DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Christopher Matthew Langlois, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW LANGLOIS (REGISTRATION #663100)
PANEL: Bill Petrie, Chair Alicia Nunn, OCT Nicola Powadiuk, OCT
HEARD: September 17, 2018
Charlotte-Anne Malischewski of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
Christopher Matthew Langlois, self-represented
Renée Kopp of 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 September 17, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated July 25, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on Christopher Matthew Langlois (the “Member”), requesting his presence on September 27, 2017 to set a date for hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for September 17, 2018.
The Member was not in attendance for the hearing and did not have 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 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) 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);
(d) 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
(e) 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:
Christopher Matthew Langlois 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 [XXX] (the “School”), an [XXX] school in [XXX], Ontario. In addition to his teaching duties, the Member was required to live in the boys’ boarding house and provide supervision to boarding students aged[XXX].
At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2 were male boarding students at the School, around [XXX] years of age.
During the academic year 2015-2016, the Member would regularly invite Student 1 and Student 2 to visit the Member’s room in the evening, to play videogames.
On April 25, 2016, the School office received a communication from the parents of Student 1 giving permission for Student 1 to attend a [XXX] game in[XXX], Ontario with the Member. This was the first time that School administrators became aware of the proposed trip. The Member was instructed by the School’s administration that he was not permitted to take students on the proposed trip.
On April 29, 2016, the Member took Student 1 and Student 2 on a late-night outing to a [XXX] restaurant in the Member’s personal vehicle, without School approval.
From April 30 to May 1, 2016, the Member took Student 1 and Student 2 on an overnight trip to [XXX], Ontario, without School approval. The Member and the students travelled in the Member’s personal car, and stayed overnight in a hotel in [XXX]. They did not attend a [XXX] game because the anticipated [XXX] game did not take place.
Following their return from the trip to [XXX], the Member initially told School administrators, falsely, that he had travelled to [XXX] with Student 1 and Student 2 and to [XXX] to visit the sibling of one of the students.
On May 3, 2016, the Member’s employment was terminated by the School, and he was advised to cease contact with students of the School. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the School’s May 3, 2016 letter to the Member.
Following the termination of his employment with the School, the Member continued to communicate with Student 1 via electronic communications including Skype and e-mail.
The Member currently teaches elementary school in the province of Alberta.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document1 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(7.2), 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 opportunity to obtain advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the guilty plea, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member jointly submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, the Committee rendered an oral decision on September 17, 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(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 11 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 4-10 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).
Paragraph 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 4-10 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 4-10 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 4-10 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 4), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member receive a written reprimand, 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 six 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) prior to commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations and professional ethics, 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 September 17, 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. Brace, 2018 ONOCT 3 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gerwin, 2014 ONOCT 42.
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students by allowing adolescent students to visit his room in the evening, by taking them on a late-night outing to a restaurant in his personal vehicle, and by taking them on an overnight trip without school approval. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority, and as a result, members are expected to maintain professional boundaries with students at all times. The Member’s late-night and overnight activities with students demonstrated a concerning lack of professional judgment.
In addition, the Member’s conduct was unprofessional in that he disregarded the express instructions of his employer on more than one occasion. School administration told the Member not to take students on a proposed trip, but the Member did so anyways and then lied to School administration about where they had gone. Moreover, the Member remained in contact with a student after his employment with the School was terminated, despite having been formally advised by School administration to cease all contact with 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 suspending the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of six months is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member. The duration of the suspension falls within a range of acceptable outcomes based on similar cases before the College’s Discipline Committee, as submitted by College Counsel. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and should cause him to reflect on the inappropriate nature of his misconduct. 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 and professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. 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: September 17, 2018
Bill Petrie Chair, Discipline Panel
Alicia Nunn, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Nicola Powadiuk, OCT Member, Discipline Panel