DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Bruno Severino Pecile, a retired member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Irene Cheung, OCT, Chair
Jane Ishibashi,
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Vladimira Ivanov,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
BRUNO SEVERINO PECILE ) Robyn White,
(CERTIFICATE #487643) ) Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre
) Cornish LLP,
) for Bruno Severino Pecile,
) Erica Richler,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: June 21, 2016
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 21, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated June 19, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Bruno Severino Pecile (the “Member”), requesting his presence on July 7, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for June 21, 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 Bruno Severino Pecile 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 or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students 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) 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
College Counsel 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:
Bruno Severino Pecile is a retired 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 with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (the “Board”) as an [XXX] teacher.
On or about October 5, 2011, while teaching at [XXX] School, the Member participated in a [XXX] game with students in Grade [XXX]. During the [XXX] game, the Member engaged in inappropriate physical contact with a female student who was in the position of [XXX] (“Student 1”). It is alleged that, during the game, the Member backed up and touched Student 1 with his buttocks so that his buttocks rubbed her leg.
If called to give evidence at a contested hearing, the Member’s evidence would be that he does not have any specific recollection of making physical contact with Student 1 on the day in question and that, if physical contact did occur, it was not intended to be sexual.
On or about May 10, 2012, while teaching at [XXX] School, the Member played an inappropriate YouTube video for a female student in a Grade [XXX] class (“Student 2”). The video was a parody of the film “Powers of Ten.” It included inappropriate content which was highly sexual, pornographic, racist and violent.
The Member’s intention was to have Student 2 watch the educational film “Powers of Ten.” While watching the video, Student 2 used headphones. The Member did not preview the actual video he played for Student 2 and was not aware that the video he had chosen was in fact a parody that included inappropriate language. Only after Student 2 reported the incident to her parents did the Member become aware of his mistake. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the June 27, 2012 disciplinary letter from the Board to the Member concerning this incident.
On or about October 24, 2013, while teaching a Grade [XXX] {XXX] and [XXX] class at [XXX] School, the Member played a music video by Miley Cyrus for the song “Wrecking Ball” on a computer in the classroom as the students were entering the class. The music video contains nudity and sexual imagery.
During the class, the Member discussed the Miley Cyrus video and made comments that made a number of female students feel uncomfortable. Students in the class understood the Member’s comments as words to the effect that Miley Cyrus was “sold as a virgin” and is now something sexual.
The incident involving the Miley Cyrus video was reported to the principal by female students. The students also reported that the Member looked at female students in a way that made them feel uncomfortable. The principal observed that two students who attended in her office were visibly upset and appeared to have been crying. They reported that they were scared to participate in the Member’s [XXX] class. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” are copies of statements written by students who were in the Member’s class on October 24, 2013, describing what they observed.
If called to give evidence at a contested hearing, the Member’s evidence would be that:
(a) he attempted to explain to the students that they were to write an essay outline and later an essay, but they had difficulty understanding what they were supposed to do;
(b) he used the topic of Music as an example of an essay topic, and Miley Cyrus and the development in her career as a subtopic;
(c) in providing an example of an essay conclusion, he stated words to the effect that “the jury is still out on whether Miley Cyrus can make the jump from teen pop star to adult pop star, from virgin to adult, in other words.” He did not intend to make any student uncomfortable. He subsequently realized that his comments were inappropriate and that the students had misinterpreted them. His comments, and the reference to Miley Cyrus more generally, were not intended in a sexual manner whatsoever.
- Following the October 24, 2013 incident, the Member was assigned to home by the Board pending an investigation. In mid-December 2013, the Member went on a medical leave. In late April 2014, the Member resigned from the Board.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
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 the parties 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.
- 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
College Counsel requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b) and (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7) and 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request. College Counsel also advised that the College was not seeking a finding with respect to the allegation that the Member breached subsection 40(1.1) of the Act.
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(7.2), 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 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. The Member 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) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 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 8 and 9 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 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 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 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 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 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 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), College Counsel 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:
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 West, Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (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;
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) prior to commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations and 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 documents made exhibits 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 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:
(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.
- 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
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the case law presented, the Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty 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. Sabol, 2015 LNONCTD 36; Ontario College of Teachers v. Badgley, 2014 LNONCTD 31; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Green-Johnson (19 January 2016).
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct, which demonstrated his failure to maintain appropriate boundaries with students, warrants 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 nature of the Member’s misconduct and the circumstances of this case. The duration of the suspension is within a reasonable range, as established by similar cases before the College’s Discipline Committee. The suspension will serve as an important deterrent to members of the teaching profession.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations and professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, should he ever choose to return to a Teaching Position. 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. It will provide the Member with greater insight into his misconduct so that he can learn from his mistakes and remedy his teaching practice, if he ever returns to the teaching profession.
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 him 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.
Date: August 8, 2016
Irene Cheung, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Jane Ishibashi
Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel