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
Costante Bortolin, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair Sara Nouini, OCT Vicki Shannon, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Janice Duggan,
) for Ontario College of Teachers
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS )
– and – )
COSTANTE BORTOLIN ) Adam Webb,
(CERTIFICATE # 496779) ) Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP
) for Costante Bortolin
) Erica Richler,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: December 20, 2016
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on December 20, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated December 3, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Costante Bortolin (the “Member”), requesting his presence on January 14, 2016 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for December 20, 2016.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Costante Bortolin is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);
(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);1 and
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
- Costante Bortolin 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 with respect to the Member.
Background Information
The Member has been employed by the York District School Board (the “Board”) since 2005. His primary teachable subject is Transportation Technology. He has taught at Stouffville District Secondary School (the “School”) in Stouffville, Ontario since 2011, where he continues to teach.
As a Transportation Technology teacher at the School, the Member teaches up to three Transportation Technology courses per semester. These courses include the dismantling and rebuilding of vehicles which are donated to the Transportation Technology program at the School.
The Member personally processed approximately twelve vehicle donations at the School between 2011 and 2014.
The Conduct
In or around mid-September 2014, a member of the community (the “Donor”) inquired with the Member by phone about donating a 1998 Honda Civic (the “Vehicle”) to the School. The Vehicle was not mobile and had not been moved for some time. The Member agreed to pay for towing of the Vehicle to the School. The Donor’s intention was to donate the Vehicle to the School for teaching purposes of the students at the School. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is the summary of the Board’s interview with the Member.
Prior to the Donor donating the Vehicle, the Donor spoke to the Member about the model and condition of the vehicle, and the Member told the Donor that the Vehicle likely had minimal value for the purpose of a charitable tax receipt, which he knew would be at a minimum of $100.00. At this time, the Member did not provide the Donor with a charitable tax receipt.
The Member was aware of the circumstances when a charitable tax receipt was to be given to the Donor, as he had previously obtained receipts for other donors. If he were to testify, the Member would state that the Donor did not ask him for a charitable tax receipt for the donation.
In or around late-September or October 2014, the Member received an offer from one of his colleagues, during instructional time, to trade the Vehicle for two used vehicle donations – a Toyota Corolla and a Volkswagen Golf. At that time, the Transportation Technology program at the School had only two vehicles available for student instruction. Due to the shortage of vehicles in the program, the Member agreed to the trade. He realized no personal gain from the deal. However, the Member entered the agreement without the permission of the Donor, the School, or the Board, and the Member’s colleague retained ownership of the vehicle.
Subsequent to the vehicle trade, the Donor witnessed the Vehicle being driven by the Member’s colleague out of the School’s parking lot with a different licence plate. The Donor contacted the School and advised the principal of her concerns regarding the use of the Vehicle, including stating that she had not transferred ownership of the Vehicle to the Member’s colleague.
The Member acknowledges that he did not have permission from the Donor, the School, or the Board to transfer ownership of the Vehicle to his colleague, and that doing so was an error in judgment.
As a result of the Member’s actions described in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 above, the Member received a letter of reprimand from the Board and was suspended for five days without pay. Attached and marked as Exhibit “C” is the letter from the Board dated December 1, 2014.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member does not contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-11 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(10), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading no contest 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 depending on the penalty ordered by the Discipline Committee, the decision of the Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, may be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between the parties with respect to the penalty proposed in this document 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.
- In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(10), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member did not contest the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest 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(10), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
Paragraphs 6, 8 and 10 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10).
Paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
Paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations is to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) within 90 days of the date of the order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding the ethical practice of teachers;
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course practitioner stating that:
(i) he or she has reviewed a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty, documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee; and
(ii) the Member has successfully completed 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 that the penalty jointly proposed by the parties is not so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of justice or the discipline process into disrepute. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case. The penalty proposed by the parties is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous case presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Canning, 2015 ONOCT 9.
The Committee finds that the Member’s unprofessional conduct 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 course of instruction regarding the ethical practice of teachers will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions moving forward.
The Committee accepts the submissions of College Counsel with respect to mandatory publication and recognizes that it no longer has the discretion to order publication with or without name. In accordance with the recent amendments to the Act (and subsection 45.1 in particular), a summary of the Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published with the Member’s name on the College’s website and 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 serves and protects the public interest.
Date: January 6, 2017
Robert Gagné
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Vicki Shannon, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- With the Member’s consent, College Counsel indicated that the College would not seek a finding with respect to disgraceful or dishonourable acts under subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.