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
Jasmina Pita, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JASMINA PITA (REGISTRATION #613804)
PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT Sara Nouini, OCT
HEARD: May 7, 2019
Jason D. Bennett, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Jack Brown, Student-at-Law, and Vaino Poysa, of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, for Jasmina Pita
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 May 7, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated February 20, 2019 (Exhibit 1) was served on Jasmina Pita (the “Member”), inviting her to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for May 7, 2019.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and 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 Jasmina Pita 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 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 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).
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:
Jasmina Pita is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
The Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration was issued on July 20, 2011, she is a member of the College in good standing, and she has no discipline history with the College.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Halton District School Board (the “Board”) as a Special Education teacher at Garth Webb Secondary School in Oakville, Ontario.
The Board provides healthcare benefits to its employees through a third-party group benefits provider.
On September 13, 2017, the Board’s group benefits provider notified the Board that in July 2017 it had commenced an investigation into certain benefit claims submitted by the Member after one such claim had triggered the provider’s audit controls.
The benefits provider advised that, between October 10, 2014 and October 25, 2016, the Member had submitted 29 claims for reimbursement in connection with 34 health-related service dates and products that were not, in fact, received by the Member, her spouse, or her dependents. The provider noted that the total amount it paid to the Member for the claims in question was $3,230.00.
The benefits provider advised that the Member had submitted the claims in question using its online claim submission service, and that payment of claim amounts had been made to the Member via electronic funds transfers/direct deposit.
The Member reimbursed the Board’s benefits provider via lump sum payment of $3,230.00 on September 12, 2017.
Based on the information received from the benefits provider, the Board assigned an investigator who conducted interviews and obtained additional documentation related to the claims in question, including interviews with the Member on September 26, 2017 and October 31, 2017.
During her interviews, the Member acknowledged that she had made errors when submitting the claims in question; advised that she did not retain or refer to receipts when making these claims; and, in some cases, could not explain why she had submitted claims for services and products that had not been provided.
The Board’s investigator concluded that between October 10, 2014 and October 25, 2016, the Member had received $3,230.00 from the Board’s benefits provider for healthcare services and products that neither the Member, her spouse, nor her dependents actually received, by:
(a) submitting benefits claims for services that were not rendered;
(b) submitting benefits claims for goods that were not purchased;
(c) submitting benefits claims for registered massage therapy for treatments that were not registered massage therapy and were therefore not covered under her plan;
(d) submitting claims for services rendered by one provider under the names of two other providers who did not render those services; and
(e) submitting claim amounts in excess of what was charged by the service provider.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the Board investigator’s letter to the Member dated December 8, 2017.
The Board suspended the Member for 10 days without pay as a result of the findings described above. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a copy of the Board’s December 15, 2017 letter to the Ontario College of Teachers.
On September 5, 2018, the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers initiated a complaint against the Member. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a copy of the Registrar’s complaint dated September 5, 2018.
In her November 12, 2018 response to the complaint, the Member expressed her remorse and committed not to make the same mistakes in future.
The Member acknowledges that her conduct fell below the standards of the profession. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” is the College’s Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document1, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 15 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts at paragraphs 6, 10 and 11 constitute conduct that 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(12), 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 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 counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on May 7, 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 admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-15 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(12), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 6, 10 and 11 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 6, 10 and 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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 6, 10 and 11 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 6, 10 and 11 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 6, 10 and 11 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 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”); and
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions and limitations is to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) within 90 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction in professional ethics. The course shall be pre-approved by the Registrar and be subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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; and
(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
(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course practitioner 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 May 7, 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. Millson, 2018 ONOCT 18; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Cosentino-Gallora, 2019 ONOCT 4.
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.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding professional 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 make better decisions in the future.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: May 9, 2019
______________________________
Tom Potter
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel