DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Boote 2018 ONOCT 45
Date: 2018-10-02
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 Darlene Patricia Boote, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
DARLENE PATRICIA BOOTE (CERTIFICATE #538289)
PANEL: Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT, Chair
Marlène Marwah
Sara Nouini, OCT
HEARD: October 2, 2018
Christine Lonsdale, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
Jean-Michel Corbeil, Goldblatt Partners LLP, for Darlene Patricia Boote
Renée Kopp, Jones Litigation Counsel LLP, 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 October 2, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated September 8, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on Darlene Patricia Boote (the “Member”), requesting her presence on November 14, 2017 to set a date for the hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for October 2, 2018.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation. The Committee was informed at the start of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement in connection with the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Darlene Patricia Boote is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in 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 failed to supervise adequately a person who was under her professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(c) 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);
(d) 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);
(e) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Counsel for the College presented to the Committee the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Darlene Patricia Boote is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached 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 Conseil scolaire catholique Providence (the “Board”) as [XXX] [XXX] teacher.
In March 2015, the Member was entrusted with the responsibility of accompanying six students from École [XXX] (the “School”), which is located in [XXX], to workshops offered by [XXX] , in [XXX]. The group of students consisted of [XXX] and [XXX]-year-old girls.
The workshops in [XXX] were held on Tuesday, March 10, 2015. The Member and the group of students left [XXX] on March 9, 2015. They returned on March 11, 2015.
The Member and the group of students were travelling to [XXX] with students from École [XXX] in [XXX]. A [XXX] accompanied the group from [XXX]. In [XXX], the Member and the group of students, and the group from École [XXX], were staying at the same hotel. The Member had her own hotel room.
On March 9, 2015, before the Member and the group of students left [XXX], the principal of the School cautioned the students, in the presence of the Member, that they were not to consume drugs or alcohol on the trip. A copy of the Board’s Code of Conduct is attached as Tab B. A copy of the Board’s policy entitled Drugs and Alcohol is attached as Tab C.
On the evening of Tuesday, March 10, 2015, the School principal received a call from the principal of École [XXX]. One of the Member’s students was alone in the hotel, unsupervised. The [XXX] [XXX] took charge of the student until the Member returned to the hotel. The School principal tried to reach the Member on her cell phone, without success. She left her a voicemail. A colleague also tried to reach the Member, without success. The Member returned the calls the following day.
In [XXX], the Member purchased alcohol for some of the students under her supervision. One student accompanied the Member to purchase the alcohol at a shopping mall.
At least four students drank alcohol during the two evenings in the hotel in [XXX]. The Member was aware that the students were drinking alcohol in their hotel room.
The Member also allowed two students to take a taxi unsupervised to a store downtown.
On one of the two evenings in [XXX], the Member left the hotel to have dinner with friends, leaving the students under her supervision unchaperoned.
The Member also drank alcohol with the students in their hotel room.
Once they were back in [XXX], the Member kept two bottles of alcohol for one of the students, who was afraid of being suspended if the bottles were discovered.
On March 12, 2015, the School principal met with the Member. When the principal asked the Member if she had seen alcohol in the students’ hotel rooms, she answered that she had not seen anything like that in any hotel room. This reply was untrue.
During a meeting on March 26, 2015, the Member admitted that she had purchased alcohol for the students, drunk alcohol with the students and kept some alcohol for a student when they returned to [XXX] on March 11, 2015. The Member also admitted that on the way to [XXX], she had become aware that two students had packed bottles of alcohol in their luggage. The Member failed to confiscate the bottles.
On April 17, 2015, the Board notified the Member of the results of their investigation, and of the fact that it would recommend dismissal to the Board. A copy of the letter from the Board to the Member dated April 17, 2015 is attached as Tab D. A copy of the letter of dismissal from the Board to the Member dated May 27, 2015 is attached as Tab E.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the above paragraphs (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member acknowledges that the Admitted Facts described above constitute professional misconduct and admits to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that she:
(a) understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against her;
(b) 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) understands that by pleading guilty 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) understands that the Decision and Reasons for Decision of the Discipline Committee will be posted on the College website, and that a summary of the Committee’s Decision and Reasons, including reference to her name, will be published in the official publication of the College, Pour parler profession/Professionally Speaking;
(e) understands that the agreement between the College and the Member does not bind the Discipline Committee in respect of the penalty; and
(f) understands this Agreement and acknowledges that she is executing it voluntarily, unequivocally and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts described above and the Guilty Plea, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find that the Member’s actions constitute professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on October 2, 2018 stating that the Member had committed professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 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 16 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. She acknowledged, and the Committee accepts, that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 7-16 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 7-12, 15 and 16 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to adequately supervise a person placed under her professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11).
Paragraphs 7-16 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 7-16 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 7-16 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 submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct the Member to appear before the Discipline 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 West, Toronto, Ontario, and that the fact of the reprimand be recorded on the Register;
direct the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of two months, from the date of the Discipline Committee’s order in this matter, and that the suspension 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 90 days from the date of this order, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete, at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar on the ethical standards for the teaching profession and maintaining appropriate boundaries, that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall provide a Registrar-approved course provider with a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, the Joint Submission on Penalty entered into evidence at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) after a review of the documents referred to in (i) above, the course provider shall submit for the Registrar’s approval a curriculum for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns in respect of the Member’s professional misconduct. The curriculum proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of said course and describe its objectives;
(b) Within 30 days from the end of the course described in (a) above, the Member shall provide the Registrar with evidence in writing from the provider stating that:
(i) the Member has successfully completed the course, and describing the Member’s progress in relation to the course objectives.
PENALTY DECISION
In an oral decision rendered on October 2, 2018, the Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and made an order in accordance with the 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 has determined its jurisdiction to make the order in question, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of justice or the discipline process into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission of 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 cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Kowal, 2014 ONOCT 115, Ontario College of Teachers v. Powers, 2014 ONOCT 84 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gagnon, 2009 ONOCT 19.
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand from her peers. The Committee finds that the Member’s actions when entrusted with responsibility for a group of six adolescent students are appalling. The Member failed on numerous occasions to perform her supervisory duties: she left a student alone at the hotel; allowed two students to take a taxi to downtown [XXX] on their own; and left the group unsupervised in order to have dinner with friends. Furthermore, the Member purchased alcohol for the students, let them drink it during their stay and even drank with them in a hotel room. When questioned by the School principal about the alcohol, the Member initially lied before admitting the facts. This conduct demonstrates the Member’s profound inability to uphold the ethical standards for the teaching profession and maintain appropriate boundaries with students. Be they in the classroom or away on a school trip, members of the teaching profession must ensure students’ safety at all times. They must also act as role models for the students. The Member failed to meet these expectations in this case. The reprimand will allow the Committee to express its concerns directly to the Member, which will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to the other members of the teaching profession.
The Committee finds that a suspension of two months is appropriate under the circumstances. The duration of the suspension falls within a reasonable range, based on the case law presented by College Counsel. The Member’s misconduct could have had serious consequences for the students under her supervision. Parents expect their children to be adequately supervised during extracurricular activities requiring a stay away from home. Student safety is among teachers’ main responsibilities and the Member demonstrated a blatant lack of judgment in this respect during the trip to [XXX]. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent, and recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a general deterrent for the members of the profession as a whole. The suspension makes it clear to other members of the teaching profession that such misconduct has serious consequences.
The Committee considers that the course on the ethical standards for the teaching profession and maintaining appropriate boundaries will assist with the Member’s rehabilitation. It will remind her of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in her future interactions with students.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
October 2, 2018
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Marlène Marwah
Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel