Ontario College of Teachers v Cadeau 2019 ONOCT 108

Date: 2019-11-19

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

Marcella Mary Robbins Cadeau, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

MARCELLA MARY ROBBINS CADEAU (REGISTRATION #197751)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair

Marlène Marwah

Sara Nouini, OCT

HEARD: November 19, 2019

Shane D’Souza and Noam Uri, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Jerry Raso, for Marcella Mary Robbins Cadeau

Julie Maciura, 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 19, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).

2Marcella Mary Robbins Cadeau (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 February 1, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Marcella Mary Robbins Cadeau is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);¹

(c) she 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) she 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);² and

(e) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

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:

At all material times, Marcella Mary Robbins Cadeau was 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 Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher and librarian at Holy Family Catholic School (the “School”) in Alliston, Ontario.
During the 2014-2015 school year, there were a number of reported thefts at the School, resulting in a number of policies and procedures regarding the safe storage of School funds. All staff were aware of the thefts, and of the new policies and procedures for the 2015-2016 school year.
On or about November 19th, 2015, the Member was in charge of and ran a book fair at her School.
On or about November 19th, 2015, contrary to School policies and procedures regarding the storage of all school money in the office safe, the Member removed approximately $115 from the School office.
When asked directly by her Principal whether all book fair proceeds had been deposited with the office to be locked up in the safe overnight, the Member replied in the affirmative, despite the fact that she had actually taken the $115 into her office overnight.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the 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 her being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional], 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(f) she understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) she understands and acknowledges that she 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 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, 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 allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Panel find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation of subsection 1(14) misconduct was being sought as it was duplicative of the allegation of subsection 1(5) misconduct, in the particular circumstances of this case, and was also part of the negotiations that resulted in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. College Counsel further submitted that the Statement of Uncontested Facts demonstrated misconduct that was unprofessional but not disgraceful or dishonourable. 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 19, 2019 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional only) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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 removed approximately $115 from the School office, contrary to School policies and procedures, and misled the Principal about what she had done. Teachers are required to meet the ethical standards of trust and integrity. The Member’s failure to follow the School’s policies and procedures for the safe storage of book fair money and her subsequent attempt to deceive the Principal fell below those standards. The Member did not demonstrate the honesty, reliability and moral action required by the ethical standards and by subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act and she violated the Principal’s trust. Her conduct was unprofessional and unbecoming of a member.

F. PENALTY Decision

9The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on November 19, 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, or on a date to be arranged by the Member within 90 days of the date of the Committee’s Order, 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 is directed 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) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding ethics, subject to the following conditions;

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest³ and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner 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;

(iii) the syllabus proposed by the course practitioner 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 thirty days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(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.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

10The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’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 Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Timmons, 2014 ONOCT 104, Ontario College of Teachers v. Hacker, 2016 ONOCT 24, Ontario College of Teachers v. Tremis, 2016 ONOCT 51 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Cosentino-Galloro, 2019 ONOCT 4.

11The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the element of deception in her attempt to mislead the Principal. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

12The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. The Member breached the trust placed in her as a teacher by failing to follow the School’s policy for the safe storage of School money and then misleading the Principal about it. The reprimand will allow the Panel 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.

13The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in the future.

14The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: November 19, 2019

Rebecca Forte, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel