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
Sean Michael Douglas, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Ravi Vethamany, OCT, Chair Colleen Landers Pauline Smart
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Andrew Matheson, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
– and –
SEAN MICHAEL DOUGLAS (CERTIFICATE # 500902) Sean Michael Douglas was not present and did not have legal representation
Erica Richler, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, and Renée Kopp, Jones Litigation LLP, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: November 8 and 9, 2016
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on November 8 and 9, 2016 at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated March 12, 2013 (Ex. 1) was served on Sean Michael Douglas (the “Member”) requesting his attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on May 6, 2013 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for November 8 and 9, 2016.
The Member was not in attendance at the hearing and was not represented by legal counsel.
Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Annie Lacroix, affirmed November 4, 2016 (Ex. 2), to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that could be sought by the College. In the affidavit, Ms. Lacroix, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, describes in detail her communication with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents. The Member did not attend at the hearing. On the basis of the affidavit, the Committee is satisfied that the Member was served with the Notice of Hearing and disclosure documents, and was aware of the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that could be sought by the College. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.
SUMMARY
The allegations in this matter are centred on the Member’s boundary violations with female students and the sexual abuse of one student between 2009 and 2011. In terms of boundary violations, the Member was alleged to have sought to develop intimate, unprofessional relationships with female students by spending time alone with them in [XXX], [XXX] and in his car. In terms of the sexual abuse allegation, the Member was alleged to have fostered a sexualized relationship with a grade [XXX] student and then engaged in a physical relationship with her after her [XXX], including having sexual intercourse with her.
For the reasons set out in detail below, the Committee has determined that the College has proven the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.3), 1 (15), 1(18) and 1(19).
As well, for the reasons set out in detail below, the Committee finds that an appropriate penalty is revocation of the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration and publication of a summary of his case with name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
THE ALLEGATIONS
IT IS ALLEGED that Sean Michael Douglas is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(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 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;
(c) 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);
(d) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
THE PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATIONS
Sean Michael Douglas is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the York Region District School Board (the “Board”) as a high school teacher.
During the 2008-2009 academic year, the Member taught at [XXX] School [XXX]. At the same time, Student 1 was a student of the Member at that school.
In or around April 2009, the Member on one occasion drove Student 1 home late at night, from a [XXX] some distance from her residence, in his personal vehicle.
During the 2009-2010 academic year the Member taught at [XXX]. At that time, Student 2 and Student 3 were students of the Member at that school.
In or around March 2010, while the Member and students were returning to [XXX] from a field trip, while on their way back to the school on a bus, the Member allowed Student 2 to rest her head on his shoulder while she slept.
On or around April 29, 2010, the Member while on a class trip, was alone with Student 2 when he went for a walk with her, with the result that he was not present to supervise his other students, who were on that class trip.
On or around May 7, 2010, the Member drove Student 3 from a [XXX] at a [XXX] in [XXX], which they were attending, to have lunch and visit a [XXX]. Instead of returning to that [XXX] for the afternoon [XXX], the Member and Student 3 did not attend the [XXX] as scheduled.
During the 2010-2011 academic year, the Member taught at [XXX] School in [XXX] XXX. Student 4 was a student at that school, during that academic year.
Between the months of June and September 2011, the Member, engaged in a personal relationship with Student 4, which included, but was not limited to his:
(a) exchanging electronic communications with Student 4;
(b) being alone with Student 4 on a number of occasions;
(c) allowing Student 4 to stay overnight at his residence;
(d) providing Student 4, who was under the age of nineteen, with alcohol;
(e) engaging in a sexual relationship with Student 4.
Subsequent to the events described in paragraph 10 above, the Member attempted to obstruct the Board’s investigation by encouraging Student 4 to lie about and/or to deny that an improper relationship between them existed.
The Member’s employment was terminated by the Board on or about October 27, 2011.
THE MEMBER’S PLEA
Because the Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was he represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that he denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUE
Qualifying the participant expert, Leslie Johnstone
At the time of the hearing, Ms. Leslie Johnstone was Associate Director of Schools at the York Region District School Board. Prior to this, she acted in an administrative capacity as a superintendent, principal or vice-principal at the Board since 1998. At the time of her investigation of the Member in 2011, she was Superintendent of Education at the Board.
Ms. Johnstone gave evidence about her investigation of the allegations concerning Student 4 and the disciplining of the Member. She also gave evidence regarding the standards of the profession in regards to boundary issues with students and appropriate conduct between teachers and students in social or non-academic settings.
College Counsel submitted that, according to the test set out in Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”), Ms. Johnstone meets the definition of a participant expert. Westerhof defines a participant expert as an expert who “form[s] opinions based on [her] participation in the underlying events… rather than because [she was] engaged by a party to the litigation to form an opinion” (para. 6). Such a witness can give opinion evidence where the opinion is based on the witness’s observation of or participation in the events at issue, and the witness formed his or her opinion based on the ordinary exercise of his or her skill, knowledge, training and experience (para. 60). College Counsel submitted that Ms. Johnstone qualified as a participant expert due to the fact that she came to an opinion about the Member’s breaches of the standards of the profession based on her investigation into the allegations against the Member and based on her ordinary duties as a superintendent.
In R. v. Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that expert evidence may be admitted where the following criteria are met: (a) relevance; (b) necessity in assisting the trier of fact; (c) the absence of any exclusionary rule; and (d) a properly qualified expert.
The Committee is of the view that the expert evidence of Ms. Johnstone should be admitted. Her evidence is relevant to the question of whether the Member breached the standards of the profession; it is necessary insofar as the Committee must receive evidence as to what the relevant standards of the professions are in the circumstance of the case before it can make a ruling as to whether these standards have been breached (Novick v Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508); there is no exclusionary rule preventing Ms. Johnstone’s evidence from being admitted; and, Ms. Johnstone is a properly qualified expert based on her expertise and experience as an educator and administrator. In addition, there is no evidence that her role as superintendent biased her evidence such that it cannot be admitted according to the criteria above.
Additionally, based on her role in the investigative process and her extensive expertise as a teacher and administrator, Ms. Johnstone meets the criteria of a participant expert as articulated in Westerhof. Accordingly, the Committee qualified Ms. Johnstone to give evidence as to the standards of the profession regarding boundary violations.
THE EVIDENCE
Ms. Catherine McGinley
Ms. McGinley was the former principal of [XXX] School, and investigated the 2009-2010 incidents involving the Member. At the time of the hearing she was a principal in [XXX].
Ms. McGinley gave evidence that she was principal when the Member was interviewed by the superintendent. Ms. McGinley was not present at the interview but gave evidence on the basis of documents created by the superintendent, which were copied to Ms. McGinley. During that interview the Member acknowledged that he drove Student 1 home from a [XXX] [XXX].
Ms. McGinley testified that she learned about the incident with Student 3 after the female teacher who attended a [XXX] at [XXX] in [XXX] with the Member and Student 3 expressed concern that the Member did not show up in the afternoon to the [XXX] with Student 3. Ms. McGinley stated that she began to investigate the matter and other teachers brought forward concerns about the Member. She then held a meeting with the Member, the administration and the Member’s union representative on May 11, 2010. After this, the Member was escorted out of the school and told that he was to remain away from work with pay pending investigation of the incident. He was prohibited from contacting students of the Board or being on Board property (Ex. 5).
She then interviewed Student 2 and students in the Member’s class regarding the Member’s conduct with Student 2. Specifically, she investigated the field trip in which Student 2 allegedly put her head on the Member’s shoulder, and the incident in which the Member allegedly walked around alone with Student 2 in downtown [XXX] during another field trip (Ex. 6).
Ms. McGinley also testified about interviewing Student 3 in regards to attending a [XXX] with the Member and going to lunch and [XXX] with him alone on May 7, 2010. Ms. McGinley took contemporaneous notes of this interview (Ex. 6).
On May 13 2010, the Member met with Superintendent of Education Chris McAdam, Ms. McGinley, Ms. Dorothy Cammaert, Senior Manager, Human Resource Services, and his union president. The superintendent issued a written reprimand letter on June 7, 2010 based on the incidents with Student 2 and Student 3, stating that these actions constituted boundary violations (Ex. 7).
The Committee found Ms. McGinley to be a clear and reliable witness. Further, it found that the evidence that she presented which was based on student interviews was reliable, given Ms. McGinley’s use of good investigative techniques, such as, calling students out of class and interviewing them separately and asking them open-ended questions to preserve the integrity of the investigation. The Committee accepted her evidence.
Student 3
Student 3 was in the Member’s [XXX] class in the second semester of 2010, when she was in Grade [XXX]. She testified about approaching the Member and interviewing him for an [XXX] because she had an interest in [XXX]; they then developed a rapport and he would edit and review her [XXX] for other classes.
She gave evidence about going to a [XXX] at [XXX] in [XXX] with the Member, and then travelling with him alone in his car to have lunch at a restaurant and to go to [XXX] when they were supposed to be at the [XXX]. She also testified as to the personal emails which the Member sent her (Ex. 8). The Committee found Student 3 to be composed and focused in her testimony. She became emotional at times because of the nature of the testimony. However, her evidence was balanced and she did not appear to be editing or changing her evidence to bolster the College’s case. The Committee found Student 3 to be a credible witness.
Leslie Johnstone
Ms. Johnstone interviewed Student 4, her sister, and her mother at the beginning of September 2011 (Ex. 14). Ms. Johnstone said that at first Student 4 was reluctant to be involved in the investigation, but then changed her mind and participated because she said she did not want anyone else to go through a similar experience with the Member. Student 4, her sister and her mother spoke to Ms. Johnstone about the Member’s sexual relationship with Student 4 and the fallout once this relationship was discovered by Student 4’s sister and mother. Ms. Johnstone was also involved in the investigation and disciplining of the Member.
Ms. Johnstone’s status as a participant expert has already been established. In terms of her general credibility, the Committee found that Ms. Johnstone was reliable and unbiased in her evidence. She had very good recollection of events, and only gave evidence about the aspects of the investigation and discipline that she herself was involved in. The emails between Student 4 and the Member which Ms. Johnstone received from Student 4 and reviewed as part of her evidence were consistent with Ms. Johnstone’s evidence about her interview with Student 4. The Committee determined that Ms. Johnstone was a credible witness.
Ms. Johnstone gave evidence as a participant expert that the standards of the profession require teachers to maintain clear professional boundaries with students in terms of not treating them as friends or peers, nor engaging them in any kind of sexualized manner. Ms. Johnstone stated that it is a standard of the profession that teachers maintain these boundaries regardless of whether the student is in a teacher’s class or in another class or school. Ms. Johnstone explained the meaning of sexual “grooming” by a teacher, describing it as the act of playing on a student’s vulnerability to make her feel special and to isolate her in order to violate boundaries for a sexual purpose. She explained that grooming by a teacher would be a violation of the standards of the profession.
Mr. Johnstone reviewed the documentary sources which, in her opinion, reflect the standards of the profession. She noted the College’s Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession (Ex. 10) which states that teachers must express their commitment to students’ well-being; must develop relationships with students, colleagues, parents and the public based on trust; and must act with honesty and integrity. She also noted the College’s Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Ex. 10), which requires Members to be dedicated in their commitment to students and to treat them with respect.
As well, she pointed to the College’s Professional Advisory on the Use of Electronic Communications and Social Media (Ex. 12), which states:
The Ontario College of Teachers Act and the Student Protection Act include “behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by a member towards a student” in the definition of sexual abuse. Thus, some behaviours that do not include any physical contact can be considered to be sexual abuse, and remarks of a sexual nature communicated online fall within the definition of sexual abuse.
Members have been found to have groomed a student for sexual purposes, using electronic messages to gradually win a student’s confidence and establish an inappropriate relationship.
Even if a member waits until the student has graduated before a sexual relationship occurs, the electronic communications with the student could result in findings of professional misconduct against the member (p. 5).
Ms. Johnstone also highlighted the College’s Professional Advisory – Professional Misconduct Related To Sexual Abuse and Sexual Misconduct (Ex. 11), which indicates that it is unacceptable for a member to attempt to engage in or engage in a sexual relationship with a student, and it is not necessary for the student to be in the member’s class: “ A student may be a student who is in the school or school system where the member is employed, or in relation to whom a member is otherwise considered to hold a position of trust and responsibility.”
This advisory also states that members should use good judgement in order to avoid situations which may be considered preludes to sexual misconduct, and should therefore refrain from:
inviting individual students to their homes
seeing students in private and isolated situations
exchanging personal notes, comments or e-mails
becoming personally involved in students’ affairs
giving personal gifts to students
sharing personal information about themselves
making physical contact of a sexual nature.
Ms. Johnstone stated that, every year, teachers would receive a review of the standards of the profession regarding boundaries as part of their professional training.
Dorothy Cammaert
Ms. Dorothy Cammaert is Superintendent of Human Resources at the Board. She has been in this position since 2012, and has worked in human resources since 2002. Ms. Cammaert was present when Ms. Johnstone interviewed Student 4 and her sister, and corroborated Ms. Johnstone’s evidence as to the content of the interviews. Ms. Cammaert was present when the Member was given the written reprimand letter of June 7, 2010, and at the September 28, 2011 investigation meeting. The Committee found Ms. Cammaert’s evidence to be clear and reliable.
Bernadette Best
Ms. Bernadette Best is an investigator with the College and investigated the allegations of misconduct made against the Member. She gave evidence that the Member sent a written response to her on July 10, 2012 (Ex. 23).
In his written response, the Member stated that, in relation to Student 1, he drove her home from [XXX] at the request of her mother and did so as a polite gesture.
The Member stated that, in relation to Student 3, he had the “proper documentation filed with parental permission as well as permission from the school administration” to allow Student 3 to accompany him in his vehicle to and from the [XXX]. He wrote that “on route home” he and Student 3 stopped to grab food and visit [XXX].
In relation to Student 4, the Member wrote that the allegations have caused him a huge amount of emotional, physical and psychological stress. He wrote that he found the investigation upsetting because Student 4 was never a student of his and he had no association with her while she was a student. He also wrote “[t]o further this point, she contacted me and initiated the first communication we had.” He denied grooming a student or having a relationship with a student.
The Member wrote that the emails he had with Student 4 were not in any way inappropriate, and denied that he knew her when she was a student. He wrote that they went to a restaurant and she ordered an alcoholic drink and he did not question her age.
The Member wrote that Student 4 asked him if she could work for his [XXX] during the summer, and he said yes. He alleged that her family knew that she was working at the [XXX]. The Member stated that he and Student 4 “cuddled and kissed” one weekend; he wrote, “as far as I knew, there was no reasons why we could not, but this act was limited as we were both tired after a long day and an early work day following. We fell asleep and that was that.” The Member denied contacting Student 4 after he received her message stating that she never wanted to hear from him again.
The Member included a number of reference letters with his written response, including a letter written by Student 2, a letter written by another student, and professional references from the subject head of [XXX] at [XXX] and another teacher.
SUBMISSIONS AS TO FINDING BY COLLEGE COUNSEL
The College argued that the Member’s conduct in violating boundaries with students and his sexual misconduct with one student violated the standards of the profession. College counsel argued that the Member’s sexualized emails and grooming of Student 4, which led to sexual intercourse, constituted sexual abuse. College Counsel also submitted that the conduct violated the Education Act insofar as students were not treated with fairness and respect. Finally, College Counsel argued that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional and unbecoming a member of the profession.
DECISION
Having considered the evidence of the witnesses for the College, the documentary evidence, the submissions of College Counsel, and the Member’s written response to the investigation, 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(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Factual findings
Student 1
The Committee finds that in April 2009, when he was a teacher at [XXX] School, the Member drove Student 1 from a [XXX] store in [XXX] to her home in [XXX] at around 10:30 in the evening. The Member made this admission when he met with the Superintendent of Education, with other administrators and the union president. The Member also admitted that he drove the student home in his written response to the College, but stated that it was at the request of the student’s mother. In May 2009, the Member was given the following warnings (Ex. 4):
You must not drive students in your car at any time. If a student requests a ride with you, you are to refer the student to administration or offer taxi support through the school;
You must not mark student work in public places such as Starbucks as work could become lost and as you indicated, students often see you there, join you and know what you are doing;
You must cease from discussing your personal life with students so that students are not aware of your routines and personal habits.
Student 2
Student 2 had been in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class, although the incidents involving her occurred in 2010 when she was in Grade [XXX].
According to Ms. McGinley’s notes of her interview with Student 2, Student 2 denied that the Member let her rest and sleep with her head on his shoulder during a school bus trip. According to Ms. McGinley, a number of other students that Ms. McGinley interviewed said that they did see Student 2 with her head on the Member’s shoulder.
The Committee finds, based on the evidence of Ms. McGinley, that Student 2 was invited by the Member to attend a school trip to see a [XXX] for the second time. On the day of the trip, she and the Member walked around downtown [XXX] when they were supposed to return to the [XXX] to participate in a [XXX]. Although Ms. McGinley’s evidence was hearsay, the Committee found that it was reliable. This was because, according to Ms. McGinley, Student 2 admitted to her that she walked around with the Member when they were supposed to be at the [XXX], notwithstanding the fact that Student 2 did not think that the Member had done anything wrong and in fact wrote a letter in support of the Member which he submitted to the College, as noted above. The fact that Student 2 made this admission, notwithstanding the fact that she was in support of the Member, bolstered its credibility.
Student 3
The Committee finds, based on the evidence of Ms. McGinley and Student 3, that on May 7, 2010 the Member drove with Student 3 alone in his car; he went to a restaurant for lunch and to [XXX] with her when they were supposed to be present at the [XXX] where the [XXX] occurred. The Committee rejects the Member’s contention, in his written response, that these events occurred after the [XXX] was finished, on the route home.
Student 3 testified that she attended a [XXX] with the Member at a [XXX] in [XXX] and assisted him with a [XXX]. In the morning, the Member drove Student 3 and a female teacher who was also attending the [XXX]. The Member’s [XXX] was in the morning. There was lunch available for participants in the cafeteria of the [XXX], but the Member suggested to Student 3 that the two of them go out for lunch. He then drove them to a [XXX] restaurant. After lunch, instead of returning to the [XXX] to continue to participate in the [XXX], the Member and Student 3 went to [XXX] to browse and then returned to the [XXX] later in the afternoon. During her in-person evidence, the Committee was able to assess Student 3’s credibility. The Committee found she had no motive to fabricate these events and found her version of events to be reliable based on the straightforward nature of her testimony, and the fact that it was consistent with the earlier interview statement she gave Ms. McGinley.
Based on a review of the email correspondence and Student 3’s testimony, the Committee determined that the Member also engaged in personal email correspondence with Student 3 between December 2009 and December 2011 (Ex. 8). Student 3 had contacted the Member about editing some of her [XXX] for other classes. The Committee found that, through these emails, the Member was trying to create a personal relationship with Student 3. He said that she was a person that really “stand[s] out from the rest” and said he wanted to get to know her (p. 5); that he would always find time for her (p.8); called her “dear girl” (p. 8); talked about going with her to cafes (p. 8, 13); and he referred to her as being “perfect in my thoughts” (p. 14).
The Member would message Student 3 late at night, a factor which added to the intimacy of their communications (p. 24).
Once the Member was being investigated for his conduct (Ex. 5), he wrote to Student 3 telling her that he was in tears and his life and career were being taken away. He said that he did not want to lose Student 3 “on any level” and “unfortunately I agree that until school is over, it has to be professional” (p. 27). He asked her to delete all their emails and pretend they had not communicated (p. 29-33). The Member also invited Student 3 to work with him at the [XXX] after the school year was over and tried to meet up with her after school was over (p. 30, 39, 47, 54, 66). The Member wrote that he knew that he was taking a risk, indicating that he knew communicating with Student 3 on a personal level was not allowed.
Student 4
The Committee finds that, based on the evidence of Ms. Johnstone, Ms. Cammaert, and the email correspondence between Student 4 and the Member (Ex. 16), the Member engaged in a sexualized relationship with Student 4 between approximately June 22, 2011 and the beginning of September 2011. Student 4 did not graduate high school until [XXX].
In her affidavit, Ms. Annie Lacroix stated that Student 4 and her mother were contacted during the investigation, and indicated that the events at issue were traumatic for Student 4 and she did not wish to re-live the experience by participating in the hearing (p. 7). Although this was hearsay, the Committee found that Ms. Lacroix’s explanation for why Student 4 did not want to testify was credible, and was reliable based on the sworn nature of her testimony.
According to Ms. Johnstone’s testimony of her interview with Student 4, Student 4 did not have the Member as a teacher, but saw the Member’s published book on Facebook; she messaged him and they started an email correspondence. She was in Grade [XXX] at the time. The Member used his personal email account.
The Committee carefully reviewed the email correspondence that Student 4 provided to Ms. Johnstone. According to the emails, when the Member began to email Student 4, she wrote to him on June 22, 2011 that she was surprised to get his message because most “teachers, let alone ‘adults’… don’t take me or my generation seriously” (Ex. 16, p.1). Student 4 also wrote that it was intimidating writing to a teacher, and that she thought the Member was “intriguing” based in part on her interactions with his students. The Member wrote that Student 4 should not see him as a “teacher” but as a human. On the same date, the Member responded to Student 4’s message and said that it was nice to connect with her, “the real you away from the school persona” (p.3). The Committee finds the Member knew that Student 4 was a student at the time he commenced correspondence with her.
The emails between the Member and Student 4 were very intimate in nature, talking about the Member’s personal life. During one email, he intoned that he was drunk when messaging Student 4, writing in his message of June 23, 2011, “You are wonderful… wait, maybe that is the wine talking...” (p.14). He made sexualized innuendo to Student 4 in this message, stating “I’m so proud to be your first” when talking about [XXX] (p.15).
The Member attempted to have Student 4 work for his [XXX], and also wanted to see her socially, stating “let us pick a day soon!!! (probably best after [XXX]… LOL… you or I do not need any drama in our lives…LOL)” (p.15). The Committee finds that, based on this evidence, the Member knew he should not be having a personal relationship with Student 4 because of their student-teacher status, but proceeded with this relationship notwithstanding.
Student 4 began to work at the Member’s [XXX] after [XXX] at the beginning of July. He picked her up and dropped her off. After the second day of working at the [XXX], Student 4 stayed over at the Member’s house.
The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member gave Student 4 a glass of wine and they had sexual intercourse when she stayed over at his house. The evidence which the Committee relies on in making this finding is: the testimony of Ms. Johnstone and Ms. Cammaert, who interviewed Student 4 and were present when she gave her statement about these events; the Member’s double-entendre comment to Student 4 that “I’m so proud to be your first”, which alluded to sex; and Student 4’s email to the Member on September 17, 2011, discussed further below, stating what she and the Member did was “absolutely” sick and that he was a “pedophile”. The Committee finds that these pieces of evidence, taken together, establish that the Member and Student 4 had sexual intercourse, on a balance of probabilities. The Committee rejects the Member’s assertion that they only kissed and cuddled.
Based on Ms. Johnstone’s testimony of her interview with Student 4 and the email correspondence, the Member and Student 4 continued to get together over the next two weeks, and they went to a movie, for coffee and to a restaurant.
According to the interview notes of Student 4, at one point during the last two weeks of July, Student 4 told her sister about the relationship, who then told Student 4’s mother. Student 4’s mother made her text the Member telling him that they could not see each other anymore and that if he contacted her, her mother would alert the Board. On July 11, 2011, Student 4 emailed the Member telling him that her mother found out about their relationship and telling him that she was going along with her mother’s instructions because “if I don’t things will get ugly for you and fast” (p. 36).
Student 4 knew that the Member was being investigated in regards to their relationship at the end of August and the beginning of September. On September 1, 2011, the Member met with Ms. Johnstone and the principal of the school. He was advised that he was to remain away from work with pay pending the investigation of a complaint; he was not to have contact with any student of the Board and was to refrain from being on Board property (Ex. 13).
On September 5, 2011, in his email to Student 4, the Member told Student 4 that they needed to coordinate their versions of events in relation to the investigation, stating: “As for having details straight, it’s more for my sake as if our stories in any way differ, they will hang me for certain, and I know the kinds of questions they ask and the[y] do try to trick you and me into saying [sic] slipping up! They will jump on the smallest detail and use it, so it is important that we cover everything […] as soon as I get back home on Tuesday, I will call you… I want to talk with you before I have to talk with the board. Unfortunately for this we only have each other to lean on!” (p. 45). The Committee finds based on this evidence that the Member was pressuring Student 4 to lie about their relationship for the purpose of protecting his career.
On September 9, 2011, the Member met with Ms. Johnstone, Ms. Cammaert, and his union representative to review the complaint (Ex. 17).
On September 17, 2011, Student 4 emailed the Member telling him that she did not want to talk to him and that he should not contact her. She told him “what we did was absolutely sick… you’re such a pedophile and I get sick when I think about what we did… I hate you for what happened and I hate myself” (p. 46).
After this, the Member contacted Student 4 once more on January 1, 2012. He stated that he knew Student 4 did not want to hear from him, but he wrote about the pain which Student 4 and the investigation had caused him and his disappointment that Student 4 “fell victim to the way of thinking that so many others do” (para. 47).
The Member’s employment was terminated by the Board on October 27, 2011 (Exs. 17-18).
Legal findings as to professional misconduct
The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to [Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-437-97/latest/o-reg-437-97.html#sec1subsec5_smooth)
The Committee finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession in his interactions with all four students referred to in the allegations.
The Committee accepts Ms. Johnstone’s evidence that it is a standard of the profession that teachers maintain clear professional boundaries with students. They must not engage in personal, intimate interactions with students.
The Committee finds that the Member breached this standard when he had extra-curricular interactions with Students 1, 2 and 3 in situations where they were isolated, such as alone in a car, at a restaurant, or at a café. The inappropriateness of these interactions was not mitigated by the fact that, as the Member argued in the case of Students 1 and 3, he had parental permission to drive the students, as he was using these opportunities to get close to the students rather than fulfill his professional obligations. In all three cases, the Member engaged with students in a manner which violated appropriate student-teacher boundaries.
More egregiously, the Committee accepts based on Ms. Johnstone’s evidence and the College standards documentation that it is a standard of the profession that teachers are prohibited from engaging in sexualized relationship with students, whether in person or over email, and are prohibited from grooming students for future sexual interactions.
The Committee finds that the Member very clearly violated the standards of the profession which prohibit sexual abuse by engaging in a sexualized email relationship with Student 4 and grooming her for sexual conduct after her [XXX], a serious act of misconduct which will be discussed in the following section.
The Committee strongly endorses the statement of Ms. Johnstone that “we don’t expect teachers to act like automatons, we expect human beings, but what the Member did was well beyond the appropriate boundaries.” The Committee also agrees with Ms. Johnstone’s assessment that the Member’s conduct with regard to Student 4 was “textbook grooming”.
The Member abused a student or students sexually, contrary to [Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-437-97/latest/o-reg-437-97.html#sec1subsec7.3_smooth) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act
The Committee finds that the Member abused Student 4 sexually. The Member established an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 4 through emailing and socializing which was sexual in nature, as well as through grooming, while she was a student. Sexual abuse in the Act is defined as including “behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the student.” The Member’s flirtatious and personal emails to Student 4, as well his sexual jokes such as “I’m proud to be your first” when referring to [XXX], were remarks of a sexual nature. These emails and the Member’s invitations to Student 4 to go out with him after [XXX] constituted grooming of Student 4 for a future sexual relationship. This relationship culminated in an evening in which the Member gave Student 4 wine, had her stay over at his house, and had sexual intercourse with her.
Although the Member is not being investigated for allegations of engaging in an inappropriate relationship with Student 3 through his email correspondence with her, the Committee accepts that these emails should be admitted into the record and considered as similar fact evidence. The fact that the emails sent by the Member to Student 3 were very similar in tone and content to those sent to Student 4 indicates that the Member was not merely being friendly to female students. Rather, he was engaging in a sustained effort to gain the trust of female students in their [XXX], engage in intimate relationships, isolate them through private visits and employment at his [XXX], all with the goal of establishing sexual relationships and grooming female students for sex.
The effects of the Member’s sexual abuse of Student 4 were significant. She wrote in her email of September 17, 2011 that she was sickened by their relationship and she hated herself because of it. As well, the affidavit of Ms. Lacroix confirms that Student 4 is still negatively affected by the experience. The Member’s misconduct was extremely exploitive and damaging to Student 4.
The Committee finds that the evidence supports a finding that the Member sexually abused Student 4.
The Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, [chapter E.2](https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/hstat/rsq-c-e-2/latest/rsq-c-e-2.html), and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to [Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-437-97/latest/o-reg-437-97.html#sec1subsec15_smooth)
Section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act states that “[i]t is the duty of a teacher and a temporary teacher… to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.” Through his boundary violations and sexual abuse, the Member failed to show respect or moral regard for his students. The Member exploited his position of authority as a teacher to gain intimacy with students and, ultimately, to sexually abuse a student.
In addition to his boundary violations and sexual abuse of a student, the Member acted in a dishonest manner by pressuring Student 4 to lie about her relationship with him.
All these actions are antithetical to the responsible, trustworthy role a teacher is expected to maintain with students.
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)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-437-97/latest/o-reg-437-97.html#sec1subsec18_smooth)
The Committee finds that the Member acted in a disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional manner by repeatedly engaging in intimate interactions with students and, in the case of Student 4, engaging in sexual misconduct with a student. The Member exploited his position of trust and power over students in order to place these students in compromising, inappropriately personal positions. In the case of Student 4, his sexual grooming and sexual abuse of a student was a gross violation of his responsibilities as a role-model and authority figure.
In addition to sexually abusing Student 4, the Member also attempted to obstruct the investigation into his actions by encouraging her to lie and deny her relationship with him. This attempt to emotionally manipulate Student 4 was a further abuse of her trust.
The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to [Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-437-97/latest/o-reg-437-97.html#sec1subsec19_smooth).
For the same reasons grounding a finding of a violation of subsection 1(18), the Committee finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member.
The Member’s misconduct was extremely serious. Teachers are expected act with respect and moral integrity. The Member’s boundary violations and, in particular, his sexual abuse, fell far below the standard expected of members of the profession.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE COLLEGE WITH RESPECT TO PENALTY
College Counsel argued for revocation of the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration and for publication of the findings and order of the Committee in summary form, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
The College argued that revocation was appropriate because the findings of professional misconduct included serious online sexual misconduct which was followed by a sexual relationship after [XXX]. College Counsel relied on the following cases in support of its position: Ontario College of Teachers v. Floro, 2014 ONOCT 39, Ontario College of Teachers v. Matejovic, 2012 ONOCT 24, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Nevins, 2011 ONOCT 22.
The College argued that the severe nature of the Member’s misconduct, combined with his failure to rehabilitate his conduct and the need for general deterrence, called for revocation.
PENALTY
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which Certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar; and
There shall be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee, in summary form in the official publication of the College Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, with the name of the Member.1
REASONS FOR DECISION
Revocation of the Member’s certificate is necessary in order to protect future students from similar boundary violations and sexual abuse by the Member, as he has shown no willingness to rehabilitate his behaviour. The Member was disciplined by his employer in May 2009 and June 2010 about boundary violations and given explicit instruction not to engage in personal relationships with students. He disregarded these warning and the severity of his misconduct in fact increased, culminating in the sexual abuse of Student 4. The Member has shown that he cannot be trusted with students and that the strongest possible sanction must be put into place to protect the safety of the public.
The Member’s written response is evidence that he had no insight into why his actions with Students 1 and 3 violated appropriate boundaries. Even more seriously, his response with respect to Student 4 indicated that he is unwilling to understand that he abused his position of trust and authority by developing a sexualized relationship with a student at another school and groomed her for sexual relations after the school year was over. The Member attempted to minimize the seriousness of his contact with Student 4, insisting among other things that his conduct was not serious because he only kissed and cuddled her. Even if this was the extent of the sexual conduct, which the Committee has rejected, it finds that the Member’s conduct leading up to any kind of sexual activity with Student 4 was grooming and constitutes sexual abuse.
Particularly egregious was the Member’s attempt to deflect blame by pointing to the fact that Student 4 initiated the contact between the two of them; regardless of whether a student or a teacher initiates contact, it is wholly unacceptable for a teacher to a cultivate a sexualized relationship with a student and groom her for sexual contact.
The Member refused to take responsibility for his actions; instead, he persisted in denying that he did anything wrong and characterized himself as the victim. The consequences for a victim of sexual abuse are severe. This is evident in Student’s 4 very emotional, disgusted response to the Member in her last email to him. The Member was oblivious to the pain he caused his victim, and only focused on the impact of the investigation and discipline on himself.
Revocation will also denounce the Member’s predatory and sexually abusive conduct in the strongest terms possible, and act as general deterrence to show the profession at large that such conduct will not be tolerated in the teaching profession.
Finally, the Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted. Publication with name acts as general deterrence for the profession as it identifies to the profession the serious nature of a member’s misconduct, the fact that it is not tolerated and the consequences of such behaviour. It also 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: February 8, 2017
Ravi Vethamany, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Colleen Launders Member, Discipline Panel
Pauline Smart Member, Discipline Panel