DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Béarez 2019 ONOCT 17
Date: 2019-04-03
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
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 hearing against Jean-Christophe Béarez, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JEAN-CHRISTOPHE BÉAREZ (REGISTRATION # 424071)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Sara Nouini, OCT
HEARD: April 3, 2019
Christine Lonsdale of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Paralegal
Lise Leduc of Goldblatt Partners LLP, for Jean-Christophe Béarez
Renée Kopp of Jones Litigation Counsel PC, 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.
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 3, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated January 17, 2018 (Exhibit 1) was served on Jean-Christophe Béarez (the "Member"), inviting him to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for April 3, 2019.
The Member had legal representation: Lise Leduc of Goldblatt Partners LLP. Neither the Member nor his lawyer was in attendance for the hearing. 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 Jean-Christophe Béarez 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 Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(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, 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);
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Counsel for the College introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
The Member is a member of the College. Attached 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 Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-est (the “Board”) as a teacher.
From 2008 to 2012, and during the 2016-2017 school year, the Member was teaching at [XXX] (the “School”) in Orléans, Ontario. Between 2012 and 2016, the Member taught at two other schools.
2011-2012 School Year
Teacher 1 was a teacher at the School during the 2011-2012 school year.
In connection with the Board’s investigation of the more recent allegations, Teacher 1 reported that during the 2011-2012 school year, the Member had behaved inappropriately towards her, including:
(a) sitting down in front of Teacher 1 during the lunch hour and following her when she changed her seat;
(b) coming into Teacher 1’s room so often that she had someone else accompany her when she moved around the School.
- Teacher 1 did not file a formal complaint in 2011. She was the school’s resource teacher. Her role entailed consulting with other teachers.
2016-2017 School Year
During the 2016-2017 school year, Teachers 2 and 3 were teachers in the School.
The Member made inappropriate remarks and behaved inappropriately towards Teacher 2.
On or about September 16, 2016, in the staff room in front of colleagues, the Member said to Teacher 2, “Nice lipstick. Want to share your lipstick with me? Come here and give me some. But careful you don’t get any on my white shirt.”
On or about September 26, 2016, when Teacher 2 refused to take notes for him during a teaching activity, the Member said that even though she wasn’t blond, she could still take notes for him.
The Member made inappropriate remarks and behaved inappropriately towards Teacher 3.
On or about September 26, 2016, in the staff room, the Member was sitting on the sofa with his hand resting in the centre. The Member invited Teacher 3 to sit down and cupped his hand.
At the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year, the Member blocked Teacher 3’s way by standing in the doorway of the caretaker’s room where Teacher 3 was standing. The Member then asked her to hand him a screwdriver. Teacher 3 felt uncomfortable.
A copy of the human resources summary report is attached as Exhibit B.
A copy of the Board’s guidelines on harassment, dated February 28, 2011, is attached as Exhibit C.
On December 19, 2016, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a ten-day suspension. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit D.
Previous Disciplinary Actions
- The Board hired the Member in 2003. Between 2003 and 2015, the Member received five disciplinary letters. The disciplinary actions addressed the Member’s conduct with his students. Copies of the following letters are attached as Exhibit E:
November 11, 2004;
December 13, 2012;
June 10, 2013;
August 30, 2013;
October 2, 2015.
- The Member retired from the Board.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document,1 the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member acknowledges that the aforementioned Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, specifically breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct 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 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 Pour parler profession/Professionally Speaking, 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 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 and of the Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Act 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 aforementioned Uncontested Facts and plea of no contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Committee rendered an oral decision on April 3, 2019 finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member did not contest the truth of the aforementioned facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 18 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 5, 8-14 and 16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 5, 8-14 and 16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14).
Paragraphs 5, 8-14 and 16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, Chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the regulations made under this Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 5, 8-14 and 16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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 5, 8-14 and 16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member appear before the Discipline Committee to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, and that the fact of the reprimand be recorded on the Register.
direct the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of six months, commencing on the 15th day following the oral decision of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and that the fact of the suspension 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 accepting any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, three courses that have been pre-approved by the Registrar on professional ethics, maintaining appropriate boundaries and effective interpersonal communication, and that satisfy the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall provide a Registrar-approved course provider with a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the Joint Submission on Penalty entered into evidence at the hearing into this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) after a review of the documents referred to in (i), above, the course provider shall submit to the Registrar, for his approval, a curriculum for the proposed courses which specifically addresses the concerns of the Discipline Committee with respect to the Member’s professional misconduct. The curriculum proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of said courses and describe the course objectives;
(b) Within 30 days of his completion of the aforementioned courses, the Member shall provide the Registrar with evidence in writing from the course provider stating that:
(i) the Member has successfully completed the courses, and describing the Member’s progress with respect to the course objectives.
PENALTY DECISION
In an oral decision rendered on April 3, 2019, the Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties 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 the law confines the Committee’s role to determining only 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. Odjig, 2018 ONOCT 27; Ontario College of Teachers v. French, 2016 ONOCT 16; Ontario College of Teachers v. Fair, 2016 ONOCT 21; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Ciraco, 2015 ONOCT 12.
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. The fact that the Member behaved inappropriately and made inappropriate remarks to three teachers, members of the profession, is cause for concern to the Committee. The Member’s conduct towards his colleagues shows poor professional judgment and constitutes sexual harassment. The repeated nature of these concerns demonstrates the Member’s failure to create a respectful learning environment. Members of the profession are expected to treat their colleagues with professionalism. The teaching profession will not tolerate the Member’s conduct. The Committee is also concerned by the fact that the Member was disciplined by his Board several times previously. The reprimand will allow the Committee to express its concerns directly to the Member, which will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register is important because it will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee finds that the six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. The Member’s inappropriate and repeated conduct occurred over several school years, involved several colleagues and damaged the reputation of the teaching profession. The length of the suspension is within a reasonable range considering analogous cases presented by College Counsel. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and should encourage him to reflect on the nature of his misconduct. Recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will act as a general deterrent to the members of the teaching profession by informing them of the possible consequences of engaging in similar misconduct.
The Committee finds that the courses on professional ethics, maintaining appropriate boundaries and effective interpersonal communication will contribute to the Member’s rehabilitation process, should he return to teaching. They will remind him of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in his future interactions with his colleagues.
The Committee finds that the penalty is fitting in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
April 3, 2019
Stephane Vallée, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel