Ontario College of Teachers v. Allam, 2017 ONOCT 86

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Allam 2017 ONOCT 86

Date: 2017-11-20

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 Raymond Nicholas Allam, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Jane Ishibashi, Chair Alexander (Sandy) Bass Sara Nouini, OCT

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Janice Duggan, for Ontario College of Teachers

– and –

RAYMOND NICHOLAS ALLAM (CERTIFICATE #475667) Kirsty Niglas-Collins, KNC Law, for Raymond Nicholas Allam

Rebecca Durcan, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: November 20, 2017

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 20, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated February 1, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on Raymond Nicholas Allam (the “Member”), requesting his presence on February 28, 2017 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 20, 2017.

The Member attended the hearing remotely via video conference, in accordance with Rules 3.01 and 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee. This electronic hearing was held with the parties’ consent. The Member also had legal representation who attended the hearing in person.

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 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);

(c) 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

(d) 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:

1. At all material times, Raymond Nicholas Allam was 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed as a full-time secondary school teacher by the Rainy River District School Board (the “Board”) at the [XXX] (the [XXX]) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. At all material times, [XXX] was a male who was employed as a youth service supervisor at the [XXX]. At all material times, [XXX]. was a male who was employed as a youth service supervisor at the [XXX]. At all material times, [XXX] was a male who was employed as a youth services worker at the [XXX].

4. In or about December 2012, while at the [XXX] [XXX], the Member grabbed [XXX] genitals.

5. In or about December 2012, while at the [XXX] [XXX], the Member attempted to grab [XXX] crotch.

6. In or about December 2012, while travelling in a colleague’s vehicle following the [XXX] [XXX], the Member grabbed [XXX] genitals.

7. In or about December 2013, while at a [XXX] outing following the [XXX] [XXX], the Member grabbed [XXX] genitals.

8. On or about April 11, 2014, while at a [XXX], the Member grabbed [XXX] genitals.

9. As a result of the physical contact that occurred on April 11, 2014, the Member and [XXX] became involved in a physical fight.

10. The Member acknowledges that all incidents of inappropriate and non-consensual grabbing or attempted grabbing of his colleagues’ genitals occurred in settings where he had consumed substantial amounts of alcohol.

11. Effective April 24, 2014, the Member resigned from the Board.

12. The Member has secured employment outside the teaching profession in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and has no immediate intention to return to teaching.

13. The Member realizes that his behaviour was unacceptable and unprofessional and he expresses regret about his conduct.

GUILTY PLEA

14. By this document¹, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-13 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

15. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) 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);

(c) 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

(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

16. 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 his counsel 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 with the advice of legal counsel.

17. 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(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 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(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

Paragraphs 4-10 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 4-10 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 4-10 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 4-10 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:

1. direct that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person² 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”);

2. direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the "Registrar") to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three 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; and

3. direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations is to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) prior to any return to teaching or any 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 of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional interactions and boundary violations;

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certification from the course provider stating that:

(i) he or she has reviewed 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; and

(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course of instruction set out in (a) above.

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. With respect to paragraph 1 of the Joint Submission on Penalty, the Committee notes that, as agreed to by the parties, the reprimand will be delivered via video conference.

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. Ciraco, 2015 ONOCT 12 (“Ciraco”), Ontario College of Teachers v. Fair, 2016 ONOCT 21 (“Fair”), Ontario College of Teachers v. French, 2016 ONOCT 16 (“French”), and Ontario College of Teachers v. Klatt, 2006 ONOCT 23 (“Klatt”).

The Member’s conduct was completely unacceptable. The Member engaged in several incidents of inappropriate and non-consensual grabbing or attempted grabbing of his colleagues’ genitals, which occurred where he had consumed substantial amounts of alcohol. One of these incidents led to a physical fight involving the Member. Members of the teaching profession are expected to behave respectfully and to serve as positive role models who promote collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. Even when they are not in an educational setting and are not interacting directly with students, members must maintain a sense of professionalism at all times. The Member repeatedly fell short of meeting these expectations. His pattern of belligerent and inappropriate conduct undermined the trust and confidence that the public places in members of the teaching profession.

Reprimand

The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated pattern of inappropriate conduct 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 notes that the reprimand will be delivered via video conference as agreed to by the parties. The Committee is satisfied, based on the submissions of Member’s Counsel, the agreement of the parties, and the jurisprudence³ presented by Member’s Counsel, that it is appropriate to deliver the reprimand via video conference. The Member currently lives in a remote community in northern Ontario, and travel to the College would be difficult and costly. While it is not common for reprimands to be delivered via video conference, the Committee accepts that this is appropriate in the circumstances.

Suspension

The Committee finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable in this case. The duration of the suspension is within an appropriate range as established by previous cases before the Discipline Committee, and it is proportionate to the Member’s misconduct. While the six-month suspension ordered in Ciraco was longer than the proposed suspension in the Member’s case, the Committee accepts that Mr. Ciraco’s misconduct was more serious than the Member’s misconduct. Mr. Ciraco was found guilty of sexual assault contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, which distinguishes that case from the Member’s case.

Similarly, the Member’s misconduct was less serious than the misconduct in French, which involved the inappropriate touching of a colleague and students by Mr. French. The involvement of students in the Member’s misconduct in French make that case more serious than the Member’s case. The Committee finds it reasonable that the suspension in the Member’s case is therefore shorter than the four-month suspension ordered in French.

The Committee agrees with the parties that the misconduct committed in Fair is similar to the Member’s misconduct and resulted in a sanction that included a three-month suspension. Like the Member, Ms. Fair inappropriately touched a colleague and engaged in a public altercation. Her sanction included a three-month suspension, in addition to a reprimand and the requirement that she successfully complete coursework prior to returning to the teaching profession.

The Committee also agrees with Member’s Counsel that the misconduct committed in Klatt was slightly less serious than the misconduct in the Member’s case, which explains why Mr. Klatt received a slightly more lenient penalty than the Member.

The Committee is therefore satisfied that a three-month suspension in the Member’s case is reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances of the Member’s case. Recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve to inform other members of the profession that there are serious consequences for engaging in the type of misconduct in which the Member participated. Even when not in an educational setting and not interacting directly with students, members must maintain professional behaviour at all times.

Coursework

The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding professional interactions and boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher; it will provide him with an opportunity to reflect on his concerning misconduct; and, it will help him to make better decisions should he return to teaching or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required.

Publication

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: November 20, 2017

Jane Ishibashi Chair, Discipline Panel

Alexander (Sandy) Bass Member, Discipline Panel

Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1For the purposes of paragraphs 14 and 16, this “document” refers to the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.
2. 2The parties have agreed to amend paragraph 1 of the Joint Submission on Penalty to provide that the reprimand will be delivered via video conference rather than in person, as originally stipulated.
3. 3See Ontario College of Teachers v. Cheechoo, 2017 ONOCT 25.