DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Tremis, 2016 ONOCT 51
Date: 2016-06-22
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 Charilaos Tremis, a retired member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair
Stefanie Achkewich, OCT
Monique Lapalme Arseneault
BETWEEN: )
) Christine Wadsworth,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Law Clerk
-and- )
) Robert Whillans,
CHARILAOS (CHARLES) TREMIS ) Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP
(CERTIFICATE # 218422) ) for Charilaos (Charles) Tremis
) Rebecca Durcan,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: June 22, 2016
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR PENALTY
On January 19, 2016, a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) rendered a decision finding Charilaos Tremis (the “Member”) guilty of professional misconduct.
The Committee found that the Member had committed a number of violations in relation to his running of his school’s auto shop, which was part of the Transportation Technology program. In particular, the Member: 1) violated school policy by allowing vehicles not belonging to the school to remain on school property; 2) used the school’s auto shop to repair personal or other vehicles; 3) removed a large metal lathe from the school without permission, which led to retrieval costs for the Board; 4) allowed a person to work as a volunteer in the auto shop without the permission of school administration or the Board; and 5) failed to comply with a number of health and safety provisions, as alleged at paragraphs 3(d), 3(f), 3(k), 3(l) and 3(p) of the Notice of Hearing. Based on this conduct, the Committee found that the Member contravened subsections 1(5), 1(10) and 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
The College did not prove that the Member committed the acts alleged at paragraphs 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(e), 3(g), 3(h), 3(i), 3(j), 3(m), 3(n) or 3(o) the Notice of Hearing, and the Committee therefore dismissed the allegations that the Member’s conduct contravened subsections 1(12), 1(13), 1(15), 1(19) and 1(26) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
The Committee reconvened on June 22, 2016 to hear submissions with respect to penalty. The Member was in attendance for his penalty hearing and he had legal representation.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 63), the parties 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 penalty hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”). The reprimand will be delivered in person at the offices of the College, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, ON.
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 or returning to a teaching position or any other position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration (collectively referred to as a “Teaching Position”) is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding safety in an auto shop/transportation technology, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision of the Discipline Committee; a copy of the Joint Submission on Penalty document made an exhibit at the penalty hearing of this matter, and a copy of the Decision and Orders 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.
- direct that there be publication of the finding and order of the Committee in summary form, with the Member’s name, 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, subject to the following amendment agreed to by the parties. Paragraph 2(a)(i) of the Joint Submission on Penalty has been amended to read as follows:
the Member will provide to the course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision of the Discipline Committee; a copy of the Joint Submission on Penalty document made an exhibit at the penalty hearing of this matter, and a copy of the Decision and Orders Penalty Decision and Reasons for Penalty of the Discipline Committee.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties, including the amendment set out above. 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 or not 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. Neumann, 2014 LNONCTD 23 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Scolaro, 2014 LNONCTD 127.
The Committee finds that the Member’s various breaches of school policy, his disregard for the authority of school administration, his lack of transparency in the running of the school’s auto shop, and his failure to comply with a number of health and safety provisions warrants a reprimand by his peers. The manner in which the Member ran the school’s auto shop as part of the Transportation Technology program jeopardized the safety of staff and students and was unacceptable. 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 the course of instruction regarding safety in an auto shop/transportation technology will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework component of the penalty aims to provide the Member with greater insight into his misconduct so that he can learn from his mistakes and remedy his teaching practice moving forward, should he ever choose to return to teaching.
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. It acts as a specific deterrent to the Member as it holds the Member accountable for his actions. Publication with name also serves as a general deterrent by reminding the profession that such behaviour is not tolerated. Moreover, publishing the Member’s name helps to ensure 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. Publication of the Member’s name therefore helps to inspire public confidence in the College and its processes.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: June 22, 2016
Robert Gagné
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Stefanie Achkewich, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Monique Lapalme Arseneault
Member, Discipline Panel