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
Richard John Hamilton, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
RICHARD JOHN HAMILTON (REGISTRATION #424437)
PANEL: John Hamilton, OCT, Chair Alicia Nunn, OCT Tom Potter
HEARD: October 23, 2018
Ava Arbuck of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
Richard John Hamilton, 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 October 23, 2018, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify Person A in this matter, and a specific publication ban preventing the public disclosure of Tabs C and D of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), 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 October 23, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated April 26, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on Richard John Hamilton (the “Member”), requesting his presence on May 31, 2017 to set a date for hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for October 23, 2018.
The Member was not in attendance for the hearing and he 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 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);
(c) he contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);
(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:
Richard John Hamilton is, and was at all material times, 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 as a vice-principal by the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario (the “Board”).
At all material times, Person A was a young female child.
On or about February 6, 2015, the Member was charged with assault with a weapon in relation to Person A, as a result of an incident that occurred on January 24, 2015. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a certified copy of the court information.
On August 10, 2015, in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Member pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of assault in relation to Person A. The Member received a conditional discharge, consisting of 18 months of probation with additional terms, including no contact with Person A. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Transcript of Proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice, dated August 10, 2015; Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Reasons for Sentence in the [sic] dated August 10, 2015; Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Probation Order in relation to the Member.
The Member resigned from the Board on January 10, 2016.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document,1 the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 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(15), 1(16), 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 him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and without the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
PUBLICATION BAN
The Committee ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of 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 Person A, the victim 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, due to the unique circumstances of this case, there was the possibility of serious harm or injustice to Person A if her identity were disclosed to the public. In particular, there was a concern that the information contained in the court transcripts at Tabs C and D of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2) would identify Person A, thereby creating the possibility of serious harm or injustice to Person A.
Subsection 32.1(1) of the Act provides the Committee with the authority to order a publication ban with respect to Person A 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 Person A, whereby no person shall disclose any information that could identify Person A in this matter. Further, the Committee ordered a specific publication ban preventing the public disclosure of Tabs C and D of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2).
DECISION
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, the Committee rendered an oral decision on October 23, 2018 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted 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(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 2-5 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 2-5 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 and 5 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16).
Paragraphs 2-5 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 2-5 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).
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
At the outset of the penalty portion of the hearing, College Counsel sought an order excluding members of the public from a portion of the hearing. College Counsel first asked that the Committee exclude the public who was present while she made submissions as to why the penalty portion of the hearing ought to be closed to the public, in accordance with subsection 32(7.1) of the Act. The Committee granted this initial request.
College Counsel then submitted that the penalty portion of the hearing ought to remain closed to the public to protect the identity of Person A. College Counsel submitted that she needed to go into details about the Member’s misconduct in order to provide the Committee with submissions as to why the jointly proposed penalty was appropriate. To this end, she intended to review the transcripts of the Member’s criminal proceedings (Exhibit 2, tab C) and the reasons for sentence in his criminal proceedings (Exhibit 2, tab D). In doing so, College Counsel submitted that it would be difficult to summarize the facts in a fair manner without indirectly identifying Person A.
The Committee accepted College Counsel’s submissions and closed the penalty portion of the hearing to members of the public. As noted above, the Committee has the authority, pursuant to subsection 32(7) of the Act, to exclude members of the public for a portion of the hearing if a possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person might occur. The Committee found that due to the nature of the facts that would necessarily be reviewed in College Counsel’s submissions, a risk of serious harm or injustice may occur if Person A’s identity were disclosed during College Counsel submissions on penalty. The Committee found that closing the penalty portion of the hearing was necessary to protect the identity of Person A.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:
- direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which Certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar.
PENALTY DECISION
In an oral decision rendered on October 23, 2018 the Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by College Counsel 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 cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Corry, 2008 ONOCT 13; Ontario College of Teachers v. Piatnitsa, 2015 ONOCT 66; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Canacari, 2017 ONOCT 4.
The Committee finds that revocation is the appropriate penalty in this case, given the Member’s serious criminal conviction involving a young child. The Member assaulted Person A by intentionally pushing a table at her causing a bruise on her knee. The Committee found it extremely concerning that the Member was a vice-principal who was responsible for the well-being of many young students, and yet he behaved violently towards a young child. The Member’s behaviour demonstrated a significant lack of judgment and was in conflict with the duty of a vice-principal to protect students. Members of the profession are expected to adhere to the standards of the profession at all times, even when they are “off duty”. The Member did not meet these expectations when he assaulted Person A. As a vice-principal, the Member was expected to serve as a leader for his school community and to set a positive example for staff and students. By engaging in criminal behaviour, the Member did the opposite.
The Committee recognizes that the Member has taken responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct in the Notice of Hearing. However, while this acknowledgment is a mitigating factor, the aggravating factors set out above outweigh it considerably and justify a significant penalty. The Member, a vice-principal and leader of a school community, was convicted of a serious criminal offense against a young female and his conduct undermined the reputation of the teaching profession.
Revocation satisfies the penalty objectives of specific and general deterrence, and public protection. It will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member by strongly denouncing his criminal conduct and by removing him from a trusted leadership position in the school community. It will promote general deterrence by informing members of the profession that engaging in criminal conduct, whether inside or outside the school context, is wholly unacceptable and may lead to serious consequences. The penalty order will also protect the public by ensuring that the Member is no longer permitted to hold a position in Ontario that would require a Certificate of Qualification and Registration. This will limit the risk of harm that he might otherwise pose to members of his school community. The Member’s reprehensible conduct put Person A at risk, and undermined the public’s confidence in the teaching 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: November 29, 2018
John Hamilton, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Alicia Nunn, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Tom Potter Member, Discipline Panel