DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and Ontario Regulation 437/97 thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Magelle Lepage, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Sara Nouini, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Christine Lonsdale, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
– and –
MAGELLE LEPAGE (CERTIFICATE #205524) Lise Leduc, Goldblatt Partners LLP, for Magelle Lepage
Renée Kopp, Jones Litigation Counsel LLP, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: April 13, 2017
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 April 13, 2017 in Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated September 30, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Magelle Lepage (“the Member”), requesting her presence on November 23, 2015 to set a date for the hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for April 13, 2017.
The Member was present at the hearing and had legal representation.
ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Magelle Lepage is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in sections 30(2) and 40(1.1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) she abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3), and/or sexually abused a student, as described in Part 1 of the Act;1
(d) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(e) she committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);
(f) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
The Member is a member of the College. A copy of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration from the College is attached as Tab A.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l’est ontarien (the “Board”), as a teacher at [XXX] (the “School”), in [XXX].
During the 2012-2013 school year, the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1, a Grade [XXX] student.
The inappropriate relationship included electronic communications with Student 1. A copy of the conversations on Facebook between the Member and Student 1 is attached as Tab B. The conversations started on February 7, 2013 and ended on June 11, 2013.
The Facebook communications include numerous inappropriate comments, among them:
(a) “Me, too…I like you a lot and you’re lovable and yes, I’ll always be there for you”;
(b) “If it makes you feel good sometimes to give me little hug, that’s fine too”;
(c) “There is something I can do…but tell me you want me to…a little hug…I don’t know…”;
(d) “You said you weren’t thinking about anything when you looked at me with your beautiful green eyes…why do you look at me like that?”;
(e) “We can’t get too attached (Student 1)…”;
(f) During a conversation on FaceTime, a video calling application, “What are you doing topless in front of your iPod lol”;
(g) “Don’t forget I love and adore you…xoxo”;
(h) “Ok, I’m really going now…love you…xoxoxoo anyway at the end of the year I want my hug before you leave…;)”;
(i) “I know we aren’t supposed to write each other but this is important…”
- In her communications with Student 1, the Member referred to physical contact with Student 1, including:
(a) “What were the two bear hugs for?”;
(b) “Ok, so no hug…even though you hugged me the other day.”;
(c) “If you feel awkward about a hug, it could be a touch or a wink or a smile …or maybe you’ve come up with something else…”;
(d) “Let’s say I would have taken you in my arms before you left…the way you look at me with those eyes…”;
(e) “Every time I see you I want to hug you…”.
On or about May 1, 2013, the Principal of the School learned of an iPod conversation between the Member and Student 1. On May 3, 2013, the Principal gave the Member a warning and reminded her of her responsibilities under the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, but the Member continued her electronic communications with Student 1.
The Member urged Student 1 on several occasions to keep their communications confidential and to delete them.
Between June 1 and August 31, 2013, the Member invited Student 1 to her home, with another student, to babysit her children, even though the Principal had told her to end all communication with Student 1.
During the material time, the Member was going through a difficult personal situation. At the time, she was feeling extremely lonely and trying to cope by surfing social media. She became dependent on social media to fulfil her own needs for affection. According to a report by Dr. François Beaudoin on April 19, 2014 (copy attached as Tab C), the two tests he administered to the Member showed no evidence of sexual deviance.
The Member has successfully completed a course on the use of electronic modes of communication with students and appropriate relationships with students. According to the report dated April 14, 2014 from the course provider, Donat Boulerice (copy attached as Tab D), the Member has completed all of the course requirements and understands the serious nature of her actions.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member acknowledges that the aforementioned Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Member states that she:
(a) understands the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) understands that, by signing this document, she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) understands that, by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) understands that a summary of the decision and reasons of the Discipline Committee, including reference to her name, will be published in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession;
(e) understands that the agreement between the parties with respect to penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) understands this Agreement and acknowledges that she is executing it voluntarily and unequivocally and has had the opportunity to seek the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by her as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the aforementioned Uncontested Facts and the Plea of No Contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find that the Member’s actions constitute professional misconduct.
DECISION
At the hearing on April 13, 2017, Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct set out in paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing, to the effect that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions by the parties, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Magelle Lepage is guilty of professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted 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 her. She acknowledged, and the Committee accepts, that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest show that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest show that the Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest show 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 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest show 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 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest show 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 Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct the Member to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the College’s offices at 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, and that the fact of the reprimand be recorded on the College’s Register;
direct the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of four months from the date of the Committee’s order, and that the fact of the suspension be recorded on the College’s Public Register;
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and that the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations be recorded on the Public Register:
(a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at her own expense, a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries, pre-approved by the Registrar, that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall provide a Registrar-approved course provider with a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the Joint Submission on Penalty entered into evidence at the hearing into this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) after a review of the documents referred to in (i) above, the course provider shall submit to the Registrar, for his approval, a curriculum for the proposed course which specifically addresses the concerns of the Discipline Committee with respect to the Member’s professional misconduct. The curriculum proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of said course and describe the course objectives;
(b) Within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide the Registrar with evidence in writing from the course provider stating that:
(i) the Member has successfully completed the course, and describing the Member’s progress with respect to the course objectives.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty proposed by the parties and makes an order based on its terms and conditions, as noted above.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it has determined its jurisdiction to make the order in question, 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 otherwise be 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. Furthermore, the penalty proposed by the parties falls within a reasonable range, based on similar case law produced by Counsel for the College, namely, Ontario College of Teachers v. Ste-Croix, 2015 ONOCT 75; Ontario College of Teachers v. Gerwin, 2014 ONOCT 42; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gowans, 2014 ONOCT 45.
The Committee finds that the Member’s unacceptable conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. The Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with a student, which included numerous inappropriate electronic communications as described above. Even though she was instructed by the Principal of the School to stop all communication with the student, the Member failed to end the inappropriate relationship. The Committee is seriously concerned by the teacher’s inability to maintain appropriate boundaries. 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 Public Register is important, as it will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
Given the seriousness of the Member’s conduct, the Committee finds that a four-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The Member’s psychological or emotional abuse of the student was not sexual in nature, but it lasted for several months. The teacher’s inappropriate communications were multiple and part of a disturbing pattern of behaviour. The behaviour continued even though the Principal of the School warned the Member to end all inappropriate communications with the student. The Member persisted nonetheless in her worrisome communications with the student. Furthermore, a four-month suspension falls within a reasonable range, based on similar case law produced by the College. It will serve as a specific deterrent for the Member, and the recording of the fact of the suspension on the Public Register will serve as a general deterrent to members of the teaching profession.
The Committee finds that the course on maintaining appropriate boundaries will assist with the Member’s rehabilitation by reminding her of her obligations as a member of the teaching profession, and will help her to make better decisions in her future interactions with students. The Committee notes that the professional advisory on the Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media (February 23, 2011) submitted by Counsel for the College is intended to provide a context for the responsible, professional use of electronic communication and social media and is an important tool for members of the College, including the Member.
Publication of an accused member’s name is now compulsory pursuant to section 45.1 of the Act. Accordingly, the Committee’s decision and reasons, with the Member’s name, will be posted on the College website and a summary of its decision and reasons, with the Member’s name, will be published 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: April 13, 2017
Robert Gagné Chair, Discipline Panel
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel