DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Darren Le Roy Blew, a retired member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT, Chair
Marie-Thérèse Hokayem
Sara Nouini, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
DARREN LE ROY BLEW ) Kate Hughes,
(CERTIFICATE # 285597) ) Cavalluzzo LLP
) for Darren Le Roy Blew
) Rebecca Durcan,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: December 18, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on December 18, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A Notice of Hearing dated November 24, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Darren Le Roy Blew (the “Member”), requesting his presence on January 12, 2016 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for December 18, 2017.
The Member was not in attendance for the hearing but had legal representation.
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 subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1)1 of 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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;2
(e) 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);
(f) 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
(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2)3, which provides the following:
Darren Le Roy Blew is a retired 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 the Thames Valley District School Board (the “Board”) as an [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”). The Member also coached the School’s [XXX] team.
At all material times, Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, Student 5, Student 6, Student 7 and Student 8 (the “Students”) were female students in Grade [XXX] or Grade [XXX] at the School. The Students were also members of the [XXX] team [XXX] by the Member.
During the academic year 2009-2010, while [XXX]the [XXX] team during [XXX] and/or [XXX], the Member engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the Students, which included:
(a) Tapping the Students’ legs to get their attention;
(b) Touching the Students’ shoulders;
(c) Using his finger to draw [XXX] on the Students’ thighs;
(d) Holding the Students by the hips in order to move them into the right position or stance;
(e) Putting his arm around one or more of the Students;
(f) Touching and/or cupping the face of one or more of the Students; and
(g) Tucking the hair of one or more of the Students behind their ears.
If called to testify at a hearing before the Discipline Committee, the Member would say that he had physical contact with the Students in his [XXX] duties to demonstrate skills, correct their stance or position, to get their attention, to administer first-aid to them, or to comfort them if hurt. At all times these actions were done publically, such as at a [XXX] where other adults were present.
On one occasion, in a School hallway, the Member came up behind Student 2, put his arms around her, and lifted her off the ground.
On one occasion, during [XXX] [XXX], the Member grabbed Student 2 by her shirt and pulled her close to him. Student 2 told the Member to stop touching her, to which the Member replied that Student 2 had an “attitude problem.” If called to testify at a hearing before the Discipline Committee, the Member would explain that he pulled Student 2 by her shirt closer to the [XXX] where he was playing [XXX] while teaching her how to cut off a [XXX] to properly utilize a [XXX] The Member would also state that his comment about Student 2 having an “attitude problem” was in response to her attempting to leave the [XXX] during a [XXX] without permission, ostensibly to get a drink.
If called to testify at a hearing before the Discipline Committee, the Students would say that the Member’s repeated touching made the Students feel very uncomfortable.
On March 10, 2010, the Member was charged with assault in relation to Student 2, and with sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation in relation to Student 1.
On December 7, 2010 the Member entered into a Peace Bond, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B”, in the amount of $5,000.00 and for a period of four years, with the following conditions:
(a) Not to participate in the management, [XXX] or [XXX] staff of any team with females under the age of 16;
(b) Not to associate or communicate directly or indirectly with any of the Students; and
(c) Not to be within 100 meters of any residence of the Students.
On December 21, 2010, all four criminal charges against the Member were withdrawn.
On or around December 31, 2010, the Member entered into an Agreement with the Board whereby he resigned from his teaching position.
The Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) has established Ethical Standards and Standards of Practice for the teaching profession. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of those standards. The Member’s conduct breached the standards set out by the College.
The Member has retired from the teaching profession and is now working in another field.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document4, 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(7.1), 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 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 advice of legal counsel.
The Member’s guilty plea does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Admitted Facts and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 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 14 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(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 13 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 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1).
Paragraphs 4, 7 and 8 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8 and 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, 6, 7, 8 and 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 unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
Paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8 and 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 5), 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 reprimand. Submissions will be made on the issue of whether the reprimand should be delivered in written form or in person. 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 three 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, 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
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and makes an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above. With respect to the issue of the form of the reprimand, the Committee directs that the Member receive a written reprimand.
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. Ward, 2013 ONOCT 93 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Pecile, 2016 ONOCT 41.
The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated pattern of engaging in inappropriate physical contact with multiple students warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority. They are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and to foster safe and supportive learning communities. In this case, the Member’s conduct fell short of meeting these expectations when he repeatedly touched a number of female students in Grade [XXX] and [XXX] during [XXX] [XXX], and in the School hallway. Among other things, the Member touched students’ legs, shoulders and faces; he used his finger to draw [XXX] [XXX] on students’ thighs; he held students by their hips in order to move them into the right position on the [XXX]; he put his arm around one or more students; and he tucked the hair of one or more students behind their ears. The Member’s conduct made students feel very uncomfortable. He invaded their personal space in an inappropriate manner. 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.
With respect to the form of the reprimand, given that College Counsel did not oppose a written reprimand, the Committee accepted the submission of Member’s Counsel that a written reprimand is reasonable considering the Member has not been teaching since 2010 and has no intention to return to teaching.
Given the serious and repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct, the Committee finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The duration of the suspension is within a reasonable range, as established by the case law presented by the College. Although the Member is currently retired, recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession by informing them that there are serious consequences for engaging in the inappropriate physical contact of students.
Should the Member decide to return to the teaching profession, he will be required to successfully complete the prescribed professional learning coursework set out above. The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations 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. A notation will also remain on the Member’s public register profile until he satisfies the terms, conditions or limitations relating to the coursework requirements. This will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
Publication of this decision with the Member’s name is now mandatory in accordance with subsection 45.1 of the Act. Accordingly, the Committee’s decision and reasons will be published with the Member’s name on the College’s website and a summary will be published with the Member’s name in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: January 9, 2018
Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Marie-Thérèse Hokayem
Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- Section 40(1.1) was cited in the original Notice of Hearing. However, this provision has been repealed after amendments to the Act came into force on December 5, 2016.
- Allegation withdrawn.
- College Counsel submitted that the Member signed and retuned the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea to her via fax. This signed document was entered as Exhibit 2 during the hearing on December 18, 2017. Due to a technological issue with the fax machine, some portions of the signed Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2) were illegible and paragraphs 4(c) and 4(d) of Exhibit 2 were cut off. College Counsel therefore entered a complete but unsigned version of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea as Exhibit 3, for the Committee’s ease of reference. Member’s Counsel confirmed that Exhibit 3 was the complete version of the agreement to which the parties had agreed.
- For the purposes of paragraphs 15 and 17, this “document” refers to the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.