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
Michael William Edward Riley, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MICHAEL WILLIAM EDWARD RILEY (REGISTRATION #452747)
PANEL: Diane Ballantyne, OCT, Chair Rebecca Forte, OCT Marlène Marwah
HEARD: June 24, 2019
Christine Wadsworth and Vincent DeMarco of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers
Jerry Raso of Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, for Michael William Edward Riley
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 June 24, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated February 7, 2018 (Exhibit 1) was served on Michael William Edward Riley (the “Member”), inviting him to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for June 24, 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 Michael William Edward Riley 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 abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he abused a student or students 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) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(e) 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);
(f) 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
(g) 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:
Michael William Edward Riley (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as to Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Kingston, Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1 was a female student at the School. In the academic year 2013-2014, Student 1 was in Grade [XXX].
At all material times, Student 2 was a female student at the School. In the academic year 2015-2016, Student 2 was in Grade [XXX].
Student 1
In the second semester of Grade [XXX] (2013-2014), Student 1 confided in the Member regarding her personal and family issues. The Member and Student 1 engaged in electronic communications via text and email, which continued into the academic year 2014-2015. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of email communications between the Member and Student 1.
The Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1 which included:
(a) engaging in electronic communications of a personal nature;
(b) telling Student 1 about his personal health issues;
(c) telling Student 1 that she should break up with her boyfriend.
Student 2
In the academic year 2013-2014, when she was in Grade [XXX], Student 2 began to confide in the Member regarding personal and mental health issues. The following year (2014-2015), Student 2 was a [XXX] in one of the Member’s classes. She continued to speak with the Member about her personal and mental health issues. Student 2 regularly spent her lunch hours in the Member’s classroom.
In the academic year 2015-2016, Student 2 lived alone with her [XXX], and was experiencing financial difficulties. That year, she continued to be a [XXX] in one of the Member’s classes. Student 2 continued to confide in the Member regarding her personal and mental health issues. The Member advised Student 2 to see the [XXX].
The Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 2 which included:
(a) allowing Student 2 to spend time in the Member’s classroom when Student 2 was scheduled to be in another class;
(b) spending time alone with Student 2 in the Member’s classroom, at times with the door closed;
(c) giving Student 2 hugs;
(d) giving Student 2 a birthday gift;
(e) telling Student 2 about his personal health issues;
(f) engaging in electronic communications with Student 2 of a personal nature.
During the Christmas holiday break in December 2015, the Member texted Student 2 to say that after the holiday break he needed to speak with her. When Student 2 asked the Member what he wanted to discuss, the Member stated, “Nothing we’re going to talk about via text. I’ll change my mind by the time I see you next. Make me have this chat with you.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of text messages between the Member and Student 2 from the academic year 2015-2016.
Student 2 did not know what it was that the Member wanted to speak with her about and worried about this over the entire Christmas break.
On January 6, 2016, the Member and Student 2 met in his classroom. The Member told Student 2 that she could no longer be a [XXX] in his class. The Member told Student 2 that the way he thought about and felt about her had changed. He told Student 2 that he was having thoughts and feelings about her that he should not be having.
Student 2 reported the January 6, 2016 conversation with the Member to School administrators, and an investigation was undertaken.
At the conclusion of the School’s investigation of the incidents involving the Member, the Member’s employment was terminated by the Board on February 9, 2016. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of [XXX] February 9, 2016 letter to the Member terminating his employment.
Following his termination from the Board, the Member filed a grievance. The grievance was settled on a without prejudice basis to either party, and the Member resigned from the Board. The Member has no intention of returning to a teaching position.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document2 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(7.2), 1(14), 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 the parties 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.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the guilty plea, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member jointly 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 and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. The Committee granted this request.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, the Committee rendered an oral decision on June 24, 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(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
With respect to the withdrawal of the sexual abuse allegation, the Committee accepted the submissions of College Counsel that there was insufficient available evidence to prove this allegation, and that the Member’s conduct in this case did not involve any touching of a sexual nature. The withdrawal of the sexual abuse allegation is reasonable in these circumstances.
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 15 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(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 5, 6 and 9-12 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 5, 6 and 9-12 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 5, 6 and 9-12 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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, 6 and 9-12 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 the Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 5, 6 and 9-12 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, 6 and 9-12 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”);
direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of six months commencing on the date of the 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) prior to commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations, subject to the following conditions;
(i) the Member will provide to a course provider 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 and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) following review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course provider 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 provider 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 his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course provider:
(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 24, 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 College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Avison, 2018 ONOCT 71, Ontario College of Teachers v. Lepage, 2017 ONOCT 29, Ontario College of Techers v. Patry, 2017 ONOCT 73 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Montgomery, 2018 ONOCT 4.
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate personal relationships with two students warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Member engaged in inappropriate communications both in person and by electronic means with both students. The communications included personal details about the Member’s health and the students’ personal lives. In addition, the Member spent time alone with one of the students, gave her a birthday gift, and gave her hugs. The Member also sent that student a cryptic text message over the Christmas holidays, which caused the student to worry during the break. Members of the teaching profession are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students at all times. The Member fell short of meeting these expectations by involving himself in the personal lives of two students over a prolonged period of time. 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.
Given the severity of the Member’s conduct, the Committee finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The aggravating factors in this case significantly outweighed the mitigating factors. The Member engaged in inappropriate personal relationships with two students over a significant period of time. Moreover, he told one of the students that he was having thoughts and feelings about her that he should not be having. The Committee is particularly concerned by the Member’s lack of professional judgment in this regard. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority. The Member took advantage of this privileged position by failing to maintain professional boundaries with students that he knew were vulnerable (because they had confided in him regarding their personal issues). The length of the suspension falls within a range of acceptable outcomes based on the similar cases presented by College Counsel. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations 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 students.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: July 4, 2019
Diane Ballantyne, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Rebecca Forte, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel