DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Blake 2018 ONOCT 57

Date: 2018-10-24

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

Paul Thomas Blake, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

PAUL THOMAS BLAKE (REGISTRATION #447181)

PANEL: Jane Ishibashi, Chair Sara Nouini, OCT Ravi Vethamany, OCT

HEARD: June 19, 2018

Shane D’Souza of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Amy Leung, Law Clerk

Paul Thomas Blake, self-represented

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.

By order of the Discipline Committee on June 19, 2018, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify Colleague 2 in this matter, pursuant to subsection 32.1(1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 19, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated March 1, 2017 was served on Paul Thomas Blake (the “Member”) requesting his presence on March 23, 2017 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for June 19, 2018.

The Member was self-represented and he was not in attendance during the hearing.

Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Amy Leung (Exhibit 2) sworn on June 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. Leung, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, outlines her communications with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents. In particular, Ms. Leung stated that the Member relocated to England in or about June 2014. On March 3, 2017, a copy of the Notice of Hearing and disclosure brief was served on the Member, via his mother. On the same day, College Counsel emailed the Member at his personal email address and the Member responded confirming receipt of the disclosure package at his mother’s residence. Between April 3 and 12, 2017, College Counsel corresponded with the Member via email to determine whether he intended to participate in his hearing. College Counsel suggested that the Member participate via video-link if he did not intend to return to Canada for his hearing. On April 19, 2017, the Member responded to College Counsel confirming that he did not wish to participate in person or via video-link. On May 22, 2018, College Counsel sent a letter via courier, regular mail, and email to the Member to advise him of his hearing date. Attached was a copy of the College’s witness list and a copy of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and the Fitness to Practise Committee (the Rules).

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. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

PUBLICATION BAN

The College sought and the Committee ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”). Accordingly, 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.

The College sought an additional publication ban in order to protect the identity of Colleague 2, who was a witness in this matter. Subsection 32(7) of the Act provides that:

The Discipline Committee may make an order that the public […] be excluded from a hearing or any part of a hearing if, in the Committee’s opinion, the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person justifies a departure from the general principle that hearings should be open to the public.

The Committee found that there was the possibility of serious harm or injustice to Colleague 2 if the hearing of her evidence remained open to the public. Colleague 2’s [XXX] were relevant at certain portions of this hearing, and there was a concern that disclosing Colleague 2’s identity could jeopardize her livelihood and her career. Accordingly, the Committee found that it was appropriate to protect the identity of Colleague 2.

Subsection 32.1(1) of the Act provides the Committee with the authority to order a publication ban with respect to Colleague 2 because this publication ban provision is triggered when the Committee excludes the public from a portion of the hearing in accordance with subsection 32(7) of the Act. Subsection 32.1(1) provides that:

In situations under section 32 […] in which the Discipline Committee may make an order that the public, including members of the College, be excluded from a hearing, the Committee may make orders it considers necessary to prevent the public disclosure of matters disclosed at the hearing, including orders banning the publication or broadcasting of those matters.

The Committee therefore ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(1) in order to protect the identity of Colleague 2.

OVERVIEW

During the 2014 and 2015 calendar years, the Member allegedly vandalized School property, and sent inappropriate and unprofessional emails from his own email account, from email accounts of his colleagues, or from both. The Member was a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) and was rendered surplus towards the end of the 2013-2014 academic year. The Member was offered a chance to apply for other positions within the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board (the “Board”), but he did not get a position at the School (which is what he desired).

The Member allegedly became disgruntled and told one colleague that he was going to vandalize his classroom before leaving the School permanently. In approximately mid-July 2014, custodians at the School discovered that the Member’s old classroom had been vandalized. There were several opened jars of garlic placed throughout the classroom, which had caused severe mold as well as a mice infestation. Further, the classroom fridge and freezer were stocked with food, the doors were locked, and the appliances were both unplugged, causing severe mold. Other equipment or appliances from the classroom were also missing.

Between August 2014 and December 2015, the Member allegedly sent emails either in his own name or impersonating some of his colleagues and administrators that were inappropriate or threatening. The emails received by the Member’s colleagues were unsolicited and they were unprofessional. Some emails were sent from the Member’s own email address while others appeared to be sent from other members of the School and Board. After an investigation, it was determined that the emails that appeared to have been sent from the Member’s colleagues had an IP address originating in England. The Member had moved to England in or about June 2014.

The Committee’s task is to determine whether the facts alleged by the College have been proven on a balance of probabilities and if so, whether the Member’s conduct gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. On June 19, 2018, the Committee found that the Member engaged in professional misconduct under each of the following heads of misconduct. The Committee’s reasons are set out below.

THE ALLEGATIONS

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

IT IS ALLEGED that Paul Thomas Blake 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 signed or issued, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper, or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);

(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).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS

1. Paul Thomas Blake is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member was employed by the Board from 2002 until June 30, 2014. During the 2013-2014 school year, the Member taught at the School.

3. Between April and July 2014, the Member vandalized school property and equipment and/or removed school equipment from the School without permission.

4. The Member resigned from the Board, effective June 30, 2014, and relocated to England.

5. Between August 2014 and December 2015, the Member engaged in the inappropriate use of electronic communications, including but not limited to:

(a) sending inappropriate and/or threatening electronic communications to one or more Board employees;

(b) sending inappropriate emails to one or more Board employees impersonating other members of staff.

THE MEMBER’S PLEA

As the Member was not present, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

THE EVIDENCE

The College presented oral and documentary evidence in order to prove the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. Relevant portions of this evidence will be described in greater detail, as needed, in the Committee’s reasons for decision below. The following is a brief summary of the College’s evidence.

Oral Evidence

The College sought and the Committee ordered that the witnesses in this matter be excluded from the hearing until called to give evidence, in accordance with Rule 13.12 of the Rules.

The College called three witnesses: (1) Colleague 1, a teacher at the School during the 2013-2014 academic year; (2) Colleague 2, the School’s [XXX] during the 2013-2014 academic year; and (3) Colleague 3, the superintendent responsible for the School during the 2013-2014 academic year.

The Committee received clear and uncontradicted evidence from the three College witnesses. For reasons that will be set out in greater detail below, as needed, the Committee found that the three witnesses’ evidence was credible and consistent with respect to all material facts. Although there were minor inconsistencies between their accounts (e.g. Colleague 3 testified that the Member returned the key to his classroom at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, but Colleague 2 testified that he did not) the Committee does not find that these types of minor discrepancies are material or diminished the witnesses’ credibility about the key facts at issue.

As the Member chose not to participate in the hearing, no evidence was presented in his defence.

Colleague 1’s Testimony

Colleague 1 has been a teacher at the School since 2008. At the time of the events in question, she was teaching [XXX] in room [XXX]. She knew the Member because he was the [XXX] teacher in room [XXX], a [XXX] that connects with an adjoining door to the [XXX] in room [XXX]. Colleague 1 testified that she knew the Member well and that they worked closely together as colleagues; however, they did not socialize outside of the School.

Colleague 1 gave evidence about the Member’s perceived state of mind after he was declared surplus (at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year). She explained that he was in a “bad place” and that he began “spiralling out of control” talking about uprooting his family and moving to England. She testified about trying to mentor the Member through the difficult time, but explained that the Member was extremely angry with many people at the School and was acting illogically. Colleague 1 explained why the Member was upset with Colleague 2, Colleague 3, and the School and Board generally. Colleague 1 also testified that the Member told her that he was going to vandalize his classroom, and that she “just did not believe him” because the Member’s plan was “something a crazy person would say.”

The Committee finds that Colleague 1’s uncontradicted evidence is reliable. Colleague 1 gave credible first hand evidence based on what she observed. She had a close relationship with the Member and witnessed him “spiralling out of control.” Further, Colleague 1 was able to clearly recall the events she witnessed, the conversations she had with the Member and what he disclosed to her, and she had no interest in the outcome of the hearing.

Colleague 2’s Testimony

Colleague 2 has worked at the School for [XXX] years. At the time of the events in question, Colleague 2 was the [XXX] and was therefore responsible for [XXX] and the [XXX] of the [XXX] for the teachers [XXX]. During the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member and one other teacher were [XXX]. Colleague 2 testified that she knew the Member prior to the 2013-2014 academic year because they had a close professional relationship from working in the same department at the School. They also socialized outside of the School with each other and their respective families.

Colleague 2 testified that the Member became “angry and hostile” after he was declared surplus at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year. She explained that the Member was offered a position at an elementary school within the Board, but that he turned it down. Colleague 2 stated that the Member was especially hostile towards [XXX] the teacher who took over the Member’s classroom after the Member was declared surplus. She also testified about how she and the Member both applied for the position of [XXX] (in 2014), and how the Member yelled at her and was angry that she was offered the position over him.

Colleague 2 testified about finding rooms [XXX] and [XXX] in their vandalized states in the summer of 2014. She described the damage she observed and the items that were missing. She explained that the vandalism was reported to the administration and the police.

Colleague 2 also testified in detail about the year’s worth of inappropriate emails she received, which she believed to be from the Member. Colleague 2 testified about how the emails made her feel. She explained that she felt “hunted” and was visibly upset when describing how the emails had affected her.

The Committee finds that Colleague 2’s uncontradicted evidence is reliable. As the target of the majority of the inappropriate emails from the Member, she was in a position to properly observe and recall the events in question. Further, as the [XXX], Colleague 2 was in a position to testify about whose responsibility rooms [XXX] and [XXX] were, as well as the damage and missing equipment she observed in August 2014. Colleague 2 presented as an honest witness. She was able to clearly articulate the negative effect the emails had on her.

Colleague 3’s Testimony

Background

Colleague 3 is an experienced educator who worked as a teacher for 13 years, as a vice-principal and principal for nine years, and as a superintendent of special education for five years. At the time of the hearing, she was employed as a superintendent of human resources, a position she had been in for two years.

Colleague 3 was a superintendent at the Board who oversaw the School at all material times. She had completed a substantial number of additional qualifications and continuing education courses and she has been heavily involved in the education community, as is evident from her curriculum vitae (see Exhibits 18). She testified that she is very familiar with the standards of the profession applicable to teachers during the 2013-2016 academic years. Colleague 3 further testified that she had formed an opinion about whether the Member had met the standards of the profession. In her opinion, the Member’s conduct fell below the standards of the profession.

Participant Expert

College Counsel sought to qualify Colleague 3 as a participant expert on the issue of professional standards applicable to teachers between 2013 and 2016. According to the College, it would be appropriate to qualify Colleague 3 as such, given her significant experience as an educator, administrator, superintendent and given her involvement in the investigation of the complaints regarding the Member.

The Committee qualified Colleague 3 as a participant expert on the issue of professional standards applicable to teachers between 2013 and 2016. Colleague 3 meets the definition of a participant expert as set out in Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”) in that she is a witness who “[formed] opinions based on [her] participation in the underlying events rather than because [she was] engaged by a party to the litigation to form an opinion” (Westerhof at paragraph 6). Colleague 3 is well versed in the standards for the teaching profession, was directly involved in the investigation into the Member’s conduct and had formed an opinion concerning the Member and his non-adherence to the professional standards.

Testimony

Colleague 3 gave evidence about why the Member was declared surplus at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year. She testified that he, along with others, were declared surplus but were offered the opportunity to apply for other positions within the Board. When he was offered a position at an elementary school, the Member declined the offer and told Colleague 3 it was “beneath him”. Colleague 3 explained that the Member was angry and disgruntled towards many members of the School’s staff. She stated the Member was upset and felt he had to resign from the Board, which he did on June 30 2014. The Member then moved with his family to England.

Colleague 3 testified about the details of the vandalism of and stolen property from rooms [XXX] and [XXX]. She indicated that the principal of the School, [XXX], had reported it to her. Colleague 3 explained that it cost thousands of dollars to repair or replace property (see Exhibit 19 for breakdown for the costs). The vandalism and theft were reported to the police (see Exhibit 29 for the General Occurrence Report). Colleague 3 explained that the Board conducted an internal investigation and concluded that the Member was responsible for both the vandalism and missing property from rooms [XXX] and [XXX]. Colleague 3 testified that she adopted the Board’s conclusion and that the Member’s conduct in this regard fell below the standards of the teaching profession.

Colleague 3 further testified about the inappropriate or threatening emails sent to various Board employees, either by the Member directly or by the Member impersonating Board employees. She explained her involvement with the investigation regarding the source of these emails, and noted that the Board’s IT department concluded that the sender’s IP address originated from England. Colleague 3 explained that the Member was the only Board employee who had relocated to England. Colleague 3 testified about her knowledge of the specific emails delineated below. She explained that they were sent to her and the Board’s IT department for the purpose of determining the source of the emails. Colleague 3 testified that she adopted the Board’s conclusion and opined that the Member sent the emails. She explained that the Member’s conduct in sending the inappropriate or threatening emails fell below the standards of the teaching profession.

The Committee finds that Colleague 3’s uncontradicted evidence is credible. She was in a position to observe and recall: the Member’s reaction to being declared surplus; the Member’s conduct when he declined the job offer at the elementary school; the Member’s reaction when he resigned from the Board; the reports relating to the vandalism in rooms [XXX] and [XXX] and the investigation that followed; and the emails forwarded to her from various staff members and the investigation that followed. She presented as an honest witness who testified in a clear and concise manner, and had no interest in the outcome of the hearing.

SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

College Counsel submitted that the Committee should find that the Member engaged in professional misconduct. College Counsel extensively reviewed the relevant evidence with the Committee and submitted that, based on the evidence presented, the Committee is able to draw inferences that prove each of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, on a balance of probabilities. According to College Counsel, the Committee has the authority to draw inferences from the evidence presented so long as the inferences are reasonable, and are grounded in facts established by the evidence.

Independent Legal Counsel (“ILC”) confirmed College Counsel’s submission regarding the Committee’s ability to draw inferences based on the evidence presented. According to R. v. Munoz, 2016 CanLII 3269 (ON SC), at paragraphs 24-25:

An inference is a deduction of fact which may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the proceedings. It is a conclusion that may, not must, be drawn in the circumstances.

A trier of fact may draw factual inferences from the evidence. The inferences must, however, be ones which can be reasonably and logically drawn from a fact or group of facts established by the evidence. An inference which does not flow logically and reasonably from established facts cannot be made and is condemned as conjecture and speculation.

ILC advised the Committee that in order to properly draw an inference, it must first establish the primary facts based on the evidence presented, and then determine whether the inference can be logically drawn from those facts.

DECISION ON FINDING

Onus and standard of proof

The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.

Decision

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of College Counsel, the Committee rendered an oral decision on June 19, 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(12), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee has carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented in this matter. In the reasons that follow, the Committee comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Committee first sets out its factual findings and then explains why these facts give rise to a finding of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

Factual Findings

1) The Member vandalized school property and equipment and removed school equipment from the School without permission

The Committee finds that between April and July 2014, the Member vandalized school property and equipment and removed school equipment from the School without permission, as alleged at paragraph 3 of the Notice of Hearing.

The Evidence

Colleague 1, a teacher at the School since September 2008, testified that during the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member was a [XXX] teacher at the School. She stated that she was a [XXX] teacher in room [XXX] and that her classroom was connected to the Member’s [XXX] (room [XXX]) by an adjoining door. She stated that she and the Member were close colleagues and that when the Member was declared surplus at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member “started spiralling out of control.” Colleague 1 testified that the Member disclosed to her that he was hurt and angry with various people within the School and the Board. The Member told Colleague 1 that he was going to cash in his pension and move his family to England. Colleague 1 testified that at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, she and the Member were cleaning out their classrooms. She stated that the Member had a case of garlic, and that he told her he was going to place them around his classroom and was going to hide the School’s digital dolls¹ in the ceiling. Colleague 1 testified that she later found out that the garlic was in fact placed around the Member’s classroom, and that the fridges were filled with food, locked, and unplugged. Colleague 1 stated that she was certain the Member was the one responsible.

Further, the Committee received oral testimony from Colleague 2 about this incident. Colleague 2 stated that she is the current [XXX] and [XXX] at the School, and has worked at the School for the last [XXX] years. She testified that during the 2013-2014 academic year, she was the [XXX] and that her responsibility was to [XXX] being delivered, to have working knowledge of the equipment in the [XXX], and to [XXX] in the [XX]. Colleague 2 testified that the Member was a part of [XXX] department during the 2013-2014 academic year, working in the [XXX] (room [XXX]). She stated that room [XXX] had many domestic appliances including fridges, stoves, food processors, pots and pans, and that it had a lot of cupboard space. She explained that room [XXX] and room [XXX] were the sole responsibility of the Member, and that only the Member and the custodians had access to these two adjoining classrooms.

Colleague 2 testified that she had a close relationship with the Member both professionally and socially. She stated that after the Member was declared surplus at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member expressed his frustrations to her and became irate and hostile towards the School, the Board, and the teacher that took over the Member’s teaching position, [XXX]

Colleague 2 testified that in or around August 2014, she went to room [XXX] to meet [XXX] when she noticed a horrific smell in the classroom. She stated that custodians had advised her that: the two large fridges had been filled with food, locked, and unplugged; approximately 60-70 opened jars of garlic were placed strategically throughout the classroom; a sticky substance was found all over the small appliances in the cupboards; and a large white KitchenAid mixer was missing. Colleague 2 testified that the jars of garlic had attracted mice and that she found mice feces all over the classroom; the fridges were moldy and were later deemed unusable; the sticky substance had eroded the pots and pans; and the cupboards where the garlic was placed were also moldy. She stated that she found the School’s digital dolls (valued at approximately $2000-$3000 each) unclothed, and dumped upside down in a box in the classroom.

Colleague 2 took photos of the damage and sent them to the Board, and stated that to her knowledge this situation was reported to law enforcement (see the Occurrence Report at Exhibit 29). Colleague 2 testified that she believed the Member was responsible because he was the one with access to rooms [XXX] and [XXX], and because he was angry after he was declared surplus in 2014.

