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
J. Ted Erland, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair
Jane Ishibashi
Sara Nouini, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Christine Wadsworth,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela Spano,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
J. TED ERLAND ) J. Ted Erland,
(CERTIFICATE #261545) ) Self-represented
) Robin McKechney,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: June 7, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 7, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated January 25, 2016 (Exhibit 1) was served on J. Ted Erland (the “Member”), requesting his presence on January 29, 2016 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for June 7, 2017.
The Member was self-represented and he was in attendance for the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
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 psychologically or emotionally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he practised or purported to practise the profession while under the influence of any substance or while adversely affected by dysfunction which the member knew or ought to have known impaired his ability to practise, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(8);1
(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).
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 2), which provides the following:
J. Ted Erland 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 Ottawa Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2 were best friends and were Grade [XXX] female students at the School.
From approximately June to December 2014, the Member engaged in electronic communications with students, including Student 1 and Student 2 via Twitter, a social media site.
Inappropriate Electronic Correspondence
At some point in late November or early December 2014, Student 2 “unfollowed” the Member from Instagram, another social media site, and ceased to engage in electronic communications with the Member.
On or about December 4, 2014, the Member engaged in private electronic messaging with Student 1 over Twitter to ask her whether he did something to Student 2, because she “took [him] off Instagram.”
When Student 1 replied that she did not know about that, the Member tweeted the following response: “Maybe I’am just over reacting! But please Jesus let this be nothing personal cuz my heart would be broken forever!”
When Student 1 suggested it was “probably nothing”, the Member asked Student 1 to see him in his classroom the following morning, alone. He said he needed to tell her something “really important” and wanted to know whether he could trust her not to tell a soul.
When Student 1 responded that she was too busy to meet with the Member, he replied: “Better if I talk so I don’t get things confused. And you know who I want to ask you about, right?” Student 1 responded, “Student 2?”
Approximately one week later, in his last private Twitter message to Student 1, the Member wrote: “This is what I wanted to ask u: I’ve had the biggest crush on your best friend but I can’t say anything And I don’t think it matters anyway?” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the exchanges over Twitter between Student 1 and the Member in December 2014.
Student 1 brought the Twitter exchanges to the attention of a Guidance Counsellor at the School, who advised the principal. The Member and his representative met with Board administrators on January 8, 2015, at which time the Member acknowledged the inappropriateness of his behaviour, regretted the words he used, and advised that he had closed his Twitter account and ended all electronic communication with students.
The Member was suspended with pay from January 5 to 29, 2015. As a condition of his continued employment with his Board, the Member was required to complete a Boundaries workshop prior to the end of the school year, as well as to review the College’s Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and Professional Advisories (“Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media” and “Professional Misconduct Related to Sexual Abuse and Sexual Misconduct”), as well as Board policies relating to social media. In addition, he was administratively transferred to another school for semester two, and transferred into a permanent teaching position at a different school for the 2015-2016 school year. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated January 12, 2015, and the Board’s certificate of completion stating the Member completed the course “Relationships: Appropriate and Professional” on January 29, 2015.
During the material times, the Member was experiencing a difficult time in his life and was taking medication to alleviate his anxiety. If the Member were to testify, he would say that the increase in stress and the medication were contributing factors for his misconduct.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
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(7.2), 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 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 decision and reasons of the Committee, including reference to his name, will be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between him and Counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and without the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the 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 Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(8) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea limits the Member’s misconduct to unprofessional. The Committee granted these requests.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged, and the Committee accepts, that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
Paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 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 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 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, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 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, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 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 unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
Paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 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 a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:
- direct that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered 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”).
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. Somerfield, 2016 ONOCT 98 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Pott, 2014 ONOCT 83.
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate electronic communications with students warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Member must be reminded that the dynamic between members and students is forever changed when they engage in personal communications in an online environment. Members hold a unique position of trust and authority, and they should never engage in personal information-sharing, or discourse in any electronic setting which would not be appropriate in a school setting. The Member’s private electronic correspondence with students from the School was inappropriate, in violation of policies to which the Member was subject, and was in conflict with the standards of the teaching profession. 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.
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: July 6, 2017
Vicki Shannon, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Jane Ishibashi
Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel