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.
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
Spiro Grima, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Brigitte Bidal Piquette, OCT, Chair Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Sara Nouini, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Shane D’Souza, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
– and –
SPIRO GRIMA (CERTIFICATE #283720) Joshua Phillips, Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP, for Spiro Grima
Julie Maciura, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: April 23, 2018
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 23, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated February 26, 2016 (Exhibit 1) was served on Spiro Grima (the “Member”), requesting his presence on March 9, 2016 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for April 23, 2018.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and 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.
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 subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1)1 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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(c) he 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;2
(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
College Counsel presented the Committee with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Spiro Grima 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 Thames Valley District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher. In the 2014-2015 academic year, the Member taught at [XXX] School in London, Ontario and held a position of responsibility as [XXX]of the[ XXX]. The Member previously taught at [XXX] School [XXX] in[XXX], Ontario.
In the 2014-2015 academic year, Student 1 was a [XXX] year-old female student in Grade [XXX] at [XXX]. She was in the Member’s [XXX] class and a member of the student [XXX] led by the Member. The Member admits that during that year, he violated appropriate professional boundaries with Student 1. Specifically, he signed Student 1 out of class on multiple occasions because she was in pain from a [XXX] injury, drove Student 1 home on multiple occasions because of her injury, and took Student 1 out to have coffee and/or lunch on one or more occasions. Student 1 was aspiring to study [XXX] in university.
The Member also engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Student 1 by kissing Student 1 on the cheek at least once. Student 1’s parents were aware of all of the foregoing conduct of the Member. Student 1’s parents and Student 1 saw the Member as a mentor and father figure and advised the Board that they took no issue with his contact with Student 1.
In or around March 2015, the vice-principal at [XXX] received a report of concerns circulating that the Member was engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Student 1. An investigation was initiated by the Board. Interviews were conducted with students and the Member.
Police and the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) were contacted by the Board. No criminal charges were laid against the Member. The CAS did not verify any protection concerns.
During the Board’s investigation, the Member fully cooperated and acknowledged the acts described above and volunteered that he sometimes would kiss students on the cheek or forehead, and hug students. He admitted that, in hindsight, he had failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with his students, and voluntarily agreed to take a boundaries course.
The Member was disciplined by the Board with respect to this conduct. He was suspended without pay for three days. The Member also completed the OSSTF’s workshop on professional boundaries as required by the Board. He was also transferred to a teaching position at another school. The Member remains employed by the Board.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document3, 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(7.1), 1(15), 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
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(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on April 23, 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(7.1), 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 8 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(7.1), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 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 and 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1).
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 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 3, 4 and 7 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 3, 4 and 7 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 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;
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 120 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 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) 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
In an oral decision rendered on April 23, 2018, the Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and made 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. Palmateer, 2010 ONOCT 27; Ontario College of Teachers v. McCuaig, 2008 ONOCT 47; Ontario College of Teachers v. Dingwall, 2014 ONOCT 35; Ontario College of Teachers v. Aversano, 2017 ONOCT 79; Ontario College of Teachers v. Shackleton, 2018 ONOCT 1; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Blew, 2018 ONOCT 7.
In accepting the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the Committee also considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in this matter. It was an aggravating factor that the Member’s conduct was serious, repeated and involved multiple students, as set out at paragraph 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts. It was a mitigating factor that the Member was cooperative throughout this process, that he was upfront in admitting his conduct to the Board, and that he took remedial coursework before this matter came before the Committee.
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate physical contact with students and his failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries warrant a reprimand by his peers. On multiple occasions, the Member signed a student out of class, drove her home, and took her out to have coffee or lunch. He also kissed students on the cheek or forehead and hugged students. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority, and the Member abused this trusted position by engaging in the conduct set out above. It is not appropriate for members to hug or kiss students. The Member also exercised poor professional judgment by taking a student out for lunch or coffee and driving her home on multiple occasions. Although the student’s parents took no issue with this behaviour, the Committee notes that members need to consider the implications and appearance of their behaviour, and they should avoid becoming overly involved in a student’s personal affairs, other than in exceptional circumstances. 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 three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. The duration of the suspension is within a reasonable range, as established by the similar case law presented by College Counsel. The Committee notes that the case law establishes that similar acts of professional misconduct in the past have attracted suspensions of up to three months, but that no suspensions were ordered in some cases. College Counsel submitted that the cases in which no suspensions were ordered were older cases and that the Committee ought not to rely as heavily on those cases, because there has been a shift towards stricter penalties since that time. Member’s Counsel disagreed and submitted that nothing in the legislation suggests that penalties ordered today ought to be stricter than those imposed 10 years ago. Given that the Committee received a joint submission on penalty in this case (and because the parties are agreed on the three month duration of the suspension in this matter), it does not need to resolve the issue of whether there has been a trend in the case law towards stricter penalties over time. The suspension in this case will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member by reinforcing for him the importance of maintaining appropriate professional boundaries, and the consequences for the failure to do so. Recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The Committee recognizes that the Member has already completed a professional boundaries course. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that an additional boundaries course that is tailored to the Member’s specific misconduct outlined in this decision is warranted. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: April 23, 2018
Brigitte Bidal Piquette, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- Section 40(1.1) was cited in the original Notice of Hearing. However, this provision has been repealed after amendments to the Act came into force on December 5, 2016.
- Allegation withdrawn.
- For the purposes of paragraphs 9 and 11, this “document” refers to the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.