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
Paul Christopher Carter, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Jane Ishibashi, Chair
Ravi Vethamany, OCT
Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Charlotte-Anne Malischewski,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
PAUL CHRISTOPHER CARTER ) Patricia D’Heureux,
(CERTIFICATE # 489421) ) Cavalluzzo LLP,
) for Paul Christopher Carter
) Robin McKechney,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: October 26, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on October 26, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A Notice of Hearing dated December 8, 2014 (Exhibit 1) was served on Paul Christopher Carter (the “Member”), requesting his presence on January 14, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for October 26, 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 abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);1
(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); and
(e) 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:
Paul Christopher Carter 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 Halton District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).
During the 2012-2013 academic year, Student 1 was a male student at the School and in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class.
During the course of the 2012-2013 school year, the Member would exchange email messages with Student 1 about homework and other school-related issues. By Spring 2013, the Member began sending messages to Student 1 of a personal nature. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of email messages exchanged between the Member and Student 1 in the period of February to July 2013.
The email communications included messages sent during class time as well as late in the evening and on weekends. They included information about the Member’s personal life and questions about Student 1’s personal activities. The messages suggested that Student 1 should come to see the Member at school for one-on-one discussions.
On June 7, 2013, a Professional Activity Day, the Member told Student 1 that he was at the School and repeatedly suggested that Student 1 should stop by.
On several occasions Student 1 spent time alone with the Member in his classroom immediately following the end of class time. The Member also told Student 1 that he would like to attend Student 1’s [XXX] class and watch him [XXX].
In June 2013, the Member suggested to Student 1 that he should not attend [XXX] class until after a pending doctor’s appointment and told Student 1 to check with his mother to see if she agreed. The Member also told Student 1 that he could come to the Member’s classroom instead during that period.
On several occasions, the Member asked Student 1 to bring [XXX] pictures of himself to school to show the Member. He also indicated that he would like to watch Student 1 play [XXX].
In May 2013, the Member bought new glasses for himself. On May 26 and May 27, 2013, the Member emailed Student 1 and asked him whether he liked the Member’s new glasses. He told Student 1 that if Student 1 didn’t say the glasses looked good, he would return them.
In May 2013, the Member told Student 1 that he did not want to contact Student 1’s mother to advise her that Student 1 had been texting in class, even though he had contacted the parents of the other students involved.
In the email communications dated February to July 2013, the Member also made inappropriate comments to Student 1 which included:
(a) referring to Student 1 as “my fav student!”
(b) “I’m kind of glad March break is over…I kind of missed some of you guys – like you…hmm…maybe a few others too…I get attached to my students!”
(c) “stay awesome and amazing and incredible and I’ll see you tomorrow!!!!!!”
(d) “I’m having a boys [XXX] meeting with staff tomorrow – we’ll have tryouts next week. You know you’re in, but you still have to try out.”
(e) “You know I’m always lookin’ out for you!”
(f) “Ok, can you keep this a secret? Promise? You made the first cut! Kongrats!!!! Please don’t say anything.”
(g) “Hey awesome – thought I’d send you a link to some of my fav songs/videos…you know, in your spare time…What do you listen to? See ya tomorrow, awesome!”
(h) “I am working on your REPORT CARD right now. Wow, this one’s going to be a gem. You might want to frame it and hang it up beside a picture of your favourite teacher! Just kidding!”
(i) “How was the dance? Did you have a great time? Dance with anyone special? Any pictures to share by mistake? ☺”
(j) “Oh man, I’m going to miss you so much next year. You have no idea!”
(k) “stay in 1st break and I’ll make sure you know what you need to know to get A+”
(l) “glad we talked after school, and I hope you know that my door is ALWAYS open for you, even next year when i’m not teaching you.”
(m) “I might cry when you walk out next Thursday for the last time. I’m actually not joking when I say that! ☹ Very sad thinking about it‼!”
(n) “dude – don’t forget the kool [XXX] tomorrow – maybe the ones I gave you at christmas?”
(o) “Soooo good to hear from you. Love ya and miss ya x 1,000,000! Honestly! I was seriously missing you the first week of July. [Name of Student 1] withdrawal, I suppose...”
Student 1 alleges that the Member asked him not to tell his parents about their email exchanges. If the Member were to testify, he would deny this.
In August 2013, a report was made to the School and to the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) regarding electronic communications the Member engaged in with Student 1. An investigation was initiated by the Board and the CAS.
Following its investigation, the CAS concluded that the Member’s conduct constituted grooming behaviour and that a risk was posed to Student 1. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the CAS letter to the Member dated October 23, 2013. The Member denies that his conduct was for the purpose of grooming, though he acknowledges that it was not appropriate.
On or around November 18, 2013, the Member entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Board and resigned from his employment effective December 31, 2013.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document2, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in 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(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 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 him 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 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 (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Committee find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). 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(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 16 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(15), 1(18 – unprofessional), and 1(19).
Paragraphs 4-12 and 15 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 4-12 and 15 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 and 15 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 4-12 and 15 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 suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two months commencing on the date of the 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 commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations, 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 and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon 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 cases presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v Lepage, 2017 ONOCT 29, and Ontario College of Teachers v Gerwin, 2014 ONOCT 42.
The Committee finds that the Member’s failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Member engaged in inappropriate personal electronic communications and demonstrated favouritism to Student 1, as described above. Although the Member denies that his conduct was for the purpose of grooming, the CAS investigated the Member’s conduct and concluded that it constituted grooming behaviour and that a risk was posed to Student 1. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority, and the Member abused this position in a concerning manner. 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.
Given the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct, the Committee finds that a two month suspension is appropriate in the circumstances. The Member’s conduct formed part of a troubling pattern of behaviour, in which he had inappropriate personal communications with Student 1 over a period of approximately six months. The suspension is within a reasonable range based on the analogous cases presented by the parties.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and, should he return to teaching, 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 penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: October 26, 2017
Jane Ishibashi
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Ravi Vethamany, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel