DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