WARNING: Publication of any information that could identify the victim or a witness in this matter is prohibited pursuant to subsection 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
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
Joshua John Pallot, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers at all material times.
PANEL: Ravi Vethamany, OCT, Chair Tom Potter Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) ) Janice Duggan, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers – and – ) JOSHUA JOHN PALLOT ) Joshua John Pallot, (CERTIFICATE #585902) ) Self-represented ) Rebecca Durcan, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: November 8, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 8, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated April 4, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on Joshua John Pallot (the “Member”), requesting his presence on April 24, 2017 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 8, 2017.
The Member was self-represented and, on the consent of the parties, he attended the hearing via video conference, in accordance with Rules 3.01(1) and 8.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules of Procedure”).
MOTION FOR PUBLICATION BAN
At the outset of this hearing, the Member brought a motion seeking an order that no person shall publish his identity or any information that could disclose his identity. Although the Member did not comply with the requirements set out in Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure, the College did not oppose the motion being heard. The Member submitted that this motion should be granted because (a) a publication ban was issued by the Criminal Court (and his name was apparently unintentionally omitted from the ban); (b) publishing his name could inadvertently identify the victim (the victim is the [XXX] of his [XXX] and although the Member and the victim have different names there may still be a link); and (c) the Member lives in a small town and attends a small school.
College Counsel opposed this motion and submitted that in light of the recent amendments to the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), there is a presumption that all findings of professional misconduct and incompetence will be published on the College’s website and in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. This speaks to the need for transparency and is in accordance with the mandate of the College to regulate the profession in the public interest. The criminal publication ban did not include the name of the Member and there is no evidence to indicate that publishing the name of the Member would identify the victim. Finally, the name of the Member has already been published by the College when it posted the allegations of professional misconduct on its website.
The Committee denied the Member’s motion seeking an order that no person shall publish his identity or any information that could disclose his identity. The Committee accepts the College’s position that no evidence was provided to demonstrate that publishing the Member’s name would identify the victim in this case. The Committee further finds that the order sought by the Member is inconsistent with the recent legislative amendments to the Act, which provide for more open and transparent hearing processes.
The Committee notes, however, that in the Member’s proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, Justice J.P. Condon made an order restricting publication pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada (see Exhibit 3 at Tabs C, D and E). The Committee is required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, any information that could identify the victim or a witness involved in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. This publication ban does not extend to the Member’s name.
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 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(d) 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);
(e) he contravened a law which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);
(f) he contravened a law such that the contravention has caused or may cause a student who is under the member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);
(g) he committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
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 3), which provides the following:
Joshua John Pallot was at all material times a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. In April 2010, the Member obtained an Interim Certificate of Qualification and Registration. In May 2010, the Member obtained a Certificate of Qualification and Registration. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Algoma District School Board (the “Board”) as an [XXX] teacher.
At all material times, Student 1 was a female student at [XXX] (the “School”). Student 1 was a member of the School’s girls’ [XXX] team. The Member was an [XXX] of the School’s female and male [XXX].
Student 1 first met the Member when she was [XXX] years old and the Member [XXX] her [XXX] team. Student 1’s [XXX] and the Member are [XXX].
In or about September 2013, the Member and Student 1 began a [XXX]. At the time, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old grade [XXX] student. The sexual relationship continued until in or about April 2014.
The Member and Student 1 engaged in repeated acts of oral sex and intercourse. Often, the sexual relations took place at the Member’s residence.
In or about April 2014, Student 1’s parents became suspicious and concerned about the Member’s relationship with Student 1. Student 1’s parents warned the Member to stay away from Student 1.
On or about April 17, 2014, Student 1’s parents contacted the School and the Police about their concerns about the Member’s relationship with Student 1.
On or about April 21, 2014, the Member was charged with one count of sexual exploitation, contrary to section 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada) and one count of sexual luring, contrary to section 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada).
On or about June 4, 2014, the Member was granted bail. As a term of his recognizance, the Member was not to contact Student 1. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a certified copy of the Member’s recognizance of bail.
On or about April 22, 2016, the Member was found guilty of one count of sexual exploitation in that:
Between 1 September 2013 and 17 April 2013 at the [XXX], being in a position of trust or authority towards [Student 1] a young person did for a sexual purpose touch directly the body of [Student 1] a young person, with a part of his body to wit: his penis and hands, contrary to section 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Between May 4, 2015 and July 2015, the Member communicated with Student 1 on Twitter and, as a result, the Member was also found guilty of breaching a term of his recognizance of bail, contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code.
The Crown withdrew the count relating to section 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
On or about June 2, 2016, the Member was sentenced to 330 days incarceration and three years’ probation with respect to the section 153(1) conviction. The Member was sentenced to 30 days for the breach of recognizance conviction, which was to be served consecutively with the 330 days’ incarceration. A term of the Member’s probation is that he is not to have any position, paid or volunteer, where he would be in a position of trust or authority of females under 18 years of age. The Member was also made the subject of a number of ancillary orders.
Attached as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the certified court documents relating to the Member’s June 2, 2016 conviction.
Attached as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Proceedings at Guilty Plea from April 22, 2016.
Attached as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Transcript of the Reasons on Sentencing from June 2, 2016.
Board Response
On April 18, 2014, the Board suspended the Member without pay.
On June 18, 2014, the Board terminated the Member’s employment. Attached as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member.
The Member’s Current Status at the College
- As of June 2015, the Member was administratively suspended from the College for failure to pay annual fees.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document,1 the Member admits the truth of the facts and Exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-20 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in sections 30(2) and 30.2(2) of the Act and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standard of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he abused a student sexually contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(d) 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);
(e) he contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);
(f) he contravened a law such that the contravention has caused or may cause a student who is under the member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);
(g) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
- 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 the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and 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; and
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and without the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
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(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) 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 to 20 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(7.2), 1(7.3) 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 5, 6, 11, 12 and 14-19 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 5, 6, 11, 12, 14-17 and 19 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17 and 19 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act.
Paragraphs 5, 6, 11, 12 and 14-19 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 subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 5, 6, 11, 12, 14-17 and 19 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member contravened a law which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16).
Paragraphs 5, 6, 11, 12, 14-17 and 19 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member contravened a law such that the contravention has caused or may cause a student who is under the member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17).
Paragraphs 5, 6, 11, 12 and 14-19 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 5, 6, 11, 12 and 14-19 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).
The Committee is gravely concerned with the Member’s misconduct. His sexual abuse of a student was egregious and completely unacceptable. The Committee highlights the following findings contained in the Reasons for Sentence from the Ontario Court of Justice dated June 2, 2016:
First, the difference in age between [XXX] and [XXX] Mr. Pallot is [XXX] years older than the complainant. However, it must be noted also that Mr. Pallot at all times was an adult, whereas the complainant was a minor.
Second, Mr. Pallot has always been in a position of trust and authority in this matter. He was the complainant’s [XXX] for both her [XXX[ school and her [XXX]. Given the amount of [XXX] the complainant was playing, it is evident that she loved and may still love the game. As her [XXX], Mr. Pallot not only controlled her playing time, but whether she was even a member of the team. He was also her [XXX]. While the status may have been that of a [XXX] or [XXX] teacher, he still had the authority of the position of teacher. That position provides not only legal status, but also legal power. With every right, there is a co-relative duty. For the power that Mr. Pallot had, there was a co-relative duty to use it in the best interests of the student. He failed to do so. In fact, he abused that power. He deliberately violated his duty.
Mr. Pallot was not only trusted as a teacher, but it also turned out he was a [XXX] of the complainant’s [XXX]. Whether that was known to the complainant is not clear. It seems likely that it was known to the complainant’s [XXX} and seems likely that that would have provided some comfort or confidence to the complainant’s [XXX], both of which turned out to be misplaced.
Mr. Pallot took the complainant to his home. In that location, there was a power imbalance. The complainant was no longer in a neutral site of a [XXX] or a [XXX][XXX]. The complainant was a minor, was alone in the home of a person whom she regarded as her [XXX], her teacher, and even her friend.
There was repeated sexual acts extending over a period of time. Mr Pallot, as an adult, had time to think and re-think about his misconduct. Mr. Pallot, as a teacher, had time to think and re-think about the impropriety and illegality of his actions. The time and opportunity for better judgment to come forward did not occur. In fact, even after Mr. Pallot was released on a recognisance that prohibited communication with the complainant, he breached that recognisance. He renewed his communication with the complainant. It is troubling to think that Mr. Pallot, the adult, the teacher, the [XXX], still could not see the impropriety and illegality of his actions.
There were multiple breaches of his bail terms – multiple tweets. Mr, Pallot had to have known, following his release form custody, that his conduct would have been carefully scrutinized and his failure was at stake in so many respects. The lack of judgment displayed by Mr. Pallot is troubling. (Exhibit 3 at Tab E)
As set out above, the Committee finds that the Member blatantly abused his position of trust and authority and showed a complete disregard for the wellbeing of Student 1.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed 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 via videoconference from 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”); and
direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which Certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar.
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
College Counsel referred the Committee to one case involving the application of a mandatory penalty for misconduct listed in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act: Ontario College of Teachers v. Lavigne, 2017 ONOCT 55. The Committee recognizes that the Member’s conduct involving the sexual abuse of a student is one of the enumerated acts of professional misconduct listed in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. Pursuant to subsection 30.2(1) of the Act, the Committee therefore must make an order: (a) requiring that the Member be reprimanded by the Committee; and (b) directing the Registrar to revoke any certificate held by the Member under the Act. The Committee notes that it has no discretion in this regard. The Member breached his position of trust and authority in an egregious manner and he completely undermined the confidence that the public places in members of the teaching profession. The misconduct is made even more grievous by virtue of the fact that the Member was in a position of trust outside of an academic setting due to his [XXX] relationship with Student 1. The Committee is deeply concerned by the negative impact that the Member has had on Student 1, and it denounces the Member’s repugnant conduct in the strongest terms.
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: November 15, 2017
Ravi Vethamany, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Tom Potter Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT Member, Discipline Panel