Ontario College of Teachers v. Syed, 2020 ONOCT 138

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Ontario College of Teachers v Syed 2020 ONOCT 138

Date: 2020-02-18

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 Saadia Syed, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

SAADIA SYED (REGISTRATION #481308)

PANEL: Godwin Ifedi, Chair Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT John Hamilton, OCT

HEARD: February 13, 2020

Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers Saadia Syed, self-represented Renée Kopp, 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 February 13, 2020 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).

2Saadia Syed (the “Member”) attended the hearing but 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. PUBLICATION ban

3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, 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.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated October 10, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Saadia Syed is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in 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);

(e) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. Agreed Statement of Facts

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Saadia Syed 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed as a teacher with the York District School Board (the “Board”) at Lincoln Alexander Public School in Markham, Ontario.

3. The Board provides healthcare benefits to its employees through a third party group benefits provider.

4. Between May 3, 2015 and October 8, 2016, the Member submitted 48 false health and drug benefit claims (for 63 services/products) to the Board’s benefits provider. The false claims totalled $42,232.92. Many of the claims were for [XXX] equipment from several pharmacies, but primarily one pharmacy in the Greater Toronto Area.

5. The Member received payment of $41,063.33 from the benefits provider, while the remaining $1,119.59 in false claims was unpaid.

6. Through its investigation, the benefits provider determined that the Member had altered the receipts submitted to the benefits provider in order to inflate the cost of the services or products being purchased. The result was that the Member was over-compensated by the benefits provider through the Board for services or products purchased.

7. The Board asked the benefits provider to refer this matter to the police, which it did. On or about April 25, 2017, the Member was charged with:

(a) one count of Fraud Over $5,000 contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada) (the “Code”); and

(b) six counts of Use Forged Document contrary to section 368(1.1) of the Code.

8. On May 8, 2017, the Member resigned from her employment with the Board.

9. On August 8, 2018, the Member pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of one count of Use Forged Document contrary to section 368(1.1) of the Code. The other charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

10. On November 28, 2018, the Member received a conditional discharge, was placed on probation for a period of three years, and was ordered to complete 100 hours of community service. The Member did not appeal the guilty finding and/or her sentence.

11. The Member acknowledged her wrongdoing when she was first questioned by the benefits provider and Board. She expressed her willingness to pay restitution before charges were laid, and repaid the full sum of $41,063.33 owing to the benefits provider before her sentencing hearing. She is deeply remorseful for her actions.

12. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” are certified copies of the Court Information, along with the appearances and disposition in the criminal proceeding.

13. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a certified copy of the Adult Probation Order dated November 28, 2018.

GUILTY PLEA

14. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-13 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

15. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which 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).

16. 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; and

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

17. 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.

D. DECISION

6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 13, 2020 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).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member made numerous fraudulent health and drug benefit claims by altering the receipts submitted to the Board’s insurance benefits provider, and pleaded guilty to one count of using a forged document contrary to section 368(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

8The Panel finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. Particularly, the ethical standard of “Integrity” cites “honesty, reliability and moral action” as core values of the teaching profession. The Member failed to uphold this standard by making false insurance claims in her professional capacity as a teacher. The Member submitted 48 false expense receipts, totalling $42,232.92, and received payment of $41,063.33 from the Board’s benefits provider. The Member’s actions lacked integrity, which teachers must exemplify when exercising their professional commitments and responsibilities.

9The Panel finds that the Member signed a document, in her professional capacity, which she knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement. Following its investigation, the Board’s benefits provider determined that the Member had altered and submitted forged receipts to support her false health and drug benefit claims. The Member admitted her actions to the Board and to its benefits provider, and pleaded guilty to one count of using a forged document, contrary to section 368(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

10The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among other things, teachers have a duty to model ethical behaviour and to “inculcate by precept and example […] the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty […] and all other virtues.” By repeatedly altering receipts and submitting inflated claims to her employer’s benefits provider, the Member acted dishonestly and contrary to her duties as a teacher.

11By defrauding the Board’s benefits provider, the Member committed acts that are clearly disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. She knowingly made false benefit claims that totalled over $40,000. As leaders and role models in their school communities, it is unacceptable for members of the profession to engage in this type of criminal conduct.

12Finally, the Panel finds that the Member’s above-mentioned conduct was unbecoming a member in that it undermined the reputation of the teaching profession. The public places a great degree of trust in teachers and the Member’s conduct demonstrated a serious breach of trust.

F. PENALTY DECISION

13The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 13, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to 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”);

2. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of twelve months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee in this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions and limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) prior to returning to teaching or to any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, 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 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 report 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.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

14The 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. Mackenzie, 2019 ONOCT 22 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Paik, 2019 ONOCT 83.

15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the repeated nature and magnitude of the Member’s fraudulent behaviour. The Member submitted a total of 48 false claims totalling $42,232.92 and received payment of $41,063.33 from the Board’s insurance provider. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member has expressed remorse; taken responsibility for her actions; and repaid all sums fraudulently claimed through the benefits provider. The Member also entered into an agreement with the College, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable and appropriate.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. Even though the Member’s misconduct did not target students, the Member’s unethical behaviour tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession as a whole. The reprimand will allow the Panel 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.

17Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a 12-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The Member’s attempt to defraud the Board’s health insurer for her personal gain demonstrates a serious lack of judgment on the Member’s part. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. Teachers are expected to serve as role models in the community at large. The College does not tolerate the dishonest behaviour of its members. 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.

18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The Member ought to have known that insurance fraud is a serious lapse in ethical behaviour and that using forged documents constitutes a criminal offence. The Panel recognizes that the Member has admitted her mistakes and is remorseful, but finds that the nature of her misconduct warrants that remedial measures be imposed should the Member decide to return to the classroom. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a member of the teaching profession and will help her to make better decisions in the future.

19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.