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.

By order of the Honourable Justice McMahon of the Superior Court of Justice, there is also a publication ban in this matter, pursuant to subsection 486 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Campbell 2018 ONOCT 21

Date: 2018-05-01

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

Daniel Enoch Campbell, a retired member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT, Chair

Ann Ciaschini, OCT

Tom Potter

BETWEEN: )

) Janice Duggan,

) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Nicholas Woloszczuk,

) Paralegal Placement Student

– and – )

DANIEL ENOCH CAMPBELL ) William W. Markle, Q.C.,

(CERTIFICATE #217710) ) for Daniel Enoch Campbell

) Julie Maciura,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: April 20, 2018

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 20, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated December 5, 2017 was served on Daniel Enoch Campbell (the “Member”), inviting the Member to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for April 20, 2018.

Neither the Member nor his legal counsel attended the hearing.

Mr. Woloszczuk made submissions on behalf of the College.

Mr. Woloszczuk submitted an Affidavit of Tatiana Tkatch (Exhibit 2) sworn April 18, 2018, to show that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty being sought by the College. In this affidavit, Ms. Tkatch, a Law Clerk with the College, outlines her communications with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents. Based on this affidavit, the Committee was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and was aware of the time and date of the hearing and the penalty being sought by the College. Counsel for the Member stated in email correspondence with College Counsel dated March 6, 2018 that the Member did not wish to participate in the hearing process (see Exhibit 2 at Tab C). The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

PUBLICATION BAN

Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), the Committee ordered that 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.

In addition to the publication ban ordered pursuant to section 32.1(3) of the Act, the Committee is required to uphold a second publication ban ordered by Justice McMahon of the Superior Court of Justice, pursuant to section 486 of the Criminal Code of Canada (see Exhibit 4 at Tab 2). Accordingly, any information that could identify the victim or a witness involved in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Daniel Enoch Campbell is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in 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 contravened a law which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);

(d) he contravened a law such that the contravention has caused or may cause a student who is under the member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);

(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);

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

(g) he failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section 13 of Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1950, c 385 and as amended thereafter;

(h) he failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, contrary to section 14(f) of Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980; and

(i) he failed to comply with section 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 129 and as amended thereafter.

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS

1. Daniel Enoch Campbell was at all material times a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board as a [XXX]and [XXX] teacher at [XXX] Institute (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.

3. Between 1981 and 1987, Students 1, 2 and 3 were male students at the School. At all material times, Student 1 was [XXX]years of age. At all material times, Student 2 was [XXX]years of age. At all material times, Student 3 was [XXX] years of age.

4. At all material times, the Member taught Student 1 Grade[XXX] [XXX].

5. Student 1 encountered difficulties in his Grade [XXX] [XXX]class. The Member offered after-school hours extra assistance to any student who was having difficulties. Student 1 sought extra assistance from the Member.

6. Initially the Member had any students who needed extra assistance wait in the [XXX]classroom and he would call them up individually to provide assistance.

7. Beginning in or about November 1982, the Member would have any students who needed extra assistance wait in the hallway outside the [XXX]classroom and ask each student individually to come into the classroom.

8. In or about December 1982, while in individual after-school asssistance sessions, the Member began to ask Student 1 questions about Student 1’s masturbation habits. The Member encouraged Student 1 to masturbate. The topic of masturbation was not part of the School’s Grade [XXX] [XXX]curriculum.

9. In or about December 1982/January 1983, while in an after-school assistance sesssion with Student 1, the Member:

(a) locked the classroom doors;

(b) closed the classroom curtains;

(c) had Student 1 push Student 1’s trousers and underwear to his ankles;

(d) placed one hand on Student 1’s waist, put his other hand under Student 1’s testicles and rubbed his face on Student 1’s back; and

(e) had Student 1 cough.

10. Between December 1982/January 1983 and June 1983, on approximately four occasions while in after-school assistance sessions with Student 1, the Member:

(a) locked the classroom doors;

(b) closed the classroom curtains;

(c) had Student 1 push Student 1’s trousers and underwear to his ankles; and

(d) placed one hand on Student 1’s waist, put his other hand under Student 1’s testicles and rubbed his face on Student 1’s back.

11. At all material times, the Member taught Student 3 Grade [XXX][XXX].

12. On September 28, 1984, the Member invited Student 3 to meet with him after class. Student 3 accepted the meeting with the Member. The meeting took place in the Member’s office.

13. During the September 28, 1984 meeting, the Member:

(a) began to discuss [XXX]with Student 3;

(b) discussed the production of human sperm and that it must be released;

(c) discussed masturbation with Student 3;

(d) asked Student 3 if he masturbated;

(e) asked Student 3 to trust him;

(f) asked Student 3 to disrobe, which Student 3 refused to do;

(g) asked Student 3 to disrobe for a second time, at which time Student 3 removed his jacket; and

(h) spoke to Student 3 about regularly masturbating.

14. The topics discussed by the Member on September 28, 1984 were not part of the School’s Grade [XXX] [XXX]curriculum.

15. On October 12, 1984, Student 3 met the Member in his office. The Member:

(a) discussed masturbation with Student 3;

(b) discussed changes that males go through during puberty, including acne;

(c) asked Student 3 to lift his shirt, which Student 3 did;

(d) used his hand to touch Student 3’s face, abdomen and chest;

(e) requested Student 3 to unzip Student 3’s trousers, which Student 3 did; and

(f) used his hand to reach over and touch Student 3’s pubic area.

16. After the October 12, 1984 incident, Student 3 told his Mother what had occurred. Student 3’s Mother went to the School administration and asked that Student 3 be removed from the Member’s class. Student 3 was transferred to another Grade [XXX] [XXX]class in the School.

17. On or about January 22, 2014, the Member was charged with the following four amended counts:

(a) Sometime between and including the 1^st day of September in the year 1981 and the 30^th day of June in the year 1982, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, in the Toronto Region, did commit a sexual assault on Student 1, contrary to section 246.1(1) of the Criminal Code;

(b) Sometime between and including the 1^st day of September in the year 1982 and the 30^th day of June in the year 1983, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, in the Toronto Region, did commit a sexual assault on Student 1, contrary to section 246.1(1) of the Criminal Code;

(c) Sometime between and including the 1^st day of September in the year 1985 and the 30^th day of June in the year 1987, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, in the Toronto Region, did commit a sexual assault on Student 2, contrary to section 246.1(1) of the Criminal Code; and

(d) Sometime between and including the 1^st day of September in the year 1984 and the 31^st day of December in the year 1984, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, in the Toronto Region, did commit a sexual assault on Student 3, contrary to section 246.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

18. On January 6, 2017, the Member pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of the following charges:

(a) Sometime between and including the 1^st day of September in the year 1982 and the 30^th day of June in the year 1983, in the Municipality of metropolitan Toronto in the Toronto region, did commit a sexual assault on Student 1 contrary to section 246.1(1) of the Criminal Code;

(b) Sometime between and including the 1^st day of September in the year 1984 and the 31^st day of December in the year 1984, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in the Toronto region, did commit a sexual assault on Student 3 contrary to section 246.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

19. On April 24, 2017, the Crown withdrew counts one and three of the criminal charges.

20. On April 24, 2017, the Honourable Justice J. McMahon sentenced the Member to a 12-month custodial sentence on each count to be served concurrently and concurrently with any sentence already being served.

21. On April 24, 2017, the Member was also made the subject of a number of ancillary orders.

22. The Member did not appeal his conviction and/or sentence.

MEMBER’S PLEA

As neither the Member nor his legal Counsel were present, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.

THE EVIDENCE

Mr. Woloszczuk entered into evidence the Registered Member Information for Daniel Enoch Campbell (Exhibit 3), which indicates that the Member held an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate at the time of the alleged events and that he was a Member of the College at the time that he was found guilty of sexual assault. The College also entered into evidence a Brief of Court Documents - Her Majesty the Queen v. Daniel Enoch Campbell (Exhibit 4), which contains the following documents:

1. Certified Court Documents dated 2013-2017;

2. Excerpts of the transcript of proceedings before the Honourable Justice McMahon dated October 24-25, 2016:

(a) Charging Information;

(b) Examination in Chief of Student 1;

(c) Examination in Chief of Student 3;

3. Transcript of proceedings regarding the Member’s Guilty Plea dated January 6, 2017; and

4. Transcript of Reasons for Sentence before the Honourable Justice J. McMahon dated April 24, 2017.

The evidence presented in Exhibit 4 confirms that on January 6, 2017, in the Superior Court of Justice, the Member was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING

Mr. Woloszczuk described the Member’s criminal history in detail and submitted that the Member’s case represents a blatant contravention of the College’s professional standards, that the Member notoriously abused his position of trust and authority as a teacher and that the court documents provide ample evidence that the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, and clearly amounts to conduct unbecoming a member of the College. Even though the events at issue predate the creation of the College, Mr. Woloszczuk submitted that the Member’s abusive conduct contravened the relevant legislation in place at the time of the events, specifically as it pertains to the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession, as well as the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality. According to Mr. Woloszczuk, the Member’s conduct, as detailed in the record of the criminal proceedings (see Exhibit 4) and the resultant criminal convictions, provide a sufficient basis to justify a finding of professional misconduct under all of the heads of misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing. The Member had legal representation during his criminal proceedings.

DECISION

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Mr. Woloszczuk, the Committee rendered an oral decision on April 20, 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(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19); section 13 of Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1950, c 385; section 14(f) of Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980; and section 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 129.

REASONS FOR DECISION

In accordance with the law of evidence and Rule 13.03 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Committee’s Rules”), inter alia, the Committee accepts the certified copy of the Court Documents as proof, in this case, that the Member committed the criminal offences outlined therein. The Member was found guilty and convicted in 2017 of two criminal offences before a Canadian Court, no appeal has been taken, and the time for an appeal has expired.

In addition, pursuant to Rule 13.04 of the Committee’s Rules, the Committee admits as ancillary to the certified copy of the Court Documents, the findings of fact contained in the related decision before the Superior Court of Justice involving the Member. The Committee further admits as incidental to the certified copy of the Court Documents, transcripts of the proceedings at which the conviction occurred, for the purposes of explaining the finding of guilt.

Based on the evidence contained within the Brief of Court Documents, the College has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that between September 1, 1982 and June 30, 1983, the Member sexually assaulted Student 1, contrary to section 246.1(1) of the version of the Criminal Code of Canada effective at that time. During that time, the Member taught Grade [XXX][XXX]. While offering after-school assistance, he had Student 1 push his trousers down and the Member put his hand under Student 1’s testicles and rubbed his face on Student 1’s back.

The College has also proven, on a balance of probabilities, that sometime between September 1, 1984 and December 31, 1984, the Member sexually assaulted Student 3, contrary to section 246.1(1) of the version of the Criminal Code of Canada effective at that time. The Member taught Student 3 Grade [XXX][XXX]. During a meeting that took place in the Member’s office in October 1984, the Member had Student 3 lift his shirt and the Member touched Student 3’s face, abdomen and chest. The Member also requested that Student 3 unzip his trousers and the Member used his hand to touch Student 3’s pubic area.

The Member was charged with four counts of sexual assault on January 22, 2014 and he pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of two of these charges on January 6, 2017. The Crown withdrew the remaining two charges on April 24, 2017, and the Member was sentenced to a 12-month custodial sentence on each count to be served concurrently and concurrently with any sentence already being served, and he was made the subject of ancillary orders. The College has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member was convicted in 2017 of two counts of sexual assault relating to the conduct described above.

The Committee finds that the Member’s underlying conduct was egregious and that his ensuing criminal conviction undermines the reputation of the teaching profession. The Member has abused his position of trust and authority in the gravest manner. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the Member’s convictions for repeated instances of sexual assault of male students constitute acts of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19); section 13 of Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1950, c 385; section 14(f) of Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980; and section 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, Ch. 129.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

Mr. Woloszczuk submitted that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is an appropriate penalty, considering the gravity of the Member’s misconduct. According to Mr. Woloszczuk, this is an egregious case of sexual abuse, where the Member demonstrated a complete disregard for the well-being of students. The Member exploited his position of trust and authority as a teacher. Revocation is appropriate in such serious matters as this.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

There was no finding of sexual abuse as defined in the Act in this case (it was not pleaded by the College) and so the mandatory reprimand and revocation provisions set out at subsection 30.2(2) of the Act were not triggered. Therefore, the Committee was not required to reprimand the Member and revoke his teaching certificate. The Committee nevertheless has the discretion to order either of these penalties, among others, pursuant to subsections 30(4) and 30(5) of the Act.

The Committee finds that the revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is the only appropriate penalty in this case, given the egregious nature of the Member’s misconduct. The Member’s convictions for the sexually abusive conduct towards two of his students warrants an order of the Committee’s most severe penalty available. Members of the profession hold a unique position of trust and authority and the Member abused this position in a reprehensible manner. Although the Member’s conduct occurred decades ago, he was convicted criminally for that same conduct in 2017, which reflects poorly on the teaching profession and diminishes the public’s trust and confidence in members of the profession. There is no place in the teaching profession for members who have engaged in this type of criminal conduct. Accordingly, the Member has forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.

The Committee is satisfied that the finding and the penalty are appropriate in this circumstance and meet the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Dated: May 1, 2018

______________________________ Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Ann Ciaschini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Tom Potter

Member, Discipline Panel