Ontario College of Teachers v. Orton, 2017 ONOCT 100

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Orton 2017 ONOCT 100

Date: 2017-12-05

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

Geoffrey James Orton, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Jane Ishibashi, Chair

Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT

Sara Nouini, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Emily MacKinnon

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela Spano,

) Law Clerk

– and – )

GEOFFREY JAMES ORTON ) Adam Webb

(CERTIFICATE #256166) ) Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP, ) for Geoffrey James Orton

) Erica Richler,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: November 21, 2017

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 21, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated March 5, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Geoffrey James Orton (the “Member”), requesting his presence on March 23, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 21, 2017.

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 subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1)¹ 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 verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(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 or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(e) he failed to supervise adequately a person under his professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

(f) he 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);²

(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);³ and

(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

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:

1. Geoffrey James Orton is 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School [XXX]School [XXX]in Hamilton, Ontario.

3. In or about September 2012, while the Member was teaching at[XXX], he made the following inappropriate comments to students:

(a) in the context of a conversation between students in one of his classes about people changing their bodies to conform to stereotypes, the Member indicated that women should not feel compelled to change their bodies. He also noted that men do not generally face similar pressures, such as the pressure to change the size of their penises;

(b) the Member mentioned online dating sites to one of his classes;

(c) the Member spoke to the class about parties that he attended when he was in school;

(d) the Member made a comment to a female student in his class when she got an answer to a question right to the effect of, “Oh, you’re not a dumb blonde.” He then indicated that the stereotype of the “dumb blonder” [sic] was silly and inaccurate;

(e) during a discussion with some of his students about how fortunate they were and how some members of society struggle more than others, the Member told the students about having a conversation with a woman for five minutes before realizing that she was a prostitute.

4. Also in or about September 2012, the Member stared at a hickey on a Grade [XXX] female student’s neck and made a comment to the entire class asking her, “Is that a hickey on your neck?” which made the student feel embarrassed and uncomfortable.

5. In or about September 2012, a mother of one of the Member’s students reported to the school administration that during Meet the Teacher’s Night, while the Member met with her and her daughter, she felt that the Member was looking at her chest area, and that the Member was staring at her daughter’s chest area. This made the mother very uncomfortable. If the Member were to testify, he would say that the [sic] was getting used to new bifocals which made it seem that he was staring at their chest area. The Board accepted that explanation at the time.

6. The Member was given a five day unpaid suspension by the Board and administratively transferred to another school. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the discipline letter from the Superintendent of Education – Student Achievement to the Member dated November 9, 2012.

7. In or about March/April 2013, the principal of [XXX]did a walk about the school and entered the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX]class. The students were not wearing [XXX]while they were doing an [XXX]using[XXX]. The Member told the principal that there was nothing dangerous. When the principal asked a small group of students at the back of the class about the[XXX], those students didn’t know what purpose the [XXX]served.

8. Subsequently, students from the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX]class told the principal the following:

(a) the Member discussed personal issues with this class;

(b) when asked the Member about his tattoo [sic], he explained its meaning and told the students that his girlfriend in Germany had the same tattoo. The students then asked the Member to show them a picture of his girlfriend, which he did;

(c) the Member used his cell phone a lot during class time;

(d) the Member occasionally left the class unsupervised for periods of approximately 15 to 20 minutes at a time;

(e) the Member occasionally complimented students of all genders in the class on their clothes or hair.

9. The Member was given a 10 day suspension without pay by the Board. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the discipline letter from the Superintendent of Education – Student Achievement to the Member dated April 19, 2013.

10. In or about November 2013, while the Member was teaching a lesson, Student 1 who was a male student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX]class (“Student 1”), and his seat mate were drawing penises on each other’s work sheets. With the intention of highlighting the immaturity of their conduct, the Member asked Student 1 something to the effect of, “Do you want colouring crayons?”

11. At the end of the day, the Member sent an e-mail response to Student 1’s [XXX] teacher and copied Student 1’s mother with respect to Student 1’s progress in the class. The Member and Student 1’s mother had previously discussed Student 1’s lack of progress and misbehaviour on a number of occasions. The Member ended the e-mail by suggesting that “as an enrichment activity I could provide colouring crayons for Student 1 and his seat mate to colour the penises that end up on each other’s sheets.”

12. Student 1’s mother, who was a [XXX] at another school, forwarded the e-mail communication to the principal of [XXX] and stated that the Member’s comment regarding the enrichment activity “was unprofessional and unwarranted and extremely offensive.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the e-mail communication regarding same. If the Member were to testify, he would say that the [XXX] teacher raised no objection to the Member’s comment and that the Member subsequently apologized to Student 1’s mother by telephone shortly after sending the email.

13. The Member was given a seven day unpaid suspension by the Board. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of a letter from the Superintendent of Education – Student Achievement to the Member dated December 6, 2013.

Prior History

14. On or about December 7, 2006, the Member received a written caution from the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers in relation to allegations that he had made inappropriate comments to students, and inappropriately touched students. In addition, the Member agreed to take a boundaries course.

GUILTY PLEA

15. By this document⁴, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 14 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

16. 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(5), 1(7); 1(7.2); 1(7.3); 1(11); 1(18 – unprofessional) and 1(19).

17. 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 prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall 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.

18. 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 allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (f) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Committee find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). The Committee granted these requests.

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(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(11), 1(18-unprofessional) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student of a nature defined in section 1 of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-14 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(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(11), 1(18-unprofessional) and 1(19).

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 6-14 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).

Paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 8-14 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).

Paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 9-14 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).

Paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 9 and 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act.

Paragraphs 7-9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to supervise adequately a person under his professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11).

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 6-14 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 unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 6-14 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).

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:

1. the Member shall appear before the Committee 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”) [sic];

2. direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of eight 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;

3. direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) prior to commencing or returning to a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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) following review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member.

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner which:

(i) confirms that the Member has successfully completed the course and reports on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

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 the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. 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 the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Spence, 2015 ONOCT 74, Ontario College of Teachers v. Lowrie, 2015 ONOCT 53, Ontario College of Teachers v. Towler, 2015 ONOCT 79, Ontario College of Teachers v. Pecile, 2016 ONOCT 41, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Manga, 2017 ONOCT 48.

The Member’s misconduct in this case was serious and repeated, and it continued despite the Member having received several warnings and discipline from the Board. In 2006, the Member received a caution from the College. Furthermore, the Member received a five day suspension in 2012, a 10 day suspension in 2013, and a further seven day suspension in 2013, all without pay. The Committee is concerned that the Member’s misconduct continued despite the numerous warnings that he received. A substantial penalty is appropriate in this case given the repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct and the fact that he does not appear to have significantly improved his behaviour following his prior discipline.

The Member discussed inappropriate personal information with his students. He told his students about parties he attended and he mentioned a conversation he had with a female who he then realized was a prostitute. He also talked about a matching tattoo that he and his girlfriend had and showed the students a picture of his girlfriend when asked. Members of the profession are expected to be role models for students at all times. The Member fell short of meeting this expectation and he demonstrated a significant lack of professional judgment.

The Member made multiple inappropriate comments to students. Among other things, he asked a female student if she had a hickey on her neck in front of the class; he complimented students (both male and female) on their clothes or hair; and he told a student she was not a “dumb blonde”. Following an incident in class where Student 1 and his seat mate were drawing penises on each other’s worksheets, the Member said words to the effect of “Do you want colouring crayons?” He also emailed Student 1’s mother and ended the e-mail by suggesting that “as an enrichment activity I could provide colouring crayons for Student 1 and his seat mate to colour the penises that end up on each other’s sheets.” These comments were insulting and insensitive. Members of the profession are expected to treat students with respect at all times.

The Member also failed to supervise his students. He used his cell phone in class on multiple occasions; he occasionally left his class unattended for periods of 15-20 minutes; and he failed to ensure that his students were wearing [XXX] during a [XXX] in which students were using[XXX]. Members of the profession are expected to provide students with a safe learning environment. By leaving students unattended or by disregarding safety measures in his [XXX] class, the Member jeopardized the safety of his students.

The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated instances of inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, despite prior warnings from the Board and the College, warrants a reprimand by his peers. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

The Committee finds that the eight month suspension is appropriate and proportional to the Member’s serious and repeated misconduct. The eight month suspension acts as a specific deterrent by sending a clear message to the Member and also acts as a general deterrent to other members of the teaching profession by informing them that this type of misconduct is taken very seriously and will not be tolerated.

The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member and will help ensure public confidence and protection. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students, should he return to a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required.

Publication of this decision with the Member’s name is now mandatory in accordance with subsection 45.1 of the Act. Accordingly, the Committee’s decision and reasons will be published with the Member’s name on the College’s website and a summary will be published with the Member’s name in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: December 5, 2017

Jane Ishibashi

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Sara Nouini, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Section 40(1.1) was cited in the original Notice of Hearing. However, this provision has been repealed after amendments to the Act came into force on December 5, 2016.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn.
3. 3Allegation limited to “unprofessional” only.
4. 4For the purposes of paragraphs 15 and 17, this “document” refers to the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.