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
Shahzad Vasta, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Shanlee Linton, OCT, Chair
Jane Ishibashi
Pauline Smart
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
SHAHZAD VASTA ) Vanora Simpson,
(CERTIFICATE #445097) ) Goldblatt Partners LLP
) for Shahzad Vasta )
) Robin McKechney,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: November 30, 2016
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 30, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated June 28, 2016 (Exhibit 1) was served on Shahzad Vasta (the “Member”), requesting her presence on July 20, 2016 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 30, 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 Shahzad Vasta is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teacher’s Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she abused a student verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) she abused a student physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1)1
(d) she abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) she 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) she 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) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
Shahzad Vasta 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 District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.
Inappropriate Conduct with Female Students
At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2 were [XXX]-year-old female students in Grade [XXX] at the School. Student 2 is a student with [XXX] in the [XXX] program at the School.
At all material times Person B, the Member’s [XXX], was also in Grade [XX] at the School. None of the three students were in the Member’s class.
On or about April 28, 2014, during morning recess, Student 1 and Student 2 got into a dispute with Person B in the playground. They chased Person B, and had either thrown a rock at him or threatened him with a rock. The teacher on yard duty broke up the incident, confirmed that Person B was not injured, and advised the Member of the incident.
The Member saw Student 1 in the hallway. The Member, concerned for her [XXX] and angry with Student 1, told Student 1 that she heard what had happened, and that if there was ever a scratch on her [XXX], Student 1 would not be there tomorrow. The Member meant to convey to Student 1 that she would face disciplinary consequences. She regrets that she did not control her emotions when speaking to Student 1.
Shortly after the morning recess, Student 2’s teacher was walking Student 2 to the washroom. As they walked by the Member’s classroom, the Member came out and asked the teacher to watch her class so that she could speak to Student 2 for a minute. The teacher stood at the Member’s classroom doorway as the Member went over to Student 2 and yelled at her.
Student 2 ran away from the Member to another teacher in the hallway. The hallway was starting to fill up with students, teachers and parents while students were let out of class for lunch. As the Member approached Student 2, she yelled out words to the effect of, “she’d better hide, I have a few words to say to her.” The Member stood over Student 2 as she yelled at her, then walked away. The Member’s confrontation with Student 2 was overheard by others in the hallway. Student 2, frightened and upset, was consoled by her teacher.
Investigation
On or about April 29, 2014, the Member was assigned to home with pay, pending police and Board investigations into the allegations.
On or about May 8, 2014, the Member was charged with one count of Assault and one count of Uttering a Threat to cause Death or Bodily Harm in relation to Student 2. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Information dated June 10, 2014.
On or about November 7, 2014, in the Ontario Court of Justice, Justice Favret was satisfied, after hearing information about the confrontation between the Member and Student 2, that there was a “reasonable basis to conclude” that Student 2 had a concern for her future safety. Justice Favret imposed a 12 month Peace Bond on the Member to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, have no contact with Student 2, and not possess any weapons, following which the criminal charges were withdrawn. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” and Exhibit “D” respectively, are copies of the transcript of Proceedings before Madam Justice L. Favret and the Recognizance to Keep the Peace, both dated November 7, 2014.
At the conclusion of the proceedings, Justice Favret remarked, “Very tough to be a teacher, but teachers are given the very difficult and satisfying joy of creating the future. Not an easy task, and one where I think everyone will know and agree that patience can be tested, but professionals are required to maintain their professional composure at all times, no matter how hard it is”, and, “A lot of people work in the public eye… it’s not always easy, but professionals are required to always live up to the qualities that they have that allow them to carry out those important duties.”
In the spring of 2014, after the incident, the Member completed eight individual counselling sessions with a focus on anger management and conflict resolution skills. In addition, on October 22, 2014, the Member completed the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (“ETFO”) “Classroom Management Course”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Counsellor’s letter dated June 12, 2014, outlining the Member’s participation in the counselling process, and a copy of the ETFO Certificate of Professional Activity.
At the conclusion of the Board’s investigation, the Member was suspended without pay for a period of 20 days from May 7 to June 5, 2015 inclusive, and was administratively transferred to another school. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the disciplinary letter from the principal of the School to the Member dated May 7, 2015. This is currently still subject to a grievance.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-14 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document2 she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) she 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 her name, may be published in the official publication of the College;
(f) she understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, 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 allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 14 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member abused a student verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).
Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
The Member’s conduct was verbally and emotionally abusive and entirely unacceptable. She yelled at and threatened young students as a result of a schoolyard incident involving two students and her [XXX]. The Member was not on yard duty at the time, but learned about the incident from a colleague who had broken up the incident. The colleague confirmed that the Member’s [XXX] was not injured and advised the Member of the incident. The Member then went out of her way to confront the two young students involved. The students were [XXX] years old and one of them was a student with [XXX].
As an adult and a professional, the Member was expected to keep her composure and to address the situation in a reasonable and professional manner. She did the opposite. She threatened the students, yelled at them, and made Student 2 in particular feel frightened and upset. The Member’s intimidating conduct towards young students fell far below the professional standards to which teachers are held.
