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
Noel Kendrick Germundson, a retired member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Marie-Claude Yaacov, Chair Robert Gagné Ravi Vethamany, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Christine Wadsworth, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo-Spano, ) Law Clerk -and- ) NOEL KENDRICK GERMUNDSON ) Noel Kendrick Germundson (CERTIFICATE # 656071) ) Self-represented ) Rebecca Durcan, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) Heard: October 18, 2016
DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on October 18, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated January 8, 2016 was served on Noel Kendrick Germundson (the “Member”), requesting his presence on January 21, 2016 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for October 18, 2016.
The Member was self-represented and he attended a portion of the hearing remotely via video link, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee. This electronic hearing was held on consent of the parties.
The Member attended from the beginning of the hearing at 10:15 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. when the Committee took a scheduled lunch break. The Member was advised that the hearing would resume after a half hour break and he agreed to this break.
The Member was not present when the Committee was set to reconvene at 1:35 p.m. College Counsel and the College’s Hearings Assistant made several attempts to contact the Member to determine whether he intended to participate in the continuation of the hearing, but the Member had logged out of the video conference and did not respond to any email communication. The Member had been provided with contact information for College Counsel and for the College’s Hearings Assistant in advance, in case he experienced any technical difficulties during the electronic hearing. He did not contact the College after logging out of the video conference. Based on this information, the Committee believed that the Member decided to no longer participate in the hearing, as is his right. The Committee therefore resumed the hearing at 2:05 p.m. in his absence.
OVERVIEW
The allegations in this matter arose as a result of the Member’s conduct in 2015 and are primarily related to his inappropriate online communications with students. The Member taught at a [XXX] in Tokyo, Japan at the time of the events in question, where he engaged in inappropriate and personal communications with young students via Facebook and email. Among other things, the Member: asked students personal questions about themselves and their families; shared personal information about himself (including the fact that he was single, bored, and had few friends in Japan at the time); sought affirmation from his female students about his teaching abilities; asked whether any of his students had a “crush” on him; and encouraged his young students to delete inappropriate messages from him and to not talk about them at school. His employment was terminated in April 2015 as a result of his repeated conduct, but he continued to engage in inappropriate personal communications with students after that.
The Committee’s task is to determine whether the facts alleged by the College have been proven on a balance of probabilities and if so, whether the Member’s conduct gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. For the reasons that follow, the Committee finds the Member guilty of professional misconduct under each head of misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing below.
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 subsections 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);
(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) 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
(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Noel Kendrick Germundson is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the [XXX] (the “School”) as a teacher in Tokyo, Japan.
At all material times, Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4 and Student 5 were students at the School.
On or about January 26, 2015, the Member communicated with Student 1 and Student 2 via Facebook. The Member:
(a) stated that he sent them a friend request;
(b) said that, “Teachers are not supposed to communicate with students this way. It’s one of our rules. So please don’t mention Facebook in class”;
(c) requested they use his School email for School questions, but if they wanted to talk here [on Facebook], it is private;
(d) said, “I’m bored because I am by myself. Sometimes being single is no fun. I need to find someone my own age – of course…”;
(e) suggested that the students be careful of what they talk about at School because other teachers hear what they are talking about and report it to the principal;
(f) discussed his age and marital status with the students;
(g) said, “Things like wanting a relationship or more. Teachers can’t have a relationship with students”;
(h) stated that some teachers break the rules and/or lose their jobs and/or go to jail if they are caught;
(i) stated that being friends and/or friendly is okay and that once you turn 18 years old, then you can make your own choice;
(j) asked Student 1, if Student 3, had something that she wanted to tell him;
(k) inquired if Student 3 liked him more than as a teacher because Student 3 had sent an email saying he was her “Angel”;
(l) told Student 1 that if Student 3 liked him more than a teacher, then he should explain the rules to Student 3;
(m) asked if anyone had a “crush” on him;
(n) requested Student 1 and Student 2 to delete the Facebook conversation.
On or about January 28, 30 and February 2, 2015, the Member engaged in inappropriate personal conversations with Student 3 by School email.
On or about March 15, 2015, the Member communicated with Student 4 via Facebook. The Member:
(a) shared his personal plans about his day with Student 4;
(b) asked Student 4 about her personal plans;
(c) engaged Student 4 in conversation about what she thought about his teaching.
Sometime after April 4, 2015, the Member sent a Facebook message to Student 4 and told her, “I don’t work at the School now because of Facebook contact with you. It is horrible. I don’t know where I will find work now. Because of my Facebook contact with you, Student 5 and 3 others. Horrible…Do you still have our original conversation 2 weeks ago? Can you email that to me?...I lost my job that is why. Can you select our conversation from 3 weeks ago, and forward it to my email…Thank u do you understand?”
The School terminated the Member’s employment on or about April 4, 2015.
MEMBER’S PLEA
The Committee conducted a plea inquiry to determine the Member’s plea, but the Member was uncertain as to whether he should plead guilty or not guilty to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. On the advice of independent legal counsel, the Committee entered a plea of not guilty on the Member’s behalf.
MEMBER’S OPENING REMARKS
The Member called no witnesses and did not testify on his own behalf. He did make brief opening remarks, but the Committee notes that these were submissions and not evidence. The Committee briefly sets out the Member’s opening remarks, but reiterates that these remarks were not given as evidence and therefore only serve as background information. The Committee advised the Member that he would have the opportunity to provide detailed evidence if he chose to testify during this hearing (which he did not as a result of his absence).
The Member explained that he primarily used his School email account to communicate with students. He briefly described being confused about the School’s policy manual, which stated that teachers and students should communicate through the School platform only, although it was not uncommon to use other external platforms to communicate with students, such as “Mathletics”.
The Member remarked that he lost access to his correspondence with students when his employment at the School was terminated, and that he could not recall the specific content of his many communications, approximately 18 months after the fact. He noted that he usually communicated with students to find out how they were doing and to help them with their homework.
With respect to his Facebook communications dated January 26, 2015, the Member explained that he had contacted a student because he was concerned (based on what another student had told him through his School email). He remarked that once the student told him that she liked him as a teacher, he put an end to the communications. He claimed that he would have forwarded the communications to School administration if it had been more serious.
EVIDENCE OF THE COLLEGE
The College presented evidence including various letters, screenshots, and emails setting out the Member’s inappropriate communications with students, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing. The relevant evidence will be set out in greater detail in the Committee’s reasons for decision below.
The College called one witness, Mr. Ian Robertson (“Principal Robertson”), to explain and provide context to this documentary evidence. Principal Robertson was the Member’s principal at the School at all material times. He is an experienced educator and school administrator, with more than forty years of experience both in Canada and internationally. He testified that he ran a mandatory orientation for all teachers at the School before the start of each academic year, during which he reminded teachers to be extremely careful with regard to their relationships with students. He also made the School’s policy manual available to teachers, which sets out an online communication policy and states that teachers must use School email accounts to communicate online with students.
Principal Robertson testified that the Member’s inappropriate communications were brought to his attention by a student in mid-March 2015 and that he subsequently investigated these complaints. As part of his investigation, he met with the Member to discuss the inappropriate nature of the communications. He also warned the Member not to engage in any additional online communications with students. Nevertheless, additional inappropriate communications came to light after this warning. Principal Robertson described the Member’s inappropriate communications as a pattern of behaviour and he relied on documentary evidence to support his testimony. The principal testified that the Member’s employment at the School was terminated as a result of this series of inappropriate communications with students, and he noted that even after the termination of the Member’s employment, the Member continued to send inappropriate online messages to students.
In addition to providing factual evidence, the College sought to declare Principal Robertson as a qualified participant expert. The Committee did so as is described below.
LEGAL ISSUES
Participant Experts
The College sought to have Principal Robertson qualified as a participant expert on the issue of appropriate and acceptable communications with students. The Member opposed this request. The Committee qualified Principal Robertson as a participant expert on this issue for the following reasons.
In Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”), the Ontario Court of Appeal defines participant experts as “witnesses who form opinions based on their participation in the underlying events rather than because they were engaged by a party to the litigation to form an opinion” (Westerhof at paragraph 6). The Ontario Court of Appeal expands on this concept at paragraphs 60 and 61 of Westerhof where it states that:
a witness with special skill, knowledge, training, or experience who has not been engaged by or on behalf of a party to the litigation may give opinion evidence for the truth of its contents […] where
the opinion to be given is based on the witness’s observation of or participation in the events at issue; and
the witness formed the opinion to be given as part of the ordinary exercise of his or her skill, knowledge, training and experience while observing or participating in such events.
Participant experts can give evidence related to both their observations of the underlying facts and they may give opinion evidence admissible for its truth (see Westerhof at paragraph 61 – emphasis in original).
The Committee finds that Principal Robertson meets the criteria of a participant expert set out above. He has more than 40 years of relevant teaching and administrative experience. He was involved in investigating the Member’s conduct. He formed an opinion as to whether or not the standards of the teaching profession were met regarding the Member’s communications with students. He can also offer evidence of the appropriate standards of the profession. The Committee therefore qualified Principal Robertson as a participant expert regarding appropriate and acceptable communications with students.
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
College Counsel submitted that the Committee ought to find the Member guilty of professional misconduct under each of the heads of misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing. According to College Counsel, it is clear that the alleged communications occurred, and the Committee received sufficient evidence to ground a finding of professional misconduct.
In particular, the Committee received evidence about the orientation that Principal Robertson provided to teachers (including the Member); it received evidence about the School’s policies that the Member breached; it received evidence that the Member’s conduct formed part of a pattern of behaviour and that it was not an isolated incident; it received contemporaneous documentary evidence that clearly sets out the inappropriate communications that the Member had with students; it received evidence that the Member acknowledged his inappropriate conduct and his violation of the School policies in a letter to Principal Robertson; and it received evidence that the Member’s inappropriate conduct continued despite a warning from his principal and even after his employment was terminated.
College Counsel submitted that the Committee also heard why the Member’s communication was inappropriate. His comments to students were often personal and they seemed leading (as if he wanted the students to open up to him). The students involved were young and impressionable (many were grade [XXX] girls), and the Member took advantage of his position of trust and authority.
College Counsel further explained why the Member should be found guilty of each head of misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing. With respect to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel reminded the Committee that it had qualified Principal Robertson as a participant expert regarding appropriate and acceptable communications with students; that the principal provided oral and written evidence that established the standards of the profession; and that Principal Robertson opined that the Member failed to meet these standards. The College noted that there was more than enough factual evidence to ground a finding with respect to each of the other heads of misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing.
DECISION
Onus and Standard of Proof
The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.
Decision
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, the submissions made by College Counsel and the opening remarks made by the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Noel Kendrick Germundson committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee has carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented in this matter. In the reasons that follow, the Committee comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Committee first sets out its factual findings and then explains why these facts give rise to a finding of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.
Factual Findings
- On January 26, 2015, the Member communicated inappropriately with students via Facebook
The Committee finds it more likely than not that the Member engaged in inappropriate communications with students on January 26, 2015, as set out at paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing. The Committee received uncontradicted evidence from Principal Robertson in this regard, and his testimony was supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence.
Principal Robertson learned from a student that the Member had sent personal communications to students and he investigated the matter by meeting with the students involved and with the Member and the vice-principal. During his meeting with the Member, Principal Robertson presented a screenshot of the communications to the Member, who immediately admitted that he should not have contacted students on Facebook. Because this was believed to be an isolated incident at the time, the principal reminded the Member that this type of communication was very inappropriate and needed to stop. The Member was told to use his School email account to communicate with students if he needed to contact them about school business. Principal Robertson later discovered that the Member had sent similar inappropriate Facebook communications to a number of other female students, who were primarily in grade [XXX].
Exhibit 5 sets out the Member’s Facebook conversation with students on January 26, 2015. Principal Robertson described the communications as very inappropriate and noted that the Member had sent a friend request to the students and initiated the communications. The Committee agrees with the principal that these communications are inappropriate. Among other things, the Member told students that he was 43 and single; he told them, “I’m bored because I am by myself. Sometimes being single is no fun. I need to find someone my own age – of course…”; he told students to be careful about what they talk about at school because other teachers might find out and report it; he discussed teachers having relationships with students and stated that “some teachers break the rules and lose their jobs or go to jail if they are caught”; he said that it was okay to be friends and that the students could make their own choices once they are 18 years old; he asked if anyone in the class had a “crush” on him; and he requested that the students delete the Facebook conversation (see Exhibit 5).
- On January 28, 30 and February 2, 2015, the Member engaged in inappropriate personal conversations with a student by email
The Committee finds it more likely than not that the Member engaged in inappropriate personal conversations with a student, as set out at paragraph 5 of the Notice of Hearing. The Committee received uncontradicted evidence from Principal Robertson in this regard, and his testimony was supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence.
Exhibit 6 contains copies of screenshots of personal email communications that the Member had with a student in late January and early February 2015. Among other things, the Member says the following to the student in these emails: “By the way, if you ever have anything that you want to tell me, just tell me ok? Don’t worry about how to say what you want to say” and, “Wasn’t it something like I really _____ you?” Principal Robertson testified that the student in these email communications was a young, impressionable girl. He believed that the blank space likely suggested that a word such as “like” or possibly something even stronger could have completed the phrase. He did not think that a word such as “respect” or “admire” would have completed the phrase “I really _____ you”. Given the totality of the evidence and the circumstances in this case, the Committee agrees with the principal that it is more likely than not that the Member was trying to engage the student in an inappropriate personal conversation.
- On March 15, 2015, the Member communicated inappropriately with a student via Facebook
The Committee finds it more likely than not that the Member communicated inappropriately with a student on March 15, 2015, as set out at paragraph 6 of the Notice of Hearing. The Committee received uncontradicted evidence from Principal Robertson in this regard, and his testimony was supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence.
Exhibit 7 sets out the Member’s March 15, 2015 Facebook conversation with a student. During this communication, the Member shared his personal plans with the student, he told the student that he was bored and had no friends in Tokyo, he engaged the student in a conversation about what the student thought of his teaching, and he asked the student personal questions about her family background and vacation plans, among other things. Principal Robertson testified that this conversation with a young student was far too personal and intimate, and he noted that you could tell that the student did not know how to respond to the Member. For example, when the Member told the student that he was bored and just spent the day doing chores, the student responded “Oh…” Similarly, when the Member told the student that he was looking to meet friends and that the other teachers at the School were just acquaintances, the student responded “Oh.” The Committee agrees with Principal Robertson’s assessment and finds that the Member’s communication with a student on March 15, 2015 occurred and contributed to a pattern of inappropriate communications.
- The Member’s online communications with students violated School policy
The Committee finds that the Member recognized and acknowledged that his Facebook communications with students were inappropriate and violated School policy. Exhibit 9 is a letter from the Member to Principal Robertson dated April 3, 2015. In this letter, the Member expresses his “deepest apologies for the misconduct on [his] part pertaining to having contacted several students at [the School] through Facebook.com.” He further stated that he had reflected on the trouble that he had caused by not using an approved form of communication with students, and he noted that his conduct was not in keeping with School policy (see Exhibit 9).
Principal Robertson testified with regard to the School Profile, Policies and Bylaws (see Exhibit 10), which he explained was a School policy handbook that was updated annually by School administration, and that was made available to all teachers. The School policy handbook was also discussed extensively at teacher orientation. Although Exhibit 10 is dated 2015-2016, Principal Robertson confirmed that the relevant sections were identical to those in the 2014-2015 policy handbook that was available to the Member at the time of the events in question.
In particular, Principal Robertson referred the Committee to the Code of Ethics (see Exhibit 10 at page 16), to which all teachers at the School were bound. He also noted that teachers were expected to “communicate and promote a positive image of the teaching profession” and that teachers were expected to “hold their relationship with students to a high degree of professional circumspection” and that inappropriate associations between a teacher and a student were grounds for dismissal (see Exhibit 10 at page 17). Principal Robertson further noted that the School’s IT Policy provided that all communication between staff and students should be done using the School’s email account (see Exhibit 10 at page 48).
The Committee finds that the Member’s online communications with students were inappropriate and violated School policies which he knew or ought to have known were in place at the time of the events in question.
- The School terminated the Member’s employment on April 4, 2015
The Committee finds it more likely than not that the School terminated the Member’s employment on April 4, 2015, as set out at paragraph 8 of the Notice of Hearing. Exhibit 11 is a termination letter confirming that the Member’s employment was terminated on April 4, 2015. Principal Robertson testified that Exhibit 11 is a copy of the termination letter (likely sent to the Member as an attachment in an email), but that both he and the Member had signed the original copy of this letter.
- After the Member’s employment at the School was terminated, he continued to engage in inappropriate Facebook communications with a student
The Committee finds it more likely than not that the Member communicated inappropriately with a student after his employment at the School was terminated on April 4, 2015, as set out at paragraph 7 of the Notice of Hearing. The Committee received uncontradicted evidence from Principal Robertson in this regard, and his testimony was supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence.
Exhibit 12 sets out the Member’s Facebook conversation with a student. During this communication, the Member told the student: “I don’t work at the school now because of Facebook contact with you. It is horrible. I don’t know where I will find work now. Because of my Facebook contact with you [and three others]. Horrible. […] Can you select our conversation from 3 weeks ago, and forward it to my email. […] Do you understand?”
Principal Robertson also described this additional, inappropriate Facebook communication in a report dated April 7, 2015 that he provided to the College regarding the Member’s conduct and the termination of his employment (see Exhibit 14).
The Committee finds this communication to be inappropriate, particularly as the Member has continued to engage with students on Facebook (even after his employment was terminated for similar reasons), and because the Member appears to be blaming the young student, who should never have been burdened with the consequences of the Member’s actions.
Legal Conclusions
The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct set out above gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5); he abused students psychologically or emotionally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2); 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 he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
- The Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5)
The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. The Committee received expert evidence establishing the standards of the profession from Principal Robertson who was qualified as a participant expert regarding appropriate and acceptable communications with students. Principal Robertson referred to written standards of the College established in the Professional Advisory: Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media (Exhibit 15), The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 16). He testified that these documents established the standards of the profession and he opined that the Member did not meet these standards.
In particular, Exhibit 15 provides that there is a distinction between the professional and private life of a teacher. Principal Robertson opined that the Member blurred this line and did not exercise sound judgment in this regard. The Committee agrees. Moreover, Exhibit 15 sets out the following with respect to online communications between teachers and students:
The use of the Internet and social media, despite best intentions, may cause members to forget their professional responsibilities and the unique position of trust and authority given to them by society. The dynamic between a member and a student is forever changed when the two become “friends” in an online environment.
Members should never share information with students in any environment that they would not willingly and appropriately share in a school or school-related setting or in the community (Exhibit 15 at page 4).
Principal Robertson opined that this was another professional standard that the Member failed to meet. The Committee agrees and finds that the Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students in his online communications.
Exhibit 15 further provides that teachers should decline student-initiated “friend” requests and should not issue “friend” requests to students. This is a professional standard that Principal Robertson characterized as “black and white”. The Committee finds that the Member breached this professional standard.
The Committee finds that the Member also failed to maintain The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. Principal Robertson opined that Exhibit 16 establishes standards of the teaching profession and that the Member failed to maintain these standards. With respect to The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, the principal testified that the Member’s decisions were not ethically guided and that he demonstrated a lack of respect, trust, and integrity in his communications with students. The Committee agrees. Teachers are expected to promote the public trust and confidence in the profession; the Member’s inappropriate and personal online communications with young students had the opposite effect.
The Committee further finds that the Member failed to maintain The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, which Principal Robertson confirmed represent the standards of the profession. Principal Robertson opined that the Member did not demonstrate adequate leadership and that his professional practice was lacking; particularly given his misuse of technology. The Committee finds that the Member did not promote a safe and supportive learning community, as is expected of all members of the teaching profession. The Committee agrees with Principal Robertson’s overall assessment that the Member’s communications with students were inappropriate because of the age of the students involved (and how impressionable they were) and because of the inappropriate and personal nature of the communications.
The Committee therefore concludes that the Member did not maintain the standards of the profession with respect to his online communications with students.
- The Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2)
The Committee finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused students. The Member sent numerous communications to young students, asking them personal questions, sharing personal information about himself, and blurring the boundaries between teachers and students. The Member asked students to delete inappropriate communications and pressured them not to talk about it at the School. In his communications with a student after his employment was terminated, the Member appeared to be blaming the student for his dismissal and tried to pressure the student into forwarding him a copy of their prior online communications.
The above evidence substantiates a finding that the Member’s conduct was psychologically or emotionally abusive. Teachers are expected to support students and to provide them with safe spaces in which to learn and develop. The Member, however, engaged his students in inappropriately personal communications and he burdened young students with the serious consequences of his own unprofessional actions. Teachers should never put students in such uncomfortable positions.
- The Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18)
The Committee finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The factual findings set out above demonstrate that the Member took advantage of his position of trust and authority as a teacher and repeatedly engaged in inappropriate online communications with his students. The Member’s conduct formed a troubling pattern of behaviour. The Member’s conduct also jeopardized the public’s trust and confidence in the teaching profession. The Committee was struck by the personal nature of the Member’s communications with young students and by his poor professional judgment when discussing mature concepts with impressionable students (such as when he discussed the fact that he was single, bored, and without friends, or that inappropriate teacher-student relationships could result in jail time for teachers). The Member’s repeated inappropriate conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
- The Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)
The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession, for similar reasons to those set out directly above in relation to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By repeatedly initiating inappropriate and personal communications with young students, the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member.
The Committee notes the distinction between subsections 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Subsection 1(18) typically involves conduct that occurs during a teacher’s professional life (while he or she is “on duty”), whereas subsection 1(19) typically involves conduct that occurs while a teacher is “off duty”. In this case, the Member’s inappropriate conduct occurred both during the course of his professional life and while he was off duty. Some of his inappropriate communications involved schoolwork (and the Member was therefore “on duty”), some communications were about personal matters, and others occurred after his employment with the School had been terminated (and he was therefore “off duty”). Accordingly, it is appropriate in this case to find that the Member contravened subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, in addition to subsection 1(18).
PENALTY
The Committee will schedule a subsequent date on which to hear submissions with respect to penalty.
Date: October 31, 2016
______________________________ Marie-Claude Yaacov
Chair, Discipline Panel
Robert Gagné
Member, Discipline Panel
Ravi Vethamany, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel