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
Geoffrey James Orton, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
GEOFFREY JAMES ORTON (REGISTRATION #256166)
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT Marlène Marwah
HEARD: November 4, 2019
Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Adam Webb, for Geoffrey James Orton Rebecca Durcan, 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.
1This matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on November 4, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Geoffrey James Orton (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.
A. PUBLICATION ban
3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. 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.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated April 10, 2018 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Geoffrey James Orton 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 abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) 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 as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(d) he failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(e) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);1
(f) 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);
(g) he committed an act or 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);
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and
(i) he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or disregard for the welfare of his students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.2
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Geoffrey James Orton is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
During the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member taught inter alia, an [XXX] course that included students with various learning [XXX], including [XXX], [XXX], and/or [XXX].
During the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member:
(a) left his [XXX] class unsupervised on at least four occasions for approximately two to five minutes on each occasion;
(b) did not immediately intervene when students engaged in horseplay, which included shoving or pushing amongst students, and on occasion loudly raised his voice to tell them to sit down;
(c) did not immediately respond to students yelling and/or swearing, and on occasion loudly raised his voice when he asked them to stop;
(d) did not immediately intervene when students filled plastic bottles with gas and lit them on fire, and threw the lit objects into the garbage. The Member eventually stopped the students, but failed to take any remedial action;
(e) on seeing a student stand on a desk and jump from desk to desk in class, asked the student to get down, but did not send the student to the office;
(f) suspected that a student attended class under the influence of drugs. The Member believed he was acting in the best interests of the student by contacting the student’s mother. He did not send the student to the office, contrary to school policy, nor did he use the community liaison worker and/or social worker to help him manage the issue;
(g) on more than one occasion, he looked at the cleavage of two female students while teaching and when he came over to their desks to answer questions, which made both students feel uncomfortable;
(h) one of the two female students began wearing sweaters and high-necked tops because she felt uncomfortable with the way the Member looked at her.
- The Member resigned from the Board on or about February 2, 2017.
Prior History at the Ontario College of Teachers
On or about December 7, 2006, the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers ratified a memorandum of agreement with the Member in relation to allegations that he had made inappropriate comments to students and engaged in inappropriate contact with students. The Member agreed to take a boundaries course and was cautioned by the Investigation Committee.
On or about November 21, 2017, the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers found the Member guilty of professional misconduct in relation to making inappropriate comments to students and discussing personal issues with students between September 2012 and December 2013. The Member received a reprimand, his Certificate of Qualification and Registration was suspended for a period of eight months, and he was ordered to complete a boundaries course. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee dated December 5, 2017
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19). The Member further does not contest that the conduct constitutes sexual abuse as defined in Section 1 of the Act.
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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) 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;
(f) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under the protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest 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 Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence outlined in paragraphs (e) and (i) of the Notice of Hearing be withdrawn, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and that the Member met the definition of incompetence as alleged. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 4, 2019 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student of a nature defined in section 1 of the Act.
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct during the 2013 – 2014 academic year.
9The Member failed to adequately supervise his students during the 2013 – 2014 academic year. On at least four occasions, the Member left his [XXX] class unsupervised. Further, he did not immediately intervene when students filled plastic bottles with gas and lit them on fire, and threw the lit objects into the garbage. Nor did he immediately intervene when students engaged in horseplay, which included shoving or pushing amongst students. The Member’s failure to adequately supervise his students put them at risk. Members of the profession must prioritize student safety.
10On more than one occasion, the Member looked at the cleavage of two female students. This conduct constitutes “behaviour of a sexual nature” and therefore demonstrates that the Member engaged in the “sexual abuse of a student” as defined in section 1 of the Act. The Member’s inappropriate conduct also constitutes psychological or emotional abuse of a student. As a result of his conduct, both students felt uncomfortable and one of them began wearing sweaters and high-necked tops because she felt uncomfortable with the way the Member looked at her.
11Engaging in behaviour of a sexual nature towards students, such as looking at the cleavage of female students, is a clear breach of the standards of the profession and an abuse of the Member’s position of trust and authority as a teacher. Among other things, the standards of the profession provide that members are expected to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning. The Member failed to meet this expectation when he looked at the cleavage of two of his female students and made them feel uncomfortable.
12Further, the Member contravened section 264(1) of the Education Act by failing to act as a positive role model when he abused his position of trust with respect to the two female students. He demonstrated a severe lack of professional judgment when he breached teacher-student boundaries with respect to his female students.
13The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member’s conduct throughout the 2013-2014 academic year was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, and unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. Among other things: he did not send a student to the office (contrary to school policy) who, he had suspected, attended class under the influence of drugs; he failed to adequately supervise his students on multiple occasions, which the Panel believes put students at risk; and, he engaged in the sexual and psychological or emotional abuse of students.
F. PENALTY Decision
14The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on November 4, 2019, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate and Qualification and Registration of the Member.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
15The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of the sexual abuse of a student, as described in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. Given this finding, section 30.2(1) of the Act provides that the Panel must make an order: (1) requiring that the Member be reprimanded by the Panel; and (2) directing the Registrar to revoke the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration. The Panel makes both of these orders. The Panel notes that it has no discretion in this regard. The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.
Date: November 5, 2019
Irene Dembek, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel