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
Martine Marie Mackenzie, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MARTINE MARIE MACKENZIE (REGISTRATION #211970)
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Alicia Nunn, OCT Jonathan Rose
HEARD: April 12, 2019
Shane D’Souza of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Steven Chadwick of McCarthy Tétrault LLP
No one appearing for Martine Marie Mackenzie
Erica Richler 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 April 12, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated January 12, 2018 (Exhibit 1) was served on Martine Marie Mackenzie (the “Member”), inviting her to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for April 12, 2019.
Neither the Member nor her lawyer, James Stranges of Owens Wright LLP, were 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 Martine Marie Mackenzie is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teacher’s 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 signed or issued, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);
(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 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); and
(e) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
College Counsel presented the Committee with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
Martine Marie Mackenzie 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 District School Board of Niagara (the “Board”) as a teacher at Forestview Public School in Niagara Falls, Ontario.
Between January 2011 and April 2016, the Member:
(a) submitted claims for reimbursement of health care expenses to Sun Life Financial for health services not received by the Member and/or the Member’s dependents;
(b) received payment in the amount of or about $13,280.00 from Sun Life Financial for health care expenses that were not incurred by the Member and/or the Member’s dependents.
The Member made false or inaccurate statements to Sun Life Financial about the basis on which the services were provided.
On or about September 16, 2016, the Member was placed at home with pay pending the completion of an investigation by the Board into the allegations against the Member. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s correspondence to the Member dated September 16, 2016.
On or about October 13, 2016, the Member resigned from the Board with immediate effect. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Member’s letter of resignation dated October 13, 2016.
In October of 2016, the Member made full restitution to Sun Life Financial by payment of the amount of $13,280.00.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member does not contest the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(12), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).
By this document1 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 Discipline 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; and
(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.
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 12, 2019 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(12), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The 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 to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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(12), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 3-6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 3-6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member signed or issued, in the Member’s professional capacity, a document that the Member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12).
Paragraphs 3-6 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, 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 3-6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member 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).
Paragraphs 3-6 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 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”);
direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of nine months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register; and
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) if the Member returns to teaching, 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 the course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order 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. 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; and
(iii) the course (or courses) shall be completed no more than 12 months before commencing or returning to a Teaching Position.
(b) within 30 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.
PENALTY DECISION
In an oral decision rendered on April 12, 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 similar cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Desjardins, 2015 ONOCT 18; Ontario College of Teachers v. Udema, 2015 ONOCT 82; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Alphonso, 2016 ONOCT 1.
The Committee finds that the Member’s submission of false health care claims warrants a reprimand by her peers. Teachers are leaders in the community who are expected to act with honesty and integrity. Though the Member’s conduct did not directly involve students, it has nevertheless undermined the public’s confidence in teachers and tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns about the Member’s dishonesty, poor professional judgment and unethical conduct, 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 teaching profession.
Given the serious nature of the Member’s dishonest conduct, the Committee finds that a nine-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The Member submitted multiple false health care claims over a period of five years and received payment for the false claims in the amount of $13,280.00. Further, the duration of the Member’s suspension is consistent with similar prior decisions of the Discipline Committee, as presented by College Counsel. Although the Member has retired, the fact of the suspension will be recorded on the Register which serves as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee 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 is intended to help her to make better decisions in the future, should she decide to return to teaching.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: April 24, 2019
______________________________
Irene Dembek, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Alicia Nunn, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Jonathan Rose
Member, Discipline Panel