DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Crowther 2019 ONOCT 18
Date: 2019-03-20
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
Rachel Elizabeth Crowther, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
RACHEL ELIZABETH CROWTHER (REGISTRATION #477479)
PANEL: Jonathan Rose, Chair Rebecca Forte, OCT Nicola Powadiuk, OCT
HEARD: March 20, 2019
Shane D’Souza of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Eleanor Enniss, Law Clerk
Andrea Wobick of Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP, for Rachel Elizabeth Crowther
Rebecca Durcan 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.
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on March 20, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated August 31, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on Rachel Elizabeth Crowther (the “Member”), requesting her presence on October 3, 2017 to set a date for hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for March 20, 2019.
The Member was not in attendance for the hearing but had 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) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) she abused a student 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;1
(d) 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);
(e) 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); and
(f) she 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:
Rachel Elizabeth Crowther 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 with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Durham District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Oshawa, Ontario.
At all material times, the Student was a [XXX]-year-old male student at the School.
The Member taught the Student during the 2014-2015 academic year when the Student was in Grade [XXX]. The Member taught the Student two classes during the first semester of the 2015-2016 academic year when he was in Grade [XXX].
Fall 2015
At the outset of the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member assisted the Student with his homework after school. Within a short period of time, they began to talk about personal matters in addition to school-related topics, and the teacher-student relationship developed into a close and personal friendship.
If the Member were to testify, her evidence would be that she viewed the Student like a son and wanted to assist him with the personal problems that he disclosed to her.
Babysitting
Around mid-October 2015, the Member asked the Student to babysit her child, and the Student agreed. Both the Student’s parents and the Member’s husband were aware of this arrangement.
The Student attended the Member’s home on Saturdays for a number of weeks to babysit her child between mid-October and late December 2015. On some occasions, the Member’s husband was home while the Student babysat. On other occasions the Member’s husband was out, and after the Member’s child went to bed, the Member and the Student hung out together until the Member’s husband returned home so that she could then drive him home, as the distance between their homes was too far for walking.
From the outset, the Student would not accept money from the Member for babysitting her child. He was happy that she had asked him to babysit, and enjoyed the time he spent with her child, and with her when she was home.
The Member often drove the Student home in the evenings after babysitting. En route, they sometimes stopped at a coffee or tea shop where they continued to talk. On those occasions, the Student did not arrive home until after midnight.
Sometimes, the Student went to the Member’s house simply to spend time with the Member. On these occasions, he helped her around the house, or they went for walks or drives together.
Inappropriate Personal Relationship
The Student visited the Member in her classroom during his spare to talk to her while her students were working, or during his lunch. Sometimes the Member drove the Student home or to his work after school. Sometimes they went out for coffee, tea or hot chocolate together after school.
The Student called the Member by her first name, Rachel.
The Member and the Student had exchanged phone numbers in mid-October to facilitate babysitting arrangements. They began to text each other every few days, which gradually increased to almost daily between November 2015 and March 2016. They texted each other during school hours to chat or to arrange to meet, as well as after school into the evenings, and early in the mornings before school. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of some of their texts. The Student kept the Member’s text messages to him because he liked them and sometimes reread them.
The Member made the Student lunch approximately once a week, which she would give to him at School before class started. She included notes inside the lunches with words to the effect of, “Hey. Have a great day! I love you!”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” are photocopies of some notes the Member included in lunches she made for the Student.
One evening just before Christmas when the Member and the Student were alone together at a coffee shop, the Member gave the Student a [XXX] that she made for him, which he thought was very special. The Student wore it all the time, and the Member wore a matching [XXX].
March 8, 2016
On or about March 8, 2016, the Member texted the Student at the end of the school day to ask him if he wanted to meet her by the creek to join her for a walk in the forest. The Member and the Student exchanged a number of texts arranging when and where to meet. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” are copies of these texts. After their walk they went their separate ways, continuing to exchange texts referencing their time together in the forest.
Around 7:00 p.m., the Member texted the Student she was off to an exercise class and would “catch [him] on the flip side”. The Student signed off to go to bed at 10:01 p.m., texting the Member, “good night” and “I love you”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” are copies of these texts.
That evening, the Member’s husband discovered the text messages between the Member and the Student on the Member’s phone. As a result, the Member did not respond to the Student’s “good night” texts. If he testified, the Student would state that the Member’s non-response caused him distress when he woke up. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” are copies of his texts sent after he woke up.
The End of Their Friendship
At School the next morning, the Student asked the Member why she did not return his text message like she always did, and the Member told him she forgot her phone somewhere.
That evening, the Student texted the Member again, and again the Member did not respond to his message. The following morning at School, the Member explained to the Student that her husband had gone through her phone and read their text messages, and for the sake of her family she could no longer engage with the Student.
The Student sent the Member numerous texts trying to engage her in conversation, but she did not respond.
Just prior to March break, the Member and her husband went to the Student’s home to return some things he left at their house.
After multiple attempts to contact the Member with no response from her, the Student attended the Member’s home on or about March 22, 2016, and left her a letter in which he expressed his anger at her and threatened harm to himself and to her. If he testified the Student would state that he felt the Member had taken advantage of him emotionally.
The Member read the Student’s letter and contacted the police. The Student stopped trying to contact the Member after she contacted the police.
The Member did not return to the School after March break, going on sick leave effective March 21, 2016, with a doctor’s note indicating that she was totally disabled due to anxiety/stress. She did not return for the remainder of the school year.
If he testified, the Student would state that upon his return to School after the March break, the Student was initially anxious about seeing the Member. He was also worried that the Member told her colleagues about him, so he was uncomfortable around other teachers at the School and concerned they may be talking about him. He would also testify that he could not sleep because he felt emotionally distressed.
Disclosure
- On or about April 1, 2016, the Student disclosed to another teacher that he may have been involved in a personal relationship with the teacher. As a result of his disclosure, the Principal, the Board, the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) and police investigated the Member.
Text Messages
The police advised that the Member and the Student exchanged up to 5000-6000 text messages between November 2015 and March 2016. The police photographed and produced to the College 285 pages of text messages, working backwards from the most recent texts. 235 of the 285 pages of text messages captured by the police contain texts exchanged between the Member and the Student over three days, March 6, 7, and 8, 2016.
Their messages were about their families, their friends, their feelings, where they were, who they were with, and what they were doing. They were generally of a chatty nature, for example, the Member describing in detail the food she was preparing, or books she thought the Student should read, or playing a game in which she and the Student asked each other questions such as, “what childish thing do you still do”. When the Student asked, “what’s your weird, but harmless secret?”, the Member responded, “You”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” are copies of some of these texts.
The Member sometimes referred to the Student as “my [Student’s name]” in her texts to him. She also regularly texted the Student in the evenings to wish him good night with the following message: “Sleep tight, my [Student’s name]. I love you.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the Member’s text explaining to the Student why she referred to him as “my [Student’s name]”, and copies of the Member’s good night text messages to the Student.
Fifty of the 285 screen shots were of texts sent by the Student to the Member between March 8 and April 26, 2016, after she had stopped responding to his messages. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “I” are copies of these texts. The content of these text messages demonstrates that the Student was struggling emotionally with the cessation of contact with the Member.
Returning to School after March break, the Student continued to text the Member, without response. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “J” are copies of these texts. The content of these text messages demonstrates that the Student was continuing to struggle emotionally with the cessation of contact with the Member.
On April 25, 2016, the Student texted the Member to advise her that he was handing his phone over to police. He sent one final text to the Member: “Last one. How can you text me, “Sleep tight my [Student’s name], I love you” every night, then expect me not to get attached.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “K” are copies of these texts.
Effect on the Student
If the Student testified, his evidence would be that during the course of the 2015-2016 academic year up until March 8, 2016, the Student believed the Member was his best friend. He felt comfortable with her, relied on her, and confided in her. He did not find it strange, initially, when the Member told him she loved him; it made him feel comfortable and special around the Member, who he looked to like a mother figure.