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 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) within three months after the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management and sensitivity issues with students including students with [XXX], subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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; and
(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 her 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 in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. The parties have not agreed on whether or not the Member’s name should be included and submissions will be made on that issue.
SUBMISSIONS ON PUBLICATION
Submissions of College Counsel
College Counsel submitted that the goal of any penalty order is to protect the public, to maintain high professional standards, and to preserve public confidence in the teaching profession. To achieve these goals, orders are crafted by considering the principles of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation and remediation, and public protection. College Counsel submitted that the uncontested portions of the proposed penalty advances these objectives, but that publication with name is an important element of the penalty. College Counsel urged the Committee to exercise its discretion to order publication with the name of the Member. According to College Counsel, publication with name is an important tool for deterrence, and it promotes the transparency of the discipline process.
College Counsel presented a number of reasons why publication with name is appropriate in this case, including the following. First, the Member’s misconduct was serious. The Member faced serious discipline from the Board as a result of her conduct, and criminal charges were laid (although they were eventually withdrawn when the Member entered into a peace bond). Second, the Member was expected to be a role model to students and to embody professional integrity, but she failed in this regard. Although she may have been concerned for her [XXX] well-being, she knew that her [XXX] had not been injured during the schoolyard incident and she allowed her anger and her emotions to get the better of her when she aggressively confronted the two young girls involved in the incident. Third, the Member confronted and yelled at Student 2 in a hallway at the school and she was not deterred by the presence of staff, students and parents. Fourth, the Member frightened and upset Student 2 (who was a [XXX]-year-old female student with [XXX]).
College Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty (including publication with name) is within the appropriate range, as demonstrated by the following four cases involving similar types of misconduct: Ontario College of Teachers v. Bell, 2016 ONOCT 5; Ontario College of Teachers v. Law, 2016 ONOCT 32; Ontario College of Teachers v. Ashford-Smith, 2014 ONOCT 3; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Graham, 2015 ONOCT 32. College Counsel submitted that, although none of these cases were exactly on point, they were similar to the Member’s case and publication with name was ordered in each instance. According to College Counsel, the Member’s conduct was more serious than the conduct in any of the four cases presented. College Counsel further submitted that the members in most of the cases presented had moved on successfully in their teaching careers by the time the allegations had come before the Discipline Committee, but publication with name was ordered nevertheless.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member agreed with the submissions of College Counsel regarding the penalty objectives and noted that the uncontested elements of the proposed penalty were appropriate and proportionate to the Member’s misconduct. Member’s Counsel disagreed, however, with respect to the publication element, and submitted that the Committee ought to order publication without the name of the Member. Counsel for the Member submitted that the Committee had broad discretion to order publication with or without name, in accordance with subsection 30(5)3 of the Act.
According to Member’s Counsel, publication with name would be unduly punitive in this case, and the penalty objectives of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, and transparency would all be satisfied without publishing the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Specific deterrence would be achieved through the reprimand of the Member, and given that the information relating to the outcome of the Member’s discipline hearing will be made widely available through the College website. With respect to general deterrence, Member’s Counsel acknowledged that the public shaming aspect of publishing the Member’s name in the College’s official publication might serve as a significant general deterrent, but she submitted that this deterrence is outweighed by other considerations and that members of the profession would still learn of the consequences to the Member’s misconduct even if her name were not published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. With respect to the rehabilitation objective, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member is not in need of further rehabilitation, given the other elements of the proposed penalty and the anger management counselling that she has already received. With respect to transparency, Member’s Counsel reminded the Committee that this proceeding was public and open, and that the public register will include the Member’s name, her history, a link to the Committee’s decision, and other relevant details. Publication with name in the College’s official publication is not necessary given that the process is already transparent.
Member’s Counsel presented a number of mitigating factors that weighed in favour of publication without the Member’s name, including the following. First, as demonstrated by her CV, the Member is an energetic and engaged teacher who has made significant contributions to her school community (see Exhibit 4). Second, the Member has already faced substantial consequences for her conduct, which included a 20-day suspension without pay from her Board, an administrative transfer to a different school, and a year-long absence from teaching as a result of these and other proceedings. Third, the Member no longer teaches at the same school that her [XXX] attends, which is what led to the unfortunate incident in this case. Fourth, following discussions with her lawyer, the Member voluntarily completed eight intensive and individualized anger management sessions; she was not compelled to do so by her Board. In the process, the Member gained insight into her conduct. As a result, there are no concerns that her misconduct will be repeated. Fifth, the Member’s conduct was an isolated incident that was out of character.
Member’s Counsel referred the Committee to the following four analogous cases in which other members had similarly lost their composure in isolated incidents: Ontario College of Teachers v. Kowal, 2009 ONOCT 39 (“Kowal”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Lutz, 2011 LNONCTD 27 (“Lutz”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Blanchard, 2012 ONOCT 4; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Brame, 2014 LNONCTD 76 (“Brame”). According to Member’s Counsel, the Committee should follow these precedents in which the members’ names were not published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
Member’s Counsel further submitted that the cases submitted by College Counsel were distinguishable on the basis of their facts and should not be relied upon by the Committee. None of the cases presented by College Counsel involved an isolated incident or a spontaneous reaction (as was the case for the Member). All four cases presented by the College involved an aggravated set of circumstances and repeated misconduct. The Member’s case was not as serious as any of the cases presented by College Counsel.
Finally, Member’s Counsel presented a letter from the Toronto Police Service dated November 22, 2016, confirming that the Member’s fingerprints, photographs and records of disposition (as a result of her criminal charges) have been destroyed (see Exhibit 5). Member’s Counsel submitted that the institutional responses to the Member’s misconduct should be consistent, and that an order from the Committee to publish the Member’s name would be contrary to the Toronto Police Service’s decision that further public access to the Member’s personal information is unnecessary.
Reply Submissions of College Counsel
College Counsel replied to a number of the submissions made by Member’s Counsel.
First, College Counsel disagreed with the submission of Member’s Counsel that the penalty objectives would be achieved without publishing the Member’s name in the College’s official publication. According to College Counsel, publication with name is a critical component of the transparency objective and it is a significant general deterrent. College Counsel reminded the Committee that publication with name is often ordered, even in cases where members have already taken great strides towards their rehabilitation.
Second, College Counsel disagreed with the submission of Member’s Counsel that the Member’s conduct was at the low end of the spectrum of professional misconduct. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct was serious: she inappropriately confronted and singled out two young students (once she knew that her [XXX] was not in danger). College Counsel further submitted that while the cases that she presented involved repeated conduct, they were still less serious than the Member’s conduct in this matter.
Third, College Counsel urged the Committee not to follow the cases presented by Member’s Counsel. The decisions in Kowal and Lutz were not recent, and were made at a time when there was not significant argument about publication. The legal landscape has since changed, and publication with name is more frequently argued and ordered. With respect to the decision in Brame, College Counsel submitted that Mr. Brame’s conduct was less serious than the Member’s conduct; notably, the Member yelled at two different students on two separate occasions.
Fourth, with respect to the submission of Member’s Counsel that publishing the Member’s name would contradict the Toronto Police Service’s decision to destroy the Member’s records, College Counsel submitted that the Committee’s objectives are very different from those of the Toronto Police Service, and that there are important differences between criminal proceedings and discipline proceedings. According to College Counsel, the fact that the police destroyed the Member’s records should have little bearing on the Committee’s decision with respect to publication.
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. With respect to the issue of publication, the Committee directs that there be publication of a summary of the finding and order of the Committee, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
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 is also within a reasonable range, based on other similar cases before the Discipline Committee.
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate and threatening conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. The Member yelled at and intimidated two young students and failed to act professionally in her role as a teacher. She frightened and upset a student with [XXX], which is unacceptable for members of the teaching profession. Teachers are expected to keep their composure and to act as positive role models for students at all times. The reprimand allows the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and serves as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register serves as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding anger management and sensitivity issues with students including students with [XXX] will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. It will provide her with effective strategies to improve her teaching practice and to maintain her professional composure, even when her patience is tested.
The Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted in this case. In coming to this decision, the Committee weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case and finds that the aggravating factors were more significant. The Committee recognizes that the Member’s conduct stemmed from an isolated incident (although it involved two students), that the Member has faced substantial consequences for her conduct, that she was an otherwise energetic and engaged teacher, that she voluntarily completed eight individualized anger management sessions, that she cooperated with the College by coming to an agreement in this matter, and that she is no longer teaching in a school that her [XXX] attends (which limits the likelihood of recurrence of similar misconduct).
Nevertheless, the Committee believes that the aggravating factors outweigh these mitigating circumstances. The Member’s conduct was serious. Although it stemmed from an isolated incident, the Member yelled at two young students and threatened a [XXX]-year-old female student with [XXX]. The incident was serious enough for the police to investigate and to lay criminal charges (which were eventually withdrawn as the Member entered into a peace bond). If the Member suffered serious consequences for her actions, it is because her conduct was serious. The Member’s prior Board discipline does not shield her from further undesirable consequences; rather, it indicates the serious nature of her misconduct that warrants publication with name.
The Committee also does not accept that the Member’s conduct was the result of a sudden and unfortunate maternal instinct. At the time that the Member yelled at or threatened the two young students, she knew that her [XXX] was not in danger and that the schoolyard incident had been resolved by her colleague who was on yard duty. There was no good reason for the Member to lash out at students in the way that she did. The Member also confronted Student 2 in the presence of staff, students and parents, which demonstrates that she failed to act as a positive role model to students and that she failed to inspire confidence in the profession to parents. Given these serious concerns, the Committee believes that it is appropriate to order publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
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 her accountable for her actions. It also serves as an important 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: December 6, 2016
Shanlee Linton, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Jane Ishibashi
Member, Discipline Panel
Pauline Smart
Member, Discipline Panel