The Committee also considered Colleague 3’s evidence in relation to this incident. Colleague 3 was a superintendent at the Board during the 2013-2014 academic year, and the School was one of many under her purview during this time. She explained that because of the declining enrollment at the School, several teachers were declared surplus at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year. The Member was offered a position at another School in the Board in the elementary division, but he refused it and indicated that the position was “beneath him.” Colleague 3 stated that the Member expressed that he was upset about [XXX] taking over his teaching position and felt that he was not qualified to do so. The Member resigned from the Board on June 30, 2014, and Colleague 3 testified that the Member was “clearly upset about the fact that he felt he had to resign.”

Colleague 3 testified that in the summer of 2014, it was reported to her that rooms [XXX] and [XXX] were severely vandalized. Colleague 3 testified that several thousands of dollars were spent to repair and replace property that had been damaged, missing, or destroyed (see Exhibit 19). As per the report from the School (at Exhibit 19): the total cost of items missing, disposed of, and ruined from rooms [XXX] and [XXX] was $2040.14, $1809.41, and $10,000, respectively.

Colleague 3 testified that an internal investigation took place and the Board’s conclusion was that the Member was responsible for the vandalism of and the stolen property from rooms [XXX] and [XXX]. Colleague 3 adopted the Board’s conclusion and stated that while the Member was not interviewed because he had relocated to England, he was the one with access to rooms [XXX] and [XXX] and he had the motive to vandalize the rooms and steal the property. The other teachers in the department were interviewed but Colleague 3 stated that they had no reason to vandalize the classrooms or steal the School’s property. The vandalism was reported to the police for insurance purposes and no further action was taken (see the General Occurrence report at Exhibit 29).

The Primary Facts and Inferences

As set out above, the Committee found Colleague 1, Colleague 2, and Colleague 3 to be credible witnesses. Their evidence was externally consistent with regard to the material facts at issue and they had a good recollection of the events in question. The Committee therefore accepted their uncontroverted evidence and found that the following primary facts have been proven on a balance of probabilities.

First, after being declared surplus in 2014, the Member was extremely angry towards the School, the Board, and other colleagues. The Committee finds the Member had a motive to vandalize rooms [XXX] and [XXX] and to steal school property from these classrooms. The Committee further finds, based on the evidence provided by Colleague 3, that no other teacher had a motive to vandalize rooms [XXX] and [XXX].

Second, the Member was responsible for rooms [XXX] and [XXX] and (other than the custodians) had sole access to these rooms. The Committee finds that the Member was in a position to both steal and vandalize the School’s property.

Third, the Member told Colleague 1 that he was going to vandalize his classroom by placing garlic jars throughout the rooms. Colleague 2 observed the damage to the Member’s classroom in August 2014, and reported the damage and missing property to Colleague 3. The Committee finds that the Member’s classrooms were vandalized and that property was stolen, after the Member told his colleague that he was going to do this. Based on these facts, the Committee finds that it is reasonable to infer that the Member vandalized rooms [XXX] and [XXX] and that he was responsible for the damage and the stolen goods from those classrooms. He was one of the few with access to these classrooms between April and July 2014, he had a motive, and the damages to the classrooms included the specific act of leaving garlic jars throughout the room, as the Member had told his colleague he would do.

2) The Member sent inappropriate and threatening electronic communications to one or more Board employees

The Committee finds that between August 2014 and December 2015, the Member engaged in the inappropriate use of electronic communications, including but not limited to, sending inappropriate and threatening electronic communications to one or more Board employees, as alleged at paragraph 5(a) of the Notice of Hearing.

Colleague 3 testified about an email at Exhibit 20 that was forwarded to her in December 2014 from [XXX] (the teacher who took over the Member’s teaching position). The email appeared to be from the Member’s Board email address and is addressed to [XXX] Board email address. In this email, the Member references [XXX]’s “nepotistic wife” and suggests that it is because of her position at the School that [XXX] was hired to take over the Member’s teaching position. According to Colleague 3, the Member’s suggestion was inaccurate.

The email at Exhibit 20 goes on to state:

You and your wife are the worst piece of scum on this earth, and I hope you can live with that. I hope you nothing but a bloody awful Christmas and I really hope your new year and many years are filled with misery. By the way don’t “cheerio” me you complete bastard.

The Member ends his email by saying, “Not to sure what your mother would think of your actions” and includes a photograph of [XXX]’s mother’s obituary photo.

Colleague 3 testified that after the Member resigned from the Board, he no longer had access to his Board email address. However, Colleague 3 stated that after an internal IT investigation, it was confirmed that the IP address of the email at Exhibit 20 originated from England, and that the Member was the only Board employee to move to England at that time. She stated that the Board concluded that the Member had created a new board email address and had sent this email to [XXX] Further, Colleague 3 testified that this email was reported to the police (see the General Occurrence Report at Exhibit 22).

The Committee finds that following primary facts have been proven on the balance of probabilities: after being declared surplus in 2014, the Member was angry with [XXX] for taking over his teaching position; the Member believed that [XXX] was hired because of nepotism; the Member was the only Board employee who had relocated to England; and the IP address of the email from the Member to [XXX] at Exhibit 20 originated in England. Therefore, the Committee finds it reasonable to infer that the Member sent the email at Exhibit 20 to [XXX]

The Committee further finds that this email is both threatening and inappropriate. The Member used threatening language in the email, including calling [XXX] and his wife “scum” and wishing that their new year be filled with “misery”. The email is also completely inappropriate in that it accuses [XXX]’s wife of nepotism and includes an obituary photo of [XXX]’s mother, among other things.

3) The Member sent inappropriate electronic communications to one or more Board employees impersonating other members of staff

The Committee finds that between August 2014 and December 2015, the Member engaged in the inappropriate use of electronic communications, including but not limited to, sending inappropriate electronic communications to one or more Board employees impersonating other members of staff, as alleged at paragraph 5(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee received credible evidence from all three witnesses regarding emails sent by the Member impersonating one or more Board employees. The Committee first sets out the evidence of each witness in relation to this allegation, followed by the primary facts proven on a balance of probabilities and the reasonable inferences drawn from these primary facts.

The Evidence

Colleague 1

Colleague 1 testified about the Member’s actions after being declared surplus at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year. Colleague 1 testified that the Member was “spiralling out of control” and that he was not in a good place. She stated that the Member told her that he was cashing in his pension, that he had his wife quit her job, and that he was moving his family to England. Colleague 1 testified that the Member was hurt and especially angry towards the School, the principal, the Board, [XXX] [XXX]’s wife (who worked at the School as a [XXX]), and Colleague 2, the [XXX]. Colleague 1’s testimony about the Member’s animosity towards [XXX] was corroborated by Colleague 2, who testified that the Member was resentful towards [XXX] because [XXX] had taken over the Member’s teaching position. Colleague 1 testified about receiving the following inappropriate email.

Exhibit 5

Colleague 1 testified that she received an email on January 24, 2015, that appeared to originate from [XXX]’s Board email address, on the topic of “homophobic hate mail.” The email was addressed to all employees at the School. Colleague 1 stated that she did not believe [XXX] would send an email about “homophobic hate mail.” She forwarded this email to Colleague 3 and the Board’s IT department, because all staff had been alerted by IT that false emails were going around. Colleague 1 testified that the Board’s IT department concluded that [XXX] did not send this email to the staff at the School, and that the email originated from an IP address in England.

Colleague 2

Colleague 2 testified that after the Member was declared surplus at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year he became “angry and hostile.” She stated that the Member was offered a position at another School within the same Board, but the Member turned it down because he thought it was “beneath him.” Colleague 2 testified that, after that offer, the Member became irate and that those feelings did not go away.

Colleague 2 testified that at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, both she and the Member applied for the position of [XXX] at the School. She stated that the Member was not considered for the position because he did not have the required qualifications. According to Colleague 2, after she was hired as the School’s [XXX], the Member “yelled and screamed at her that she got the job that [the Member] should have.” She stated that the Member was irate, irrational, and that she was afraid of him because of the way he was acting. Colleague 2 testified that the Member was also resentful towards [XXX] because [XXX] had taken over the Member’s teaching position. Colleague 2 testified that after the end of the 2013-2014 academic year the Member did not continue teaching at the School or for the Board, and instead moved to England.

Colleague 2 testified that she received a year’s worth of inappropriate emails which she believed came from the Member impersonating various employees of the Board. Specifically, Colleague 2 testified about receiving the following inappropriate emails.

Exhibit 6

Colleague 2 testified that she received an email on January 15, 2015 from Taylor & Francis Online, a website that she had never visited. The email states “[[XXX] wife] thinks that you would be interested in the following content” and then includes a link to an article titled, “Including All Voices in the Classroom: Teaching Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Students.” Colleague 2 stated that this email was forwarded to Colleague 3. She identified the email as “not being right” and knew that Colleague 3 and the Board’s IT department were gathering information regarding these fake or impersonating emails being sent to various employees of the Board. Colleague 2 believed that it was the Member who signed her up to receive emails from Taylor & Francis Online because the Member was aware of Colleague 2’s [XXX].

Exhibit 7

Colleague 2 testified that she received an email on January 23, 2015 that appeared to be from the director of the Board, [XXX]. The subject line states, “Coming out all over again: why the first gay-rights generation faces familiar challenged in old age.” The email says, “Hi, thought you might find this interesting. Have a good day” and includes a link to the above noted article in the Globe and Mail. Colleague 2 testified that she asked [XXX] if she had sent this email and [XXX]. told Colleague 2 she did not. Colleague 2 forwarded this email to Colleague 3 for further investigation into the source of the sender’s IP address. Colleague 2 believed it was the Member who was impersonating [XXX], because the Member was aware of Colleague 2’s [XXX].

Exhibit 8

Like Colleague 1, Colleague 2 testified that she received an email on January 24, 2015, that appeared to originate from [XXX]’s board email address, on the topic of “homophobic hate mail.” The email was sent to all employees at the School. Colleague 2 testified that she spoke with [XXX] and his wife who stated that they never sent this email. Colleague 2 believed it was the Member who had sent this email because he was aware of her [XXX]. Colleague 2 forwarded this email to the Board’s IT department for further investigation into the source of the sender’s IP address.

Exhibit 9

Colleague 2 testified that she received an email on January 25, 2015 that appeared to be from [XXX]’s wife, containing a link to an article in The Star about the Bernstein Diet. She stated that she spoke to [XXX] wife who said that she did not send the email. Colleague 2 believed it was the Member who had sent this email. She forwarded this email to the Board’s IT department for further investigation into the source of the sender’s IP address.

Exhibit 10

Colleague 2 testified that she received an email (at her personal email address) on January 25, 2015 from Alicia@drbdiet.com. The email opens with a thank you to Colleague 2 for contacting the Dr. Bernstein Diet and Health Clinic, and includes an extensive breakdown of the program with the associated pricing. Colleague 2 stated that she never contacted the Dr. Bernstein Diet and Health Clinic and did not give them her personal email address. Colleague 2 believed the Member was the one who contacted Dr. Bernstein Diet and Health Clinic on her behalf. According to Colleague 2, the Member had her personal email address because she and her partner socialized with the Member and his family outside of the School. Further, Colleague 2 testified that the Member had very strong opinions about the Dr. Bernstein Diet and taught about the ineffectiveness of such “extreme diets” in his class. Colleague 2 forwarded this email to the Board’s IT department for further investigation into the source of the sender’s IP address.

Exhibit 11

Colleague 2 testified that, on January 25, 2015, an email was sent from her email account to the Board superintendent at the time. The email contained a link to a Toronto Sun article from a website called “Add This” with the title “Gay Tolerance Teaching Mandatory in Toronto Schools?” Colleague 2 testified that she had never visited the “Add This” website and did not subscribe to their email list. Colleague 2 forwarded this email to the Board’s IT department for further investigation into the source of the sender’s IP address. She stated that she believed it was the Member who had sent this email because he was aware of her [XXX].

Exhibit 12

Colleague 2 testified that on, July 28, 2015, she received an email from “Life Site”. The email states: “[XXX] wants to share an article on Life Site with you” and includes a link to an article titled “Lesbian Premier Orders Ontario’s Sex-Ed Update to Teach Kids about Giving Sexual Consent from the Very Earliest Stages.” The message included in the email says, “Marriage is for men and women only.” Colleague 2 testified that this email appeared to come from her colleague [XXX], a religion teacher at the School. She stated that she asked [XXX] if he sent this email and he confirmed that he did not. Colleague 2 forwarded this email to the Board’s IT department for further investigation into the source of the sender’s IP address. Colleague 2 believed the Member had sent this email because he was aware of her [XXX].

Exhibit 13

Colleague 2 testified that, on August 19, 2015, an email was sent from her email address to Brenda at the Catholic Shop, requesting free posters of God to put up in her classroom. Colleague 2 stated that she never contacted Brenda and did not make any such inquiry with the Catholic Shop. Colleague 2 forwarded this email to Colleague 3 and the Board’s IT department for further investigation into the source of the sender’s IP address. She believed the Member had sent this email because he was aware of her [XXX].

Exhibit 14

Colleague 2 testified that, on August 21, 2015, she received an email that appeared to be from [XXX] wife with a link to a Globe and Mail article titled, “Alberta’s New Stand on Gay-Straight Alliances Makes for Historic Day.” The email says, “I thought you’d like this.” Colleague 2 testified that she spoke to [XXX]’s wife, who confirmed that she did not send this email. Colleague 2 forwarded this email to Colleague 3 and the Board’s IT department for further investigation into the source of the sender’s IP address. She believed the Member had sent this email because he was aware of her [XXX].

Exhibit 15

Colleague 2 testified that, on August 21, 2015, she received an email that appeared to be from the trustee of the Board, [XXX]. The email included a link to a video of a pig being butchered. The email also referred to the equipment missing in the School’s kitchen, and accused Colleague 2 of not properly maintaining her [XXX]. Colleague 2 testified that she spoke to [XXX] who confirmed that she did not send this email. Colleague 2 stated that she believed the Member sent this email because he was angry that she was hired for the role of [XXX] when he was not even considered for it. Colleague 2 forwarded this email to Colleague 3 and the Board’s IT department for further investigation into the source of the sender’s IP address.

Colleague 2 testified about emailing the Board’s IT department, on August 25, 2015, to request that her Board email address be changed because she wanted the impersonating and inappropriate emails from the Member to stop (Exhibit 16). Colleague 2 testified that the Board’s IT department determined that these emails (as described above) were sent from an IP address in England, and that the Board concluded that these emails were sent by the Member.

Colleague 3

Colleague 3 testified that certain employees of the Board had received inappropriate or threatening emails that appeared to have been sent by various employees of the Board. She stated that the Board realized that someone was impersonating staff members when the recipients of the emails contacted the supposed senders, who stated that they had not sent the emails in question.

Colleague 3 testified that she had seen the emails at Exhibits 5-15 because they had been sent to her out of concern for their content. She stated that she worked with the Board’s IT department to determine the source of these emails. Following its investigation, the Board’s IT department determined that the IP address associated with the emails could be traced to a location near the Member’s residence in England. Colleague 3 stated that the Member was the only Board employee to relocate to England, and therefore the Board concluded that the Member was impersonating various Board employees by sending these emails.

Colleague 3 gave further evidence about the following inappropriate emails.

Exhibit 23

Colleague 3 testified about an email forwarded to her from [XXX], a [XXX] at the School. The email appeared to be sent on January 23, 2015 from [XXX], the Board director at the time. The email states: “I have asked if you can be moved from the [XXX] and go back to do some teaching again. Have a think? We really need your skills. God bless.” Colleague 3 testified that she confirmed that [XXX] did not send this email, and that it was later determined by the Board’s IT department that the sender’s IP address originated in England. Colleague 3 stated that she agreed with the conclusion of the Board that it was the Member who had sent this email, and that she believes that the Member sent it to [XXX]as a way of indirectly targeting Colleague 2.

Exhibit 24

Colleague 3 testified about an email that appeared to be sent from the Director of Human Resources, [XXX], on January 23, 2015, to [XXX], a teacher at the School. Colleague 3 stated that [XXX] forwarded this email to the Board’s IT department, explaining that he did not send it to [XXX] The email included a link to a Globe and Mail article titled, “Why Bad Teachers Don’t get Fired in Ontario.” Colleague 3 testified that the Board’s IT department confirmed that [XXX] did not send this email and that the sender’s IP address originated in England.

Exhibit 25

Colleague 3 testified that an email was sent to [XXX] from Tena, the adult diaper company, on January 24, 2015. The email from Tena’s customer care was addressed to [XXX] and included a shipment confirmation of a trial kit for adult diapers to [XXX]’s home address. Colleague 3 testified that [XXX] confirmed that he never signed up for a trial kit of Tena diapers. Colleague 3 stated that, after an internal investigation, the Board’s IT department confirmed that the source of the order came from England.

Exhibit 26

Colleague 3 testified about an email that appeared to have been sent from her to the staff list at the School, on January 25, 2015. The email had an article embedded within it titled, “Catholic Teachers Union Executive Turmoil.” Colleague 3 testified that she did not send the email. She explained that she found out about the email because [XXX]’s wife contacted Colleague 3 after she received it. Colleague 3 stated that the email was forwarded to the Board’s IT department for investigation and it was determined that the sender’s IP address originated in England.

Exhibit 27

Colleague 3 testified about an email that appeared to have been sent from her to [XXX]’s wife on January 25, 2015. The email included a link to an article titled “Peel School Board to Poll Staff on Personal Background.” The email also included a message that said: “I thought you might be interested in this story from The Star. Can you think of some ways of preventing nepotism [[XXX]’s Wife]? Let me know, [Colleague 3].” Colleague 3 testified that she did not send this email. She stated that the email was forwarded to the Board’s IT department for investigation and it was determined that the sender’s IP address originated in England. Colleague 3 testified that the Member had made allegations of “nepotism” when [XXX] was hired to take over his teaching position. She stated that no other member of the staff had made nepotism allegations.

Moreover, Colleague 3 testified that she received an email from [XXX]. looking for an assurance that the “hate mail” would stop, and also inquiring about the status of the Board’s investigation into the source of the email (Exhibit 21). Colleague 3 testified further that following the General Occurrence Report (Exhibit 22), PC Sharp (the police constable assigned to investigate Colleague 3’s complaint about the Member and his threatening and inappropriate emails) had advised Colleague 3 that she contacted the Member in England and had a phone conversation with him. Colleague 3 testified that PC Sharp told the Member that the emails had to stop and the Member agreed and said he would stop. The conversation between the Member and PC Sharp, as summarized by Colleague 3, is reflected in the Supplementary Occurrence Report dated November 8, 2015 (Exhibit 28).

The Primary Facts and the Inferences

For the reasons delineated above, the Committee finds the testimonies of Colleague 1, Colleague 2, and Colleague 3 to be credible. Based on the three witnesses’ testimonies, the Committee finds that the following primary facts have been proven on a balance of probabilities.

First, Committee finds that after being declared surplus at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member was angry with the School and the Board generally, and also with specific employees of the Board. The Member was angry at [XXX] for taking over the Member’s teaching position, and angry at [XXX]’s wife because the Member believed she was the reason [XXX] was hired. The Member was hostile towards Colleague 2 for having been selected as the [XXX] instead of him. The Member was angry at Colleague 3 for offering the Member a job that he felt was “beneath him” and for putting him in a position where he felt he had no choice but to retire.

Second, the Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the emails in question originated from an IP address in England, 35 km from the Member’s last known address, and that the Member was the only Board employee to have relocated to England at the time. Although the Committee recognizes that Colleague 3’s testimony about the Board’s investigation and corresponding conclusions regarding the IP address of the emails is hearsay, the Committee notes that hearsay is admissible in discipline hearings, and finds that the hearsay evidence in this regard is reliable. The Board was presumably under a duty to conduct a fair investigation and, as a result, the information about the Board’s conclusion, as relayed by Colleague 3 in her oral testimony, is reliable hearsay.

Third, the Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member admitted to PC Sharp (during a phone conversation on September 13, 2015) that he had sent impersonating emails to his former Board colleagues. While the Committee recognizes that PC Sharp’s report regarding the telephone conversation with the Member (at Exhibit 28) is hearsay, the Committee finds that the hearsay evidence in this regard is reliable. PC Sharp was under a duty to accurately record the phone conversation with the Member and to accurately relay this conversation to Colleague 3. The Committee therefore accepts that PC Sharp had a conversation with the Member on September 13, 2015 where PC Sharp told the Member that the emails had to stop, to which the Member “agreed and said he would stop.”

Although the Member could have participated in his hearing, he decided not to and therefore did not cross-examine the College’s witnesses or present any evidence in his defence. The College’s evidence is therefore uncontradicted.

Accordingly, the Committee finds that it is reasonable to infer that the Member sent inappropriate emails to several Board employees, impersonating other members of the Board, as alleged at paragraph 5(b) of the Notice of Hearing. The Member was angry with many Board employees after he was declared surplus at the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, which the Committee finds to be a motive for him sending these emails. The emails also originated from an IP address that was close to the Member’s residence in England, and the Member was the only Board employee who lived in England at the time. Moreover, the Member told PC Sharp that he would stop sending these emails when the police contacted him on September 13, 2015.

Legal Conclusions

The Member is guilty of professional misconduct

The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct set out above gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5); he signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper, or misleading statement contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12); he failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15); 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, he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

1) The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5)

The Committee finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. The Committee received expert opinion evidence from Colleague 3 establishing the standards of the profession applicable to teachers between the 2013-2016 academic years. Colleague 3 was qualified as a participant expert, and opined that the Member did not meet the standards of the profession applicable to teachers. For the reasons described above, the Committee finds that Colleague 3 presented as a reliable expert witness. She gave clear evidence of her involvement in the investigation with the events in question, and gave clear and concise evidence with regard to the Member’s breach of the standards of the profession.

Colleague 3 testified that the Member breached the standards of the profession when he vandalized his classroom and removed property from the School. She opined that he did not meet the standards of the teaching profession because his misconduct was “illegal”. Colleague 3 stated that his misconduct resulted in the substantial allocation of both financial and human resources to replace and repair various items in rooms [XXX] and [XXX]. Colleague 3 testified that the Board’s resources should have been used to benefit the students of the School, instead of having to repair and replace items that the Member destroyed or removed from the School.

Colleague 3 testified further that the Member breached the standards of the profession when he sent inappropriate and threatening emails to one or more Board employees and when he sent unprofessional emails to one or more Board employees impersonating other members of staff. Colleague 3 stated that by engaging in this misconduct the Member breached the standards of the profession “in every way.” She testified that the Member’s misconduct had a negative impact on various staff at both the School and Board level, and created a “culture of fear.” Colleague 3 testified further that by sending inappropriate emails impersonating various employees of the Board, the Member also temporarily damaged relationships between staff members.

The Committee accepts Colleague 3’s expert opinion and therefore finds that the Member failed to meet the standards of the profession applicable to teachers during the 2013-2016 academic years, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).

2) The Member signed or issued, in the Member’s professional capacity, a document that the Member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12)

The Committee finds that the Member issued a document that he knew or ought to have known contained false, improper or misleading statements when he sent emails to staff members impersonating various employees of the Board. As set out above, the Committee found that the Member sent a number of impersonating emails to his colleagues from the email accounts of other Board employees without their knowledge or permission (see Exhibits 5-15 and 23-27).

Beyond the rude and inappropriate content of these emails, it is also completely unacceptable for members of the profession to impersonate others by using email addresses that appear to mimic their Board email accounts. For example, the Member impersonated Colleague 3 and sent [XXX] wife an email saying: “I thought you might be interested in this story from The Star. Can you think of some ways of preventing nepotism [[XXX]’s Wife]? Let me know, [Colleague 3]” (Exhibit 27). It was improper for the Member to impersonate Colleague 3, who was a superintendent at the time, by sending a cryptic and accusatory email to [XXX]’s wife, who was a staff member at the School. Similarly, it was unprofessional for the Member to sign up his former colleague, [XXX] for a shipment of adult diapers. In order to do so, the Member would have had to mislead the diaper company by signing [XXX]up without his authorization. Members of the teaching profession are expected to support their colleagues and to treat them with respect. The Member’s behaviour was juvenile, deceitful and unprofessional.

3) The Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15)

The Committee finds that the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act provides that it is the duty of a teacher to “inculcate by precept and example […] the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.” The Member’s conduct demonstrated a complete disregard for truth, loyalty, humanity and justice. The Member behaved unacceptably when he vandalized and removed School property from his classroom. His actions resulted in the substantial allocation of financial and human resources to repair or replace property in rooms [XXX] and [XXX].

Further, the Member demonstrated a complete lack of loyalty, truth, humanity and justice when he impersonated various Board employees and sent inappropriate emails to members of staff. His actions created a culture of fear and hostility amongst the staff at both the School and Board level. The Member’s destructive and dishonest conduct demonstrated a profound lack of professional judgment and a failure to abide by the duties of a teacher, as set out in the Education Act. Accordingly, the Member’s conduct contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

4) 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)

The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The factual findings set out above demonstrate that the Member acted unprofessionally when he vandalized his classroom and removed School property. The Member acted maliciously by intentionally hiding opened garlic jars throughout the classroom, and by stocking the classroom fridges with food, locking the doors, and unplugging them. The Committee believes that the Member intended to cause damage to the School’s property.

The Member also sent a series of inappropriate, threatening and rude emails to a number of his former colleagues. In a number of these emails, the Member had impersonated his colleagues by sending emails from their Board accounts without their knowledge or permission. Members of the teaching profession are expected to act professionally at all times, and the Member’s conduct fell well below this expectation.

5) The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)

The Committee finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession, for similar reasons to those set out directly above in relation to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By vandalizing School property and by sending a series of inappropriate and threatening emails to his former colleagues, the Member jeopardized the reputation of the teaching profession and undermined the public’s confidence in members of the profession.

The Committee notes the distinction between subsections 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Subsection 1(18) typically involves conduct that occurs during a teacher’s professional life (while he or she is “on duty”), whereas subsection 1(19) typically involves conduct that occurs while a teacher is “off duty”. The Member’s unbecoming “off duty” conduct occurred when he sent inappropriate and threatening emails to various Board employees either on his own behalf or from other Board employees’ email accounts. The Member’s impersonations formed part of a concerning pattern of behaviour in which the Member sent a number of former colleagues a series of inappropriate communications from Board email accounts that were not his own.

Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority, whereby the public and the profession expect that they will behave honestly and with integrity at all times. Teachers are expected to serve as positive role models. When members behave in a deceitful, destructive and rude manner, as the Member did in this case, they undermine the reputation of the profession as a whole.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

College Counsel explained that the Committee has the discretion to order a penalty that it considers appropriate in the circumstances, but submitted that revocation would be appropriate in this case. College Counsel submitted that there are several aggravating factors supporting the request for revocation, and no mitigating factors. The Member’s misconduct continued for over a year and his actions specifically targeted members of the teaching profession. According to College Counsel, given the prolonged period of time and harmful impact that the Member’s intentional conduct had, the Committee ought to revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

College Counsel briefly presented the Committee with one previous case decided by the Discipline Committee in order to establish that revocation was an appropriate order that fell within the range of penalties ordered for similar misconduct in the past: Ontario College of Teachers v. Alphonso, 2016 ONOCT 1. College Counsel submitted that while the facts in that case differed from the unique facts in the matter at hand, the case was a useful benchmark for the Committee since it resulted in a lengthy suspension.

PENALTY DECISION

On June 19, 2018, the Committee made the following order as to penalty:

1. The Committee directs that the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which Certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

In arriving at its decision with respect to penalty, the Committee carefully considered the College’s evidence and submissions. The Committee was also mindful of the guiding principles that penalty orders should address, including specific and general deterrence, remediation (in appropriate cases), and public protection.

Revocation is not a mandatory penalty in this case but it is the appropriate order given the circumstances. There were a number of aggravating factors in this case, which support an order of revocation, including the fact that: the Member’s inappropriate and impersonating emails were sent over the course of more than one year; the Member’s misconduct as whole was intentional and targeted the School and past colleagues at the School and the Board; the vandalism and missing property resulted in thousands of dollars spent on repairing and replacing various items; the emails the Member sent were humiliating, hurtful, and targeted certain individual’s personal attributes (for example, [XXX]); the emails were relentless until PC Sharp told the Member he had to stop; and the Member took no responsibility for his actions or demonstrated any remorse. The Committee notes that the Member has never previously appeared before a panel for the Discipline Committee; however, the Committee finds that this mitigating factor is heavily outweighed by the significant aggravating factors in this case.

The Committee received concerning evidence about the impact that the Member’s conduct had on Colleague 2. Colleague 2 testified about seeking [XXX] due to the emotionally traumatizing nature of the emails she received from the Member. She stated that she “felt hunted” by the Member. Even while testifying years after the events in question, Colleague 2 remained visibly shaken by the Member’s conduct. The Member demonstrated a complete disregard for Colleague 2’s emotional well-being. His conduct traumatized her.

There is no place in the profession for members who intentionally target other members of the profession. Revocation is the only penalty that appropriately responds to professional misconduct of this nature. The Member’s misconduct was not a mere lapse in judgment. His conduct was intentional, targeted, lasted for a prolonged period of time, and impacted several members of the teaching profession. The Member’s conduct undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and will not be tolerated. He has accordingly forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: October 24, 2018

Jane Ishibashi

Chair, Discipline Panel

Sara Nouini, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Ravi Vethamany, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1The digital dolls are life-like babies that cry if they are not cared for properly. They are used for home economic studies.