DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Bond 2018 ONOCT 47

Date: 2018-09-07

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

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

Ellen Ann Bond, a retired member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ELLEN ANN BOND (REGISTRATION #180087)

PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair Colleen Landers Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT

HEARD: June 15, 2018 and August 24, 2018

Stephanie Sugar of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk

Heather Alden of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, for Ellen Ann Bond

Erica Richler of Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 15, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A Notice of Hearing dated April 8, 2016 (Exhibit 1) was served on Ellen Ann Bond (the “Member”), requesting her presence on April 22, 2016 to set a date for hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for June 15, 2018 and continued on August 24, 2018.

The Member was not in attendance for the hearing but had legal representation.

The Committee was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing. College Counsel advised the Committee that the written agreement signed by the parties contained wording errors. Specifically, College Counsel submitted that the corrected agreement (reproduced below) is intended to be read as a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, and not an Agreed Statement of Facts and Plea of No Contest. College Counsel submitted that the corrected document addressed clerical errors only and that the corrected version reflects the agreement between the parties. Member’s Counsel agreed with College Counsel’s submissions and consented to the changes made to the written agreement (Exhibit 2).

THE ALLEGATIONS

IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1)¹ of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:

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

(b) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(c) she abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;

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

STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

College Counsel presented the Committee with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

At all material times, Ellen Ann Bond 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 respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] (the “School”).
At all material times, Student 1 was an [XXX]-year-old female student at the School.
The Member and Student 1 engaged in an inappropriate, personal and romantic relationship, which included:

(a) Communications of a non-sexual, but inappropriate personal nature through Facebook and text messages;

(b) Communications of a sexual nature through Facebook and text messages; and

Communications of a Non-Sexual Nature

From about June 4, 2011 to about February 28, 2012, the Member communicated with Student 1 via Facebook and text messaging on a regular basis. They exchanged hundreds of messages during school hours, evening hours and over the weekends. They used electronic communications to discuss personal issues. Attached as Exhibit “B” are examples of these communications, from an excerpt of conversations between the Member and Student 1 on October 6, 2011, in which the Member discusses details of her ongoing personal relationships.

Communications of a Sexual Nature

The Member and Student 1 also exchanged both Facebook and text messages of a sexual nature. Examples of these messages include:

(a) December 12, 2011 – Student 1: “I just want to hug you…”

Member: “Me too” [p. 80].

(b) December 12, 2011 – Student 1: “…last night I did learn that I shouldn’t sleep with my phone in bed though”

Member: “hahah…ya I bet was going to bug you about that but didn’t want to embarrass you sexting it up awkward…..and I’m not [XXX] btw” [p. 94].

Student 1: “yesss….and my heart is pounding in my head”

Member: “aawwww really?”

Student 1: “yessss” [p. 96].

(d) December 12, 2011 – Member: “yup…that’s why you love me”

Student 1: “one of the reasons”

Member: “one of many although I don’t have red hair as much anymore” “so strike that off the list”

Student 1: “so it’s your goal to make me blush as much as possible then…?” Member: “yup” [p. 99-100].

(e) Student 1: “sleep well, and sweet dreams ☺ ♥”

Member: “who you gonna sext tonight? […]” [p. 107].

(f) January 29, 2012 – Member: “of course ☺ that hottie is looking at me in my photo ☺”

Student 1: “was it picture of me that caused that reaction”

Member: “you in your rainbow toque of course”

Student 1: “because I’m super attractive ;P”

Member: “but of course” [p. 64].

(g) February 7, 2012 – Member: “hahahha so much I could say lol”

Student 1: “like what!?‼?”

Member: “like I have you body imprint on my side”

Student 1: “I’m going to put a stop to this topic of conversation or it’s going to go downhill, and fast”

Member: “ok…probably for the best good choice […]” [p. 62-63].

Excerpts of the communications between the Member and Student 1 referenced in subparagraphs 8(a) – 8(f)² [sic] are attached as Exhibit “C”.

Communications Relating to a Future Relationship

The Member discussed entering into a sexual relationship with Student 1 after graduation. For example:

(a) February 10, 2012 – Member: “Just wish it was after school and we were in car”

Student 1: “Just because? Cause nothing really could have happened differently (to my knowledge)”

Member: “You’re right. Have to wait…”

Student 1: “I will not cause problems with your job. No matter how willing I seem, I couldn’t do that to you. Waiting it is.”

Member: “You’re amazing.” [texts p. 15-14].

(b) February 17, 2012 – Student 1: “I tend to just try to be a decent human being”

Member: “You are. And so much more. And I will be lucky to have you”… “Did it drive you crazy every time I kept going back to[XXX]?”

Student 1: “Yes yes it did”

Member: “You’re so patient” [texts p. 14].

Student 1: “…you tell me”

Member: “Cause I think I’ll start a countdown…lol” …. “Last day of your exams. Officially”

Student 1: “Alright”

Member: “Or maybe last day of June. Idk”

Student 1: “Me neither, but it’s your call.”

Member: “And it’s your call if you meet someone else”

Student 1: “Which goes for you too”

Member: “Yeah…I won’t” [texts p. 12-11].

(d) February 17, 2012 – Member: “So [XXX] in Toronto will be after the ban…just saying” [texts p. 10].

(e) February 17, 2012 – Member: “4 and a Half…Months To go til [XXX] ;)”… “That’s the countdown….to[XXX]”.

(f) February 17, 2012 – Student 1: “134 days until midnight July first” […]

Member: “Meet you then”

Student 1: “☺ I’ll be there”

Member: “Do you know how awesome it will be? Yes you do…lol.”

Student 1: “Well with the way thinking about it makes me feel I’m going to go with yes”

Member: “Will tomorrow be 133?”

Student 1: “Mhmmmm”

Member: “Mmmmm” [texts p. 8-7].

Excerpts of the communications between the Member and Student 1 referenced in subparagraphs 10(a) – 10(f)³ [sic] are attached as Exhibit “D”.

Previous Conduct

The Member admitted to having a dating relationship with a former student in the summer of 2009 in the months immediately following the student’s graduation. The Board investigated and determined there was no evidence that an inappropriate relationship took place between the Member and the student before the student had graduated. The May 27, 2010 letter from the Board regarding the Member’s conduct is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”.
The Board reported the incident to the Ontario College of Teachers. The Member was cautioned by the Ontario College of Teachers.

Resignation

On October 22, 2012, the Member resigned her employment with the Board, effective October 25, 2012. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the Member’s resignation letter dated October 22, 2012.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

By this document⁴, the Member does not contest the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-12 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also acknowledges that the admitted facts constitute sexual abuse as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, S.O. 1996 Ch 12 as it existed prior to its amendment in December 2016⁵.
By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

DECISION

Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on August 24, 2018 finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee found that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student of a nature defined in section 1 of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 12 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

Paragraphs 5-9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).

Paragraphs 5-9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).

Paragraphs 6-9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act.

Paragraphs 5-9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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 5-9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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 5-9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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 the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers to immediately revoke the Certificate and Qualification and Registration of the Member.

College Counsel submitted that an oversight with respect to the transitional provisions in effect, following the legislative amendments in May 2018, resulted in an omission being made in the Joint Submission on Penalty entered into between the parties. College Counsel submitted that the Committee is now mandated under the current legislation to order that a member found guilty of sexual misconduct be reprimanded, either orally or in writing.[^6] Member’s Counsel agreed with the submissions of College Counsel and submitted that a written reprimand would be appropriate in this case.

PENALTY DECISION

In an oral decision rendered on August 24, 2018, the Committee accepted the parties’ position in the Joint Submission on Penalty that revocation is an appropriate penalty in this case, and the Committee further accepted the parties’ additional submission that a reprimand is also mandatory under the current legislation. The Committee made the following order as to penalty:

The Member is to receive a written reprimand following the hearing and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”); and
The Registrar is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate and Qualification and Registration of the Member.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Member’s misconduct included the sexual abuse of a student, but it did not involve an act listed at subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. In accordance with subsection 30.2(1)(b) of the Act, the Committee must (at a minimum) make an order: requiring that the Member be reprimanded by the Committee; and directing the Registrar to suspend her Certificate of Qualification and Registration. Given the circumstances of this case and the agreement between the parties, the Committee finds that revocation is a more appropriate penalty than a suspension. The Committee has the discretion to make this order pursuant to subsections 30.2(3) and 30(4) of the Act.

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 public register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the teaching profession.

The Committee finds that revocation is the appropriate penalty in this case. College Counsel presented three analogous cases to support the parties’ position regarding revocation: Ontario College of Teachers v. Kernohan, 2014 ONOCT 53, Ontario College of Teachers v. Guilbault, 2017 ONOCT 6 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Hay, 2017 ONOCT 58.

The Committee found that the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1, resulting in the exchange of romantic and sexual communications that indicated grooming behaviour. The Committee vehemently denounces the Member’s abuse of trust and authority in her role as a teacher. The Member’s reprehensible conduct put Student 1 at risk, and undermined public confidence in the teaching profession. As a result, the Member has lost the privilege of holding a Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: September 7, 2018

Vicki Shannon, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

Colleen Landers

Member, Discipline Panel

Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT