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
Robert Gérard Couture, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
ROBERT GÉRARD COUTURE (REGISTRATION #620877)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Alicia Nunn, OCT Jonathan Rose
HEARD: August 13, 2019
Christine Wadsworth, for the Ontario College of Teachers No one appearing for Robert Gérard Couture Erica Richler, 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.
1This matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on August 13, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Robert Gérard Couture (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.
A. THE ALLEGATIONS
3The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated October 12, 2016 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of 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 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);
(c) he contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);
(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).
B. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
4College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Robert Gérard Couture 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.
From about August 2002 to May 2010, the Member was the parish priest at Ste. Anne’s Parish church (“Ste. Anne’s”) in Tecumseh, Ontario.
Following the Member’s departure from Ste. Anne’s, the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of London undertook a forensic investigation of Ste. Anne’s finances.
On December 10, 2015, the Member was found guilty of theft over $5,000, contrary to Section 334(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the transcript from the guilty verdict delivered on December 10, 2015 in the Superior Court of Justice. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Certificate of Conviction for the Member.
On October 3, 2016, the Member was sentenced to ten months jail time and a restitution order for $75,000. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the transcript from the October 3, 2016 Reasons for Sentence of the Honourable Mr. Justice S. Campbell.
On March 5, 2019, the Member appealed his conviction and sought leave to appeal his sentence at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, granted leave to appeal sentence, and dismissed the sentence appeal. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the March 8, 2019 Reasons for Decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
The Member acknowledges that the conduct of which he was found guilty fell below the standards of the profession. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is the College’s Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in the above paragraphs (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(16), 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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading no contest 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 Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) 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;
(f) he understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and himself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the opportunity to obtain 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 and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
C. DECISION
5Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on August 13, 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(16), 1(18) and 1(19).
D. REASONS FOR DECISION
6The 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 him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that Mr. Couture, prior to becoming a member of the College, was the parish priest at Ste. Anne’s Parish church. After he became a member of the College, he was charged with and subsequently found guilty of theft over $5,000 in relation to his time at Ste. Anne’s, contrary to section 334(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He was sentenced to 10 months in jail and ordered to make restitution to Ste. Anne’s in the amount of $75,000. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeals of both conviction and sentence.
7While the Member’s conduct pre-dated his certification as a member of the College in 2011, his conviction for theft in 2015 occurred after he became a member of the College. The Panel finds it has jurisdiction to consider his pre-registration conduct on the basis that his criminal conviction while a member calls into question his suitability to continue teaching (see Ontario College of Teachers v. Brown, 2007 ONOCT 8, where such an issue was similarly decided).
8The College’s Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession requires teachers to uphold the highest standards of trust and integrity. These ethical standards encompass honesty, reliability and moral action. The Member’s criminal conviction for theft is a clear breach of these standards.
9The trial judge’s reasons for sentencing at the criminal trial demonstrate that the Member was convicted of a serious crime. He was convicted of theft over $5,000 and ordered to make restitution in the amount of $75,000. By stealing these funds from the church, he abused his position of trust and authority as a parish priest to fund his lifestyle. The amount of money was significant as was the extended time period of his criminal activity. Teachers hold a position of trust and authority towards students and are expected to model the highest standards of behaviour and integrity. The Member contravened section 334(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He breached the duties of a teacher listed in section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act by failing to serve as an appropriate role model. His conduct failed to meet the standards of the teaching profession and was disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unbecoming of a member.
E. PENALTY Decision
10The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on August 13, 2019, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
- The Registrar is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which Certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar.
F. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
11The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’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 Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Baytor, 2013 ONOCT 8, Ontario College of Teachers v. Larocque, 2013 ONOCT 58, Ontario College of Teachers v. Williams, 2008 ONOCT 67 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Stack, 2008 ONOCT 60.
12The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the Member’s abuse of a significant position of trust within his community, the substantial sum taken and the prolonged duration of the Member’s conduct. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member has not been the subject of prior discipline proceedings before the College and, by agreeing not to contest the alleged facts and pleading no contest, saved the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
13The Panel finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is appropriate in this case. The Member’s conduct was deliberate, prolonged and a shocking breach of trust. The Member’s criminal conviction for theft of a significant sum over an extended period is incompatible with holding a position of trust and authority as a teacher and acting as an appropriate role model to students. The penalty of revocation meets the goals of both specific and general deterrence. The Member is no longer entitled to be a member of the teaching profession in Ontario. Revocation sends the message to members of the teaching profession that behaviour of this nature will not be tolerated.
14The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: August 13, 2019
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Alicia Nunn, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Jonathan Rose Member, Discipline Panel```