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
John Victor Laing, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JOHN VICTOR LAING (REGISTRATION #501108)
PANEL: Alicia Nunn, OCT, Chair Godwin Ifedi Nicola Powadiuk, OCT
HEARD: June 12, 2019
Ava Arbuck and Vincent DeMarco of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers
Vanora Simpson of Goldblatt Partners LLP, for John Victor Laing
Julie Maciura 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 June 12, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated August 21, 2018 (Exhibit 1) was served on John Victor Laing (the “Member”), inviting him to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for June 12, 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) 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)1;
(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, contrary to 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); and
(e) he 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:
John Victor Laing 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 Thames Valley District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”), in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Person A was a female teacher at [XXX] School. Person A had ended a romantic relationship with the Member.
At all material times, Person B was a [XXX] female teacher at the School.
At all material times, Person C was a female [XXX] at the School.
At all material times, Person D was a female [XXX] at the School.
At all material times, Person E was a female [XXX] at the School.
Person A
The Member and Person A were teachers at the Board. They met through various school events and began a romantic relationship in or about September 2013.
In or about December 2014, the Member and Person A’s romantic relationship came to an end. They remained as friends and continued to help each other with their respective [XXX] at their schools.
In or about March 2016, Person A decided to cease all contact with the Member. In response, the Member sent multiple text messages to Person A, requesting to meet up in person. However, Person A expressed to the Member that she no longer wished to remain in contact with him, and she blocked the Member’s text messages.
The Member continued with his attempts to call, leave voice mails, and sent e-mails to Person A. Person A continued to ignore the Member’s attempts to contact her.
On or about May 18, 2016, the Member sent another e-mail to Person A, indicating that he was at a [XXX] near Person A’s parents’ home. Person A responded to the Member’s e-mail by indicating to the Member that she would call the police if he showed up at a [XXX]. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the e-mail correspondence between the Member and Person A dated May 18 to 19, 2016.
As a result, Person A blocked the Member’s e-mail address. However, the Member went on social media (twitter and instagram) and “tagged” Person A’s name, which included pictures of Person A and her [XXX]. On another occasion, the Member requested to join Person A’s [XXX] via a mobile application called “GameChanger.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” are copies of the Member’s electronic communications via various social media accounts from May 23, 2016 to June 6, 2016.
Later that evening, the Member, via a different e-mail account, sent another e-mail to Person A. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the e-mail correspondence from the Member to Person A, dated May 23, 2016.
On or about May 25, 2016, the Member, sent another e-mail to Person A. In the e-mail, the Member disclosed to Person A that he has been diagnosed as being bi-polar and suffering from depression. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the e-mail correspondence from the Member to Person A, dated May 25, 2016.
Person A contacted the local police on or about May 26, 2016. Person A was advised by the police that they would issue a warning to the Member regarding ceasing contact. The police asked Person A to remove her block on communications from the Member so that the conduct could be proven.
On or about June 7, 2016, the Member sent another e-mail to Person A, attaching a typed personal letter. Subsequently, Person A received a handwritten letter of same by regular mail to her home address. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” are copies of the e-mail correspondence, typed letter, and handwritten letter from the Member to Person A, dated June 7, 2016.
On or about June 16, 2016, the Member was charged with Harassment by Repeated Communication with Person A contrary to s. 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The charge was ultimately withdrawn by way of Peace Bond.
The Member was suspended with pay and was assigned to home duties from June 10, 2016 to June 20, 2016.
Person B
On one occasion between November and December 2014, Person B was to teach a grade [XXX] and [XXX] [XXX] class at 10:00 a.m. that morning and the Member was at the [XXX] teaching another [XXX] class one period prior to her class.
Person B was instructed to send four students to the [XXX] five minutes prior to her class. She understood that the Member was at the [XXX] at the time, so he could provide supervision of the students for her.
When Person B arrived at the [XXX], the Member said to Person B words to the effect of “Are you stupid? You can’t have kids in the [XXX] without adult supervision. I know you are new, but you need to use your brain.” This brought Person B into tears in the presence of her students.
Person C
The Member and Person C first interacted at the School when the Member offered Person C his number and offered to provide her rides to her home. This made Person C uncomfortable.
On one occasion between November 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, the Member said to Person C in a tone of voice she perceived to be suggestive or sensual, “There’s the [XXX]. [XXX].” This made Person C uncomfortable. In response, she said “thanks” and walked away.
Person D
- On or about April 8, 2015, the Member was assigned to be the [XXX] teacher for a [XXX] class to which Person D was supervising for the day. The Member leaned into Person D’s ear, in the presence of students, and said words to the effect of “Your pants are killing me. They should be illegal.” This made Person D uncomfortable. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the interview notes of Person D, dated June 22, 2016.
Person E
On one occasion between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015, the Member and Person E were assigned to work together in a [XXX] class for a full day.
Person E was working with a little girl in a [XXX] and she looked like she was sick. Person E began to back out to get the child out of the room when she bumped into the Member by accident.
In response, the Member said to Person E words to the effect of “usually I make a woman buy me dinner before we get close.” The Member intended this as a joke to defuse tension in an awkward moment, however, this made Person E uncomfortable. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the interview notes of Person E, dated June 22, 2016.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, 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 him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise 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 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 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 (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted this request.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on June 12, 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) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-28 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He 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(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 11-15, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, 28, and 30 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 11-15, 17, 18, 22-25, 28 and 30 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 22-25, 28 and 30 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 11-15, 17, 18 and 30 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 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”);
direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of four months commencing on August 1, 2019, and the fact of the suspension is to 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) within 120 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations and appropriate workplace communications, 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 Orders 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;
(b) within 30 days of his 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 June 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. Fazl, 2019 ONOCT 2 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Béarez, 2019 ONOCT 17.
The Committee finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct with his colleagues showed poor professional judgment and warrants a reprimand by his peers. 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 reprimand will allow the Committee 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.
The Committee finds that the four-month suspension is appropriate given the circumstances. Among other instances of inappropriate conduct, the Member: harassed person A; made an inappropriate comment to Person B which included the words “are you stupid”; made Person C uncomfortable when he gave her his number and offered her a ride home during their first interaction; made an inappropriate comment to person D to the effect of: “Those pants are killing me, they should be illegal”; and, made Person E uncomfortable when he said words to the effect of: “Usually I make a woman buy me dinner before we get close.” Members of the teaching profession are expected to maintain respectful boundaries with colleagues and to interact with all members of the school community in a respectful and appropriate manner. Teachers are expected to act as role models at all times and ought to exercise good professional judgement both inside and outside the work place. The Member failed to meet these expectations. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member, as well as a general deterrent to other members of the profession, by informing them that failing to meet one’s professional obligations carries significant consequences. Further, the suspension sends a message to the public that this type of professional misconduct is not tolerated by the College.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations and appropriate workplace communications will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with members of the school community.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: June 19, 2019
______________________________
Alicia Nunn, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Godwin Ifedi
Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Nicola Powadiuk, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel