subject to the following conditions:

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

(ii) following 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 his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner which:

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

4. direct that there 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.

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.

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 penalty proposed by the parties is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Campbell, 2014 LNONCTD 81 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Kelley, 2015 LNONCTD 71.

The Committee finds that the Member’s boundary violation issues warrant a reprimand by his peers. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. 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 a one month suspension is appropriate given the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct and the circumstances of this case. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and as a general deterrent to other members of the teaching profession by reminding them of the importance of respecting and observing appropriate boundaries with students in all forms of communication.

The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students, especially with [XXX] students. It will also remind the Member to be vigilant in maintaining professional boundaries with his students.

The Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted. 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. Publication with 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 penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest, while promoting the remediation and rehabilitation of the Member.

Date: July 12, 2016

Tom Potter

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Wes Vickers, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Marie-Claude Yaacov

Member, Discipline Panel