DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Sergeant 2018 ONOCT 44

Date: 2018-09-04

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

Heather Joan Sergeant, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

HEATHER JOAN SERGEANT (REGISTRATION #478751)

PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair

Bill Petrie

Jonathan Rose

HEARD: August 23, 2018

Ava Arbuck of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Amy Leung, Law Clerk

Jenna Meguid of Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP, for Heather Joan Sergeant

Robin McKechney 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 August 23, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated October 31, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Heather Joan Sergeant (the “Member”), requesting her presence on November 13, 2015 to set a date for hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for August 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 Heather Joan Sergeant is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) 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 released or disclosed information about a student to a person other than the student or, if the student is a minor, the student’s parent or guardian, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(6);

(c) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);¹

(d) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);²

(e) 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);

(f) 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

(g) she 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:

1. Heather Joan Sergeant 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.

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

3. At all material times during the 2012-2013 academic year, the Member taught [XXX] and [XXX] and [XXX] the [XXX] Team at the School. The Member was a popular teacher, well-liked by many students.

Student 1

4. In September 2012, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old female student at the School. She was approximately [XXX] months pregnant, with a due date of [XXX]. The Member learned that Student 1 was pregnant and considering adoption for her baby. The Member, who had never taught Student 1, told Student 1 at School that she herself was in the process of adoption. She asked that Student 1 have her [XXX] (Student 1’s guardian) call her if they wished to discuss further. Student 1’s [XXX] contacted the Member within the week.

5. A personal relationship between the Member and Student 1 developed quickly between late October and early December 2012. The Member did not hide her interest in adopting Student 1’s baby. At least some staff and students knew of her intent.

6. In or around late October or early November 2012, at Student 1’s [XXX] request, the Member visited Student 1, her [XXX] and Student 1’s siblings at their residence for approximately three hours. They discussed personal issues to see if the family considered the Member a potential match for adopting Student 1’s baby. At the conclusion of their meeting, in an attempt to comfort Student 1, the Member kissed Student 1 on her forehead “as an indication of support.”

7. In early December, the Member’s lawyer advised her that neither Student 1 nor her [XXX] had been in contact to discuss a private adoption, which was preventing the adoption from proceeding. Shortly thereafter, the Member approached Student 1 in front of the main office at School near the end of the day. She informed Student 1 that she could not go through with the adoption because it cost too much money. At the end of the conversation, the Member apologized and walked away. The Member had not sought the assistance or support of anyone in the administration, the social worker, or the school nurse regarding the impact of this news on Student 1.

8. Approximately one hour after her conversation with Student 1, the Member called Student 1’s [XXX] to advise of her conversation with Student 1. The Member indicated that she should have spoken to the [XXX] before speaking to Student 1.

9. On or about December 18 and 20, 2012, following conversations with Student 1, the school social worker and the school nurse each spoke to the principal about Student 1’s well-being, concerned about the stress placed on her and her family as a result of the Member’s decision not to adopt the baby so close to Student 1’s[XXX].

Student 2

10. At all material times during the 2012-2013 school year, Student 2 was a female student on the Member’s [XXX] Team at the School. She was also a [XXX] of the Member. The Member had recommended Student 2 for the staff-student [XXX] program because she knew that Student 2 was having difficulties with her mother. The principal instructed [XXX], including the Member, to make themselves available to their [XXX].

11. The Member became close with both Student 2 and Person A, her mother, and encouraged them to discuss their difficulties. The Member did not have any qualifications or training in mediation and/or counseling.

12. At some point over the 2013 Easter weekend, Student 2 and Person A had a falling out which resulted in Student 2 leaving her mother’s home to stay at her [XXX] apartment. During the weekend, the Member came to understand that the [XXX] would not always be present at the apartment. The Member and Student 2 were in communication via text messages over the weekend and the Member grew increasingly concerned about Student 2’s level of [XXX].

13. At the same time, Person A sought the Member’s advice regarding the situation with Student 2. Person A called the Member several times over the weekend and they discussed issues regarding Student 2.

14. The Member was worried when she learned from Student 2 that she was going to be alone one evening at her [XXX] apartment. When she heard from another student on the [XXX] Team that he and others would be having dinner with Student 2 at her [XXX]] apartment, she indicated that he should do so. Later that evening the Member shot that student a text asking if everything was OK. The student texted the Member to come by because he believed that Student 2 was thinking of [XXX] [XXX].

15. As soon as the Member received the student’s message she attempted to contact the School social worker but could not reach her. She called the vice-principal for advice and was told that if no one else was available she should go to the Student’s aid.

16. The Member arrived at Student 2’s [XXX] apartment while the other student was still there. She asked Student 2 [XXX] questions” including how she felt and how she planned to [XXX] [XXX]. Student 2 provided details. The Member therefore had Student 2 pack her bag and drove Student 2 to hospital. When they arrived at hospital, Student 2 requested that the Member wait until they figured out next steps before the Member contacted her parents. The Member eventually made contact with Student 2’s [XXX] who advised that he would contact Student 2’s mother (Person A). Student 2 remained in hospital overnight and was admitted to the [XXX] the next morning.

Inappropriate Disclosures

17. Although she did not want the Member to contact her parents, Student 2 requested that the Member notify her employer to advise that she was in hospital. The Member contacted Student 2’s employer and advised that Student 2 was in hospital and would not be able to attend her shifts until further notice, providing an explanation to the effect that Student 2 was not doing well and was having a [XXX] . She asked the employer to keep this information “confidential,” as per Student 2’s request because Student 2 did not want people to act differently towards her.

18. At Student 2’s request, the Member spoke to Student 2’s boyfriend’s mother to inform her that her son’s girlfriend was in hospital and her son may need support at this time.

19. Following these events, the School administration stated that at a staff meeting in February 2013 they had verbally instructed that if staff felt that a student was in danger and it was after school hours, they should attempt to contact the student’s parents, call the Trellis help line or contact police. The Member had attended the February staff meeting but cannot confirm that the administration gave this instruction during the meeting. If they did, she had no recollection of the comments.

Inappropriate Conduct and Communication with Students, 2012-2013

20. The Member breached professional boundaries with students when she:

(a) provided her [XXX] students and student [XXX] with her cell phone number;

(b) communicated electronically with students outside of school hours and through the [XXX] Team’s Facebook page;

(c) shared personal information with Student 2 and other students about her personal life and circumstances;

(d) drove students, including Student 2, in her car without written parental permission forms to hold an [XXX] practice on a day when school and buses were cancelled due to inclement weather.

Inappropriate Communications with Parents

21. In and around October 2012, the Member initiated a friendship with Person A by sending a “friend request” to Person A via Facebook. The Member sent the request after learning that Person A had been in hospital. Person A accepted the Member’s Facebook request. Over the next six months, their friendship grew and included texting, emailing, phoning each other and occasionally having dinner together, including at Person A’s home.

22. On or about March 18, 2013, the Member sent a personal email to Person A, which included the following comments: “[Person A], how are you? I really hope we can get together soon – I’m going to take a risk here and say: I like you very much and I think we could be good friends ... I'd love to see you, but I don't want it to stress you out either. I love your kid and I like her mom.” Person A later stated that she felt uncomfortable about the contents of the message, though she never communicated any discomfort to the Member. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Member’s email to Person A.

Board Investigation

23. The School social worker advised the principal on or about April 4, 2013, that she was concerned that the Member had provided Student 2 with counselling that was beyond the Member’s knowledge and expertise and had crossed professional boundaries with Student 2. Student 2’s mother also expressed concerns to the principal following Student 2’s stay in the hospital, about her daughter’s relationship with the Member, believing it was “unhealthy” and crossed boundaries.

24. The Member was sent home with pay on April 22, 2013, pending the Board’s investigation.

25. The Board retained an outside agency to investigate the allegations. At the conclusion of their investigation the external investigators concluded that some of the Member’s “actions and behaviours [were] inappropriate and unprofessional.”

26. The Board suspended the Member’s employment for ten days and transferred her immediately to a new school. Following a grievance, the disciplinary letter and suspension was [sic] removed pursuant to a settlement.

GUILTY PLEA

27. By this document,³ the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

28. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(6), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).

29. 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) 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;

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

(e) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally and with the advice of legal counsel.

30. 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 allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7.1) and 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 the Member guilty 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(6), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional only) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 26 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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(6), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional only) and 1(19).

Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 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 17 and 18 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member released or disclosed information about a student to a person other than the student or, if the student is a minor, the student’s parent or guardian, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(6).

Paragraphs 7, 8, 11, 20, 21 and 22 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 7, 8, 11, 20, 21 and 22 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 7, 8, 11, 20, 21 and 22 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 the Member to 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 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 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 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding maintaining appropriate and professional boundaries, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner 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, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner 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 practitioner 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 her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(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 August 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 case presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Gillott, 2016 ONOCT 17.

The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. The Member involved herself in serious, personal matters regarding two students at her school. First, the Member expressed her interest in adopting Student 1’s baby, and developed a personal relationship with the student and her family as part of that process. She later informed the student of her intention not to adopt the student’s baby and did so in a public place, with no consideration for the impact that this news might have on the student and without ensuring that the student had the necessary support to receive this information. Second, the Member developed a personal relationship with Student 2 and her mother. After Student 2 was hospitalized because she was [XXX] [XXX], the Member contacted the student’s employer and her boyfriend’s mother (on the student’s behalf) to advise them of the situation. It was inappropriate for the Member to disclose Student 2’s personal information in this manner. Moreover, the Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students by giving them her personal phone number; by communicating with them through Facebook, outside of school hours; by sharing personal information with them; and by driving them to [XXX] practice without parental permission.

Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority, and they are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students at all times. Regardless of her intentions, the Member became inappropriately involved in the personal lives of her students. 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 the course of instruction regarding maintaining appropriate and professional boundaries will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her 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: September 4, 2018

Irene Dembek, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Bill Petrie

Member, Discipline Panel

Jonathan Rose

Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn.
3. 3For the purposes of paragraphs 27 and 29 this “document” refers to the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.