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
Robert Michael Highill Woron, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Irene Dembek, OCT
BETWEEN: ) ) Shane D’Souza,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Law Clerk
- and – )
) Norman Sims, Q.C.
ROBERT MICHAEL HIGHILL WORON ) Sims & Company Barrister Solicitors
(CERTIFICATE #395359) ) Notaries,
) for Robert Michael Highill Woron
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: June 14, 2016
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 14, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated October 1, 2014 was served on Robert Michael Highill Woron (the “Member”), requesting his attendance before the Committee on October 24, 2014 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for June 14, 2016.
The Member had legal representation, but neither the Member nor his lawyer attended the hearing.
College Counsel submitted an Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo (Exhibit 2) sworn on June 13, 2016 to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, 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. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.
PUBLICATION BAN
A non-publication order (Exhibit 4 at Tab E) was issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada in the Member’s proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice. The Committee is therefore required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, there shall be no publication of any information that might tend to identify the victim or witnesses involved in this matter.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Robert Michael Highill Woron is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(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 as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(e) he contravened a law, the contravention of 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);
(f) he contravened a law, the contravention of which may cause a student to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);
(g) 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
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS
Robert Michael Highill Woron is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the [XXX] as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Manitoba.
At all material times, Student 1, Student 2, and Student 3 were former female students of the Member and/or persons under the age of sixteen.
At all material times, Student 4 and Student 5 were female students at the School and/or young persons.
From and including July 10, 2009 to August 31, 2009, the Member:
(a) engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1, Student 2, and/or Student 3;
(b) engaged in sexual touching of Student 1, Student 2, and/or Student 3.
- From and including September 1, 2009 to September 30, 2009, the Member:
(a) engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 4;
(b) engaged in sexual conduct with Student 4.
- From and including October 7, 2009 to October 24, 2009, the Member:
(a) engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 5;
(b) engaged in sexual conduct with Student 5.
On or about September 25, 2013, the Member was found guilty and convicted of the following charge that he did unlawfully for a sexual purpose touch Student 4, a person under the age of sixteen years directly, with a part of his body, to wit: his hand contrary to subsection 151(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada).
On or about October 23, 2013, the Member was sentenced to six months’ incarceration and three years’ probation.
The Member has appealed the conviction and sentence.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was not present and did not have legal representation present, 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, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.
THE EVIDENCE
College Counsel entered into evidence the Registered Member Information for Robert Michael Highill Woron (Exhibit 3), which indicates that the Member was a member of the College at the time of the alleged events. The College also entered into evidence a Brief of Court Documents - Her Majesty the Queen v. Robert Michael Highill Woron (Exhibit 4), which contains the following documents:
Certified Copy of Information;
Certified Copy of Disposition;
Certified Copy of Probation Order;
Certified Copy of Order of Prohibition;
Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment before the Honourable Judge Hewitt-Michta at Rossburn, Manitoba dated May 22, 2013;
Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence before the Honourable Judge Hewitt-Michta at Rossburn, Manitoba dated October 23, 2013; and
Copy of Judgment before the Honourable J. Cummings of the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Manitoba dated April 11, 2016.
The evidence presented in Exhibit 4 confirms that on May 22, 2013, in the Provincial Court of Manitoba, the Member was found guilty of sexual interference, contrary to subsection 151(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Committee notes the discrepancy between the date of the Member’s guilty finding and conviction referred to at paragraph 8 of the Notice of Hearing (September 25, 2013) and the date of the Member’s guilty finding and conviction set out in Exhibit 4 (May 22, 2013). The evidence establishes that the Member was found guilty and convicted of sexual interference, contrary to subsection 151(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada on May 22, 2013 (Exhibit 4 at Tab E). His sentencing hearing was adjourned until September 25, 2013 (Exhibit 4 at Tab E), and the decision and reasons for sentence were delivered on October 23, 2013 (Exhibit 4 at Tab F).
SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING
Submissions of College Counsel
College Counsel described the Member’s criminal history in detail and submitted that the Member’s case was straightforward, as detailed in the record of the criminal proceedings, the resultant criminal conviction, and the dismissal of the Member’s appeal (Exhibit 4). In particular, Counsel for the College highlighted the fact that the Member was criminally convicted and sentenced to six months’ incarceration and three years’ probation, and that the Member received an order of prohibition pursuant to section 161 of the Criminal Code of Canada. College Counsel also indicated that the Member was assessed at “medium risk to re-offend generally” (Exhibit 4 at Tab F).
According to College Counsel, the Member’s conduct and his resulting criminal conviction provided a sufficient basis to justify a finding of professional misconduct under all of the heads of misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing. College Counsel noted that the Member had legal representation during his criminal proceedings and throughout the appeal process. College Counsel further submitted that the Member was found guilty and convicted during his criminal proceedings, where the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that applies is a much higher standard than the standard of proof “on a balance of probabilities” that applies in College discipline hearings.
DECISION
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by 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(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19) and that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.
REASONS FOR DECISION
In accordance with the law of evidence and Rule 13.03 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Committee’s Rules”), inter alia, the Committee accepts the Brief of Court Documents as proof, in this case, that the Member committed the criminal offence outlined therein. The Member was found guilty and convicted of a criminal offence before a Canadian Court. An appeal was undertaken and was dismissed.
In addition, pursuant to Rule 13.04 of the Committee’s Rules, the Committee admits as ancillary to the certified copy of the Court Information, the findings of fact contained in the Reasons for Judgement involving the Member. The Committee further admits as incidental to the certified copy of the Court Information, transcripts of the Reasons for Judgment and Reasons for Sentence at which the conviction occurred (Exhibit 4 at Tabs E and F), for the purposes of explaining the finding of guilt, and a copy of the appeal judgment delivered by Justice Cummings of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba on April 11, 2016 (Exhibit 4 at Tab G).
Based on the evidence contained within the Brief of Court Documents, the College has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member touched for a sexual purpose Student 4, who was under the age of sixteen years, directly with his hand, contrary to subsection 151(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. This criminal conduct occurred while the Member was a teacher at the School, during the period from September 1, 2009 to September 30, 2009. On May 22, 2013, the Member was found guilty and convicted for his criminal conduct. On October 23, 2013, the Member was sentenced to six months’ incarceration, followed by three years’ probation, among other orders (Exhibit 4 at Tab D). The Member appealed his conviction and sentence; however, the Member’s appeal was dismissed on April 11, 2016.
The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct was egregious and was a clear violation of his professional obligations. The Member has abused his position of trust and authority in the gravest manner. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the Member’s conduct in relation to Student 4 constitutes an act of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19), and that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Submissions of College Counsel
Counsel for the College submitted that revocation of the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration, and publication with name are appropriate penalties considering the gravity of the Member’s conduct. College Counsel highlighted a number of aggravating factors in this matter, including the following: the Member’s conduct was grossly inappropriate; he took advantage of a young student in a vulnerable community; he breached his position of trust and authority; and, he has not accepted responsibility for his conduct. According to College Counsel, revocation is appropriate in serious matters such as this.
College Counsel further submitted that publication with the name of the Member is warranted in this case. Publication with the name of the Member serves as a specific deterrent to the Member and as a general deterrent to the profession. College Counsel added that the Committee’s denunciation of the Member’s conduct through the publication of his name demonstrates to the public that acts of professional misconduct attract serious consequences.
College Counsel referred the Committee to two cases involving sexual touching or sexual interference of students by members: Ontario College of Teachers v. McDermott, 2014 LNONCTD 56; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Kilby, 2014 LNONCTD, 96. College Counsel submitted that these cases were similar to the Member’s case, and that publication with name was ordered in both instances.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the certificate of qualification and registration of the Member, which certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar; and
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
The Committee finds that revocation of the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration is appropriate in this case. The Member’s conduct was at the highest end of the spectrum of professional misconduct: he sexually abused a vulnerable, young student. The Member’s inability to take responsibility for his actions or to demonstrate remorse has resulted in an assessment of “medium risk to re-offend generally” (Exhibit 4 at Tab F), which would put other students at risk, if the Member were permitted to return to teaching. In addition to the harm that he has done to Student 4, the Member’s conduct has jeopardized the public’s trust in the teaching profession. Accordingly, the Member has forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate in Ontario.
The Committee further 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 finding and the penalty protect the public interest and uphold the standards of the teaching profession.
Dated: July 6, 2016
______________________________ Vicki Shannon, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel ______________________________ Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel