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
Kantilal Manga, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Jane Ishibashi
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
KANTILAL MANGA ) Adam Webb,
(CERTIFICATE #244582) ) Ursel Phillips Fellows
) Hopkinson LLP,
) for Kantilal Manga
) Rebecca Durcan,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: June 1, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 1, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated March 10, 2014 (Exhibit 1) was served on Kantilal Manga (the “Member”), requesting his presence on April 14, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. A second Notice of Hearing dated July 30, 2014 (Exhibit 2) was served on the Member, requesting his presence on August 22, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. A third Notice of Hearing dated July 28, 2015 (Exhibit 3) was served on the Member, requesting his presence on September 8, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing with respect to the allegations set out in Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 was subsequently set for June 1, 2017. The parties agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations of professional misconduct set out in all three Notices of Hearing.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the first Notice of Hearing (dated March 10, 2014) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member 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 abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he 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 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
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
The allegations against the Member in the second Notice of Hearing (dated July 30, 2014) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he 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 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
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
The allegations against the Member in the third Notice of Hearing (dated July 28, 2015) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);1
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) 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);
(f) 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
(g) 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 4), which provides the following:
Kantilal Manga 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX]Institute (the “School”).
At all material times during the 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 academic years, the Member taught [XXX]and [XXX]courses in the [XXX]at the School. In each of those years, the Member made inappropriate comments to, and about, students in his classes.
2011-2012 Academic Year
In or around early December 2011, the Member introduced a female student in his class who had an identified [XXX] to an OISE teacher-candidate at the School with the following statement: “she may look like an academic student, but her brain doesn’t work that way.” The student was upset by the comment.
The OISE teacher-candidate who heard the Member’s comment reported that it “was said in a joking way to suggest that [the student] was not succeeding in class,” and that “the student would take it as offensive.”
Principal’s Investigation
Around this same time, the principal received complaints from two other students regarding inappropriate comments and/or derogatory remarks made by the Member during class. As a result of being approached by the three students, the principal initiated an investigation. Fourteen students from the Member’s classes were interviewed and reported the conduct below.
The Member referred to students who skipped his classes as [XXX]. On one occasion, the Member entitled a class assignment, “Student 1’s[XXX].” Student 1, a male student in the Member’s class, had been previously referred to as a [XXX[ by the Member.
The Member referred to students who missed his tests as “pulling a [Student 2’s name].” Student 2 was a male student who missed many classes.
One day in October 2011, Student 3 was bragging in class. The Member asked Student 3 in front of the class what his father did for a living. When Student 3 did not respond, the Member repeated the question. When Student 3 said his father [XXX] the Member said, “see, there you go.” A student who heard this comment perceived it as humiliating for Student 3.
The Member made the following inappropriate, culturally insensitive comments in class:
(a) “Brown people are the smartest”;
(b) “Brown people and Asians have a better work ethic”;
(c) suggested that Bengali students are dumb;
(d) “Don’t do the Black thing”;
(e) “Ethiopians come from Africa to get an education and end up skipping and doing drugs”;
(f) “Tamil people are the only people that work in gas stations”;
(g) “Chinese people only drive Hondas”;
(h) “Italians are stupid”;
(i) suggested that Irish are “kind of brutes” and “stupid”;
(j) “Native people are nothing but drunks and alcoholics”;
(k) told female students of colour, “you’ll have to work extra hard to get ahead or you’ll end up at home and be beaten by your husband”;
(l) told his students that all they will ever amount to is “working at No Frills”.
The Member made disparaging remarks to students regarding the academic abilities of the School’s students in general, and compared the School’s students’ academic abilities with what he perceived to be a higher calibre of students attending a neighbouring [XXX]. Similarly, the Member compared staff at both schools, telling students in his classes that the staff was “better” at the neighbouring [XXX].
In January 2011, the Member had been suspended by the Board for ten days regarding an issue involving Student 4, a male student at the School. The Member had been directed by his principal not to discuss the matter with anyone. During the 2011-2012 academic year, on three occasions while Student 4 was present, students asked the Member where he had been the previous year. The Member told the class he believed Student 4 and his friends, naming each of them, had complained about him, which led to his suspension. The Member referred to his suspension as his “break” from School.
Discipline
On March 5, 2012, the principal met with the Member and his representative to advise that based on his investigation, he confirmed that the Member had behaved inappropriately. By letter dated March 8, 2012, the Member was reminded that he had received two previous letters of discipline for inappropriate remarks to students, and was advised that on this occasion he was suspended without pay for 20 days from March 6 to April 11, 2012. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of the Discipline Letters dated March 8, 2012, January 12, 2011, and September 22, 2006.
On April 26, 2012, the Member and his representative attended a re-entry meeting with administrators wherein the Member was reminded that he should think carefully about the language he chose to use with students on a going-forward basis. The Member acknowledged he had made mistakes, and assured the principal that he would be cautious.
2012-2013 Academic Year
During the first semester of the 2012-2013 academic year, the Member taught Grades [XXX] and [XXX] [XXX]at the School.
On or about February 5, 2013, Student 5, a female student with a [XXX], arrived late to class. As she was putting her phone away, the Member told her to stop playing on her phone, to pay attention and do her work, and that she would never learn anything because she was “stupid”.
The Member regularly asked students to complete sample questions in front of the class on the chalkboard. While students [XXX]out their answers on the blackboard, the Member would sometimes mock them or make faces behind their backs. While some students laughed at the Member’s conduct, others felt uncomfortable and insecure. The Member referred to students who did not go to the chalkboard when asked as “foolish”; he said it was “escapism from learning” and they risked their credit.
On or about February 19, 2013, the Member asked Student 6, a female student in his class, to complete a question on the chalkboard. Student 6 was in class the day before when, as her friend wrote her answers on the blackboard, the Member made faces behind her back. Student 6 told the Member that she did not want to approach the board and said she would prefer to show him her answer at his desk. When he told her it was “escapism from learning” and reminded her that students risked their credit if they didn’t go up to the board, Student 6 said she would put her answer on the board the next day. Although she was legitimately sick the next day, the Member commented to the class that Student 6 had tried to “escape” his class.
In late February 2013, Student 7 asked the Member for help during class. She had inserted the wrong [XXX]into the question, resulting in incorrect answers. When the Member questioned where she got her [XXX]from, the student returned to her desk and said, “this is so stupid.” The Member responded, “no, you’re so stupid.” Student 7 claimed that she stopped asking the Member for help because whenever she did, the Member became frustrated and yelled at her.
Principal’s Investigation
The principal investigated by interviewing a number of students from the Member’s classes. Some students confirmed that they did not like to go to the board because they were afraid the Member would embarrass them in front of the class if they answered incorrectly.
Students reported that the Member made the following inappropriate and culturally insensitive comments in class, which made some of them feel uncomfortable:
(a) “white people are takers and they take the answers but don’t bother to understand them”;
(b) “children in Canada are lazy and not as educated as children in South Africa”;
(c) “Indians and Chinese kids are forced to learn”;
(d) students at the School were not “smart enough”;
(e) “if you keep doing this – you’re not going anywhere in life,” and referred to students as “dumb” and “fools” if they did not understand the work;
(f) said that “South Asian people are smarter because they are strict”;
(g) said that one student’s parents worked at a grocery store, because the student was Asian;
(h) when students answered incorrectly, the Member said, “these are the students who don’t do any work in class”.
On one occasion, the Member made the following remark to the class, but directed it at a particular student from India: “we all know that [Student 8] is not your first name, your father didn’t name you that.” The class laughed at the Member’s comment about Student 8.
On another occasion, after asking one of his students where he was born and receiving the student’s answer, the Member told the student he should “probably be better with[XXX].”
Discipline
- By letter dated May 6, 2013, the principal advised the Member and his representative that he had completed his investigation into allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the Member and concluded that the Member’s behaviour was unprofessional. He reminded the Member that this was not the first documented occurrence of unprofessional behaviour towards students. The Member was suspended for 37 days without pay. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Discipline Letter to the Member dated May 6, 2013.
2013-2014 Academic Year
On or about October 23, 2013, Student 9, a [XXX]-year-old female student, mentioned in the Member’s class that she was looking forward to playing [XXX] with a friend. The Member said to her, “oh, you are that good.” When she replied “I guess,” the Member responded, “you don’t look like it.” When she asked why, the Member said words to the effect of, “you don’t look athletic because your thighs touch.” Student 9 was shocked and upset by the Member’s comments, and did not respond. Student 9 told her guidance counsellor that she felt anxious going to the Member’s class because he insulted some students.
When asked about the comments described in paragraph 25, the Member expressed that it was not meant to be derogatory, but failed to recognize the inappropriate nature of the remarks.
In early December 2013, the parents of Student 10, a female student in the Member’s class, contacted administration about the Member’s racist and homophobic comments. Specifically, the Member told the class that homosexuality and transsexuality are genetic and run in families, and if you have gay parents you will be gay. Student 10 was offended by the Member’s statement.
The principal conducted an internal investigation into Student 10’s complaint by interviewing four students from the Member’s classes. These students disclosed further incidents regarding the Member’s inappropriate comments in class.
Board’s Investigation
In January 2014, as a result of the two internal investigations into the incidents involving Students 9 and 10, the Board appointed an investigator to investigate the Member’s conduct during the first semester of the 2013-2014 academic year. The investigator interviewed seven students from the Member’s classes who disclosed that the Member made a number of inappropriate comments to or about students, had yelled at students to “shut up”, and used swear words in class, including “shit” and “fuck”.
On one occasion, two [XXX]-year-old male students were talking during a presentation. The Member made a gesture as though he may hit one of the students and said words to the effect of, “if it got physical, and we were outside, I could take you.” Shortly thereafter, the Member asked Student 10, the other male student, to speak with him outside. Student 10 refused to go because he did not feel safe, given what the Member said earlier. The Member stated that he had “never gotten physical with a student.”
On more than one occasion in front of other students, the Member told Student 10 he hated his behaviour, and said words to the effect of, “I wouldn’t mind getting suspended for you, without pay.” He suggested to Student 10 that Student 10 should drop his class.
Student 11, a [XXX]year-old [XXX]male student, sometimes had issues with the computer. Three students reported observing the Member grab or pull Student 11’s hand away from the computer when frustrated with Student 11’s behaviour.
The Member made a number of disparaging remarks about the School, its students and staff, including words to the effect of:
(a) “students at [the School] are not up to academic level and [the neighbouring school] is better”;
(b) “when they added the [XXX] department at the School, it was not a [XXX] anymore”;
(c) the [XXX] program was pointless, the [XXX] students were lazy, the [XXX] teachers were “huggers”, and the School was “[XXX]”;
(d) he would like to get a ladder, climb up it and remove the word [XXX]from the front of the School;
(e) the students at the School “get dumber every year and abuse their education”.
Discipline
By letter dated September 15, 2014, the Board advised the Member that it had completed its investigation and had determined that the Member’s actions were “both unprofessional and unbefitting a [XXX] school teacher and the Board no longer has confidence that it can place students whose parents/guardians are expecting a safe and caring learning environment under your supervision.” The Board referred to the Member having received three previous letters of discipline and suspensions without pay for similar behaviours, dated May 6, 2013, March 8, 2012, and January 12, 2011. It pointed out that part of the previous discipline processes included the requirement that the Member complete equity-focused Professional Development and access resources of the Employee Assistance Program to help him understand the “importance of sensitivity as a dynamic of effective interpersonal and workplace relationships.” On this occasion, Board administration suspended the Member without pay, effective September 16, 2014, pending a recommendation for the termination of his employment on October 29, 2014. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Board’s letter dated September 15, 2014.
Effective September 16, 2014, the Member retired from his teaching position at the Board. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Board’s letter acknowledging receipt of the Member’s letter of retirement.
GUILTY PLEA
- By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
(a) The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) 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 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 otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including reference to his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between his counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (c) of the third Notice of Hearing dated July 28, 2015, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(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 35 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 4-12, 16-23, and 25-33 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 4-11, 16-23, 25-31, and 33 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).
Paragraphs 4-12, 16-23, and 25-33 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 4-12, 16-23, and 25-33 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 4-12, 16-23, and 25-33 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 4-12, 16-23, and 25-33 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through an amended2 Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 5), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member shall receive an oral reprimand immediately following the hearing 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 suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of four months commencing on the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) prior to undertaking any teaching position or any other position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course(s) of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics and cultural sensitivity training, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and makes an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case. The penalty proposed by the parties is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Pecile, 2016 ONOCT 41 (“Pecile”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Cobden, 2011 ONOCT 12 (“Cobden”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Lowrie, 2015 ONOCT 53 (“Lowrie”).
The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated pattern of insensitive and inappropriate conduct, despite warnings and discipline from school administration and the Board, 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 suspending the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of four months is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member. The Member’s conduct involved a repeated pattern of inappropriate, unprofessional and abusive behaviour towards students, and is unacceptable. Despite repeated warnings from school and Board administrators, the Committee was concerned by the Member’s lack of awareness and insight into the inappropriateness of his conduct and its impact on the wellbeing of his students. The duration of the suspension is also appropriate given that it is within a reasonable range as established by other similar cases before the College’s Discipline Committee, including Pecile, Cobden and Lowrie. Finally, recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee finds that the course(s) of instruction regarding professional ethics and cultural sensitivity training should assist in the process of rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
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 jointly proposed penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: June 28, 2017
Vicki Shannon, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Jane Ishibashi
Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- Allegation withdrawn.
- During the hearing, the parties agreed to amend paragraph 1 of the Joint Submission on Penalty to indicate that the Member shall receive an oral reprimand immediately following the hearing, rather than within 120 days of the Committee’s order, because the Member was present at the hearing and was therefore available to receive his reprimand immediately following the hearing.