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
Gilbert Ignatios (Ian) McIntyre, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair Tom Potter Pauline Smart
BETWEEN: ) Eli Mogil, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Duane Crocker ) Law Clerk
– and – )
GILBERT IGNATIOS (IAN) MCINTYRE ) Selwyn Pieters, (CERTIFICATE #245962) ) Barrister and Solicitor, ) for Gilbert Ignatios (Ian) McIntyre
) Julie Maciura, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: October 26, 2016
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on October 26, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated March 30, 2016 (Exhibit 1) was served on Gilbert Ignatios (Ian) McIntyre (the “Member”), requesting his presence on April 18, 2016 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for October 26, 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 the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) 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);1
(b) he contravened a term, condition, or limitation imposed on his Certificate of Qualification and Registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(9);2
(c) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsections 262(1) and 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(d) 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);
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and
(f) he failed to comply with an order of a panel of the Discipline Committee, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(21).
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:
Gilbert Ignatios (Ian) McIntyre 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as an occasional teacher.
On or about December 8, 2010, the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers ordered that the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration (the “Certificate”) be suspended for a period of three months. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Decision, Order and Reasons for Decision and Order dated December 8, 2010.
The Discipline Committee originally ordered the suspension to commence on December 8, 2010. However, the Member appealed the Committee’s decision so the decision of the Discipline Committee was stayed pending appeal.
The Member continued to work in a long-term occasional teaching assignment at the Board between November 25, 2010 and January 28, 2011.
The Member appealed the Discipline Committee’s decision to the Divisional Court. The Discipline Committee’s decision was stayed pending appeal.
The Member’s attempts to have the Discipline Committee’s decision overturned on appeal were unsuccessful. The suspension of the Member’s Certificate took effect from March 13, 2013 to June 13, 2013.
Despite the suspension of his Certificate, the Member taught a long-term occasional teaching assignment with the Board from March 18, 2013 to June 28, 2013.
The Member was aware that his Certificate was suspended by order of the Discipline Committee during the course of the long term occasional teaching assignment. He did not notify the Board of the suspension of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 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(9)3, 1(15), 1(18), 1(19), and 1(21).
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.
- 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 allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(9) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, 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(15), 1(18), 1(19), and 1(21).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 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(15), 1(18), 1(19), and 1(21).
Paragraphs 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 subsections 262(1) and 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 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 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).
Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with an order of a panel of the Discipline Committee, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(21).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), 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 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”);
direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of five 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;
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. Joly, 2016 LNONCTD 35; Ontario College of Teachers v. Primeau, 2010 LNONCTD 6; and Law Society of Upper Canada v. Di Paolo, 2009 ONLSHP 102.
The Committee finds that the Member’s failure to comply with an order of a panel of the Discipline Committee warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Member disregarded his suspension that was ordered by the Discipline Committee in December 2010 for his previous professional misconduct by completing a long-term occasional teaching assignment with the Board during his suspension. He was aware of his suspension at the time but kept this information from the Board. This conduct demonstrated a lack of respect for the College’s authority in discipline matters, and is unacceptable for a member of a self-regulating profession. 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 five-month suspension is appropriate in this case, given the Member’s disregard for his previous suspension. The suspension is longer than his previous, three-month suspension because the Member failed to comply with the previous order, which indicates that an escalated sanction is now appropriate. The Member’s failure to comply with an order of the Discipline Committee demonstrated a lack of respect for the profession and undermined an important principle of self-regulation. Self-regulation signifies that the government has delegated its regulatory functions to those who have the specialized knowledge necessary to carry out these responsibilities. The privilege of self-regulation recognizes the maturity of a profession and is an acknowledgment that members of a profession are capable of governing themselves. The Member’s disregard for the College’s authority as a self-regulating organization undermines the very foundation and privilege of self-regulation and is unacceptable. The five-month suspension ordered by the Committee serves to denounce the Member’s professional misconduct and to remind the profession of the serious consequences for failing to comply with orders of the Discipline Committee. It serves as a specific deterrent to the Member and as a general deterrent to the 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 orders of the Discipline Committee must not be disregarded. Moreover, publishing the Member’s name demonstrates 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: November 7, 2016
Vicki Shannon, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Tom Potter,
Member, Discipline Panel
Pauline Smart
Member, Discipline Panel