The Student would also testify that he was impacted by the Member’s decision to end their personal friendship such that he became withdrawn, [XXX]. The Student would also testify that he [XXX] for the 2016-2017 academic year because he felt uncomfortable [XXX] where he believed he may run into the Member.
CAS, Police, Board Investigations
At the conclusion of its investigation, the CAS substantiated a risk of harm related to the Member’s relationship with the Student. There was no finding of actual sexual abuse or harm from the conduct.
Police investigated the contents of the Student’s phone and interviewed the Student, among others. The Student was clear that there had never been sexual contact or a sexual relationship between them, and police found no evidence of a sexual relationship. No criminal charges were laid.
During the Board investigation, the Member acknowledged to the administration that she had taken a vested interest in the Student and wanted to help him find his full potential, so she had offered him opportunities including babysitting her child. She began to think of him as a son and a friend. She further advised the Board that her relationship with the Student took a scary turn after she explained to him that she could no longer be involved in their friendship. She acknowledged she had crossed lines and took the desire to help too far.
The Member’s employment with the Board was terminated, effective September 26, 2016. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “L” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated September 26, 2016.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document,2 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 her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty 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 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;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and with 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.
DECISION
Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (c) 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 rendered an oral decision on March 20, 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(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
As noted above, College Counsel requested and the Committee granted the withdrawal of the allegation that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97; namely that the Member abused a student sexually. The Committee accepted the parties’ detailed submissions that there was no evidence of sexual abuse in this case. The definition of sexual abuse is set out at section 1 of the Act, which provides that:
Sexual abuse of a student by a member means,
(a) sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between the member and the student,
(b) touching, of a sexual nature, of the student by the member, or
(c) behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the student.
Although this case involved extreme boundary violations, there is no evidence before the Committee to ground a finding of sexual abuse as defined in the Act.
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 40 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 5, 10-12, 14-19, 29-37 and 39 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 19, 24, 27 and 32-36 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 5, 10-12, 14-19, 29-37 and 39 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 5, 10-12, 14-19, 29-37 and 39 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 5, 10-12, 14-19, 29-37 and 39 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 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 March 20, 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, 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 the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Fisher, 2018 ONOCT 11 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Demptser, 2015 ONOCT 17.
The Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with the Student over the course of several months, and her conduct involved extreme boundary violations. Between November 2015 and March 2016, the Member and the Student exchanged approximately 5000-6000 text messages of a personal nature. Among other things, the Student spent time alone with the Member at her home; the Student babysat for the Member’s child; the Member drove the Student in her car; the Member and the Student went for walks (including alone in the forest) or for coffee together; the Member made lunches for the Student and included personal notes in the Student’s lunches; the Member gave the Student a [XXX]; and, the Member texted the Student at night, saying “good night” and “I love you”. The Member then abruptly ended the personal relationship with the Student after the Member’s husband discovered the text messages. The cessation of this relationship was emotionally distressing to the Student, who texted the Member, “How can you text me, ‘Sleep tight my [Student’s name], I love you’ every night, then expect me not to get attached” (Exhibit 2). These aggravating factors are very significant and considerably outweigh the mitigating factors in this case, which include the fact that the Member was cooperative in coming to an agreement with the College and that she has already lost her job.
The Committee finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is an appropriate penalty in this case. The personal relationship that the Member developed with a vulnerable student was highly unprofessional, both in terms of the frequency of their contact and the content of their discussions. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority, and the Member abused this trusted position in a very concerning manner. The Member ought to have known that her behaviour with the Student was very inappropriate and that it could be confusing and emotionally distressing for the Student. The Member’s conduct also undermined the public’s trust in the teaching profession, and therefore reflects poorly on the profession as a whole. As a result of her extremely poor professional judgment in this case, the Member has forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: March 20, 2019
______________________________
Jonathan Rose
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Rebecca Forte, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Nicola Powadiuk, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel