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
Farhez Lakhani, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair
Sara Nouini, OCT
Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Christine Wadsworth,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela Spano,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
FARHEZ LAKHANI ) Joshua Phillips,
(CERTIFICATE #203080) ) Ursel Phillips
) Fellows Hopkinson LLP,
) for Farhez Lakhani
) Erica Richler,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: August 16, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on August 16, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A Notice of Hearing dated January 7, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Farhez Lakhani (the “Member”), requesting his presence on February 6, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for August 16, 2017.
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 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 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
(c) 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:
Farhez Lakhani 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 York Region District School Board (the “Board”) as Head of the [XXX]Department at [XXX]School (the “School”) in Markham, Ontario.
At the material time, Student 1 was a male Grade [XXX] student at the School. Student 1 was subject to an [XXX]and participated in the School [XXX]operated by the Board. Student 1 was known amongst staff at the School as an [XXX]with [XXX]issues.
In the academic year 2012-2013, Student 1 sold stolen goods (principally clothing) to students on School property and during school hours.
In or around January 2013, the Member purchased clothing items from Student 1 that the Member knew or ought to have known were stolen goods. The Member also provided to Student 1 a list of items for Student 1 to obtain and sell to the Member.
In addition to cash payments, the Member agreed Student 1 could take two lighters in exchange for the goods. The lighters were School property intended for use in the Science laboratory.
The Member encouraged and/or invited other teachers at the School to view and/or purchase items being sold by Student 1.
During one transaction, a security tag was visible on an item shown to the Member. According to Student 1, the Member saw the security tag and looked at Student 1 “in a funny way.” Were the Member to testify at a hearing, he would state that at no time did he see a security tag.
On or around January 16, 2013, School caretakers found broken retail security tags in the boys’ washroom. That same day, Student 1’s [XXX]informed the principal that the Member had purchased stolen goods from Student 1.
Following an investigation by police, the Member was charged with possession of property obtained by crime under $5000. On July 11, 2013, the Crown requested that the charge be withdrawn following the Member’s completion of 50 hours of community service.
Following an investigation by the Board, the Member’s employment was terminated effective June 4, 2013. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s June 3, 2013 letter to the Member.
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(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 the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between the parties 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
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(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 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(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 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 5, 6, 7, 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 disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 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 St. West, 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 retroactively suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two months, from June 4, 2013 to August 4, 2013. The fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register immediately;
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) within 90 days after the Discipline Committee’s decision, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course provider 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) following review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course provider 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 provider 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 provider:
(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 case presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Seymour, 2014 ONOCT 97 (“Seymour”).
The Committee finds that the Member’s disgraceful conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. By purchasing stolen goods from a student, encouraging other teachers to do the same, and allowing the student to misappropriate property that belonged to the School, the Member failed to uphold the ethical standards expected of members of the teaching profession. Members of the profession are expected to serve as positive role models for students at all times, and the Member fell far short of this expectation. In addition, the Member had a leadership role as a department head within the school community and in this instance failed to model the integrity expected of leaders. The Member knew or ought to have known that Student 1 was selling stolen goods, and rather than addressing this conduct, he encouraged it by participating in the student’s illegal enterprise and inviting others to do the same. The Member displayed a serious lack of professional judgment in this regard. 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 a two-month retroactive suspension is appropriate given the circumstances of the Member’s case. The suspension will be applied retroactively to correspond to the school year during which the misconduct took place, as agreed to by the parties. The duration of the suspension is proportionate to the Member’s misconduct, it is consistent with the penalty ordered in Seymour (a similar case before the College’s Discipline Committee), and it will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the teaching profession.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The Committee expects that the course provider will assist the Member in becoming aware of his failure to meet the ethical requirements of the profession. The Committee also expects that the Member will use this opportunity to re-familiarize himself with the ethical standards of the teaching profession and that he will uphold these high standards moving forward. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make appropriate 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 penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: August 23, 2017
Tom Potter
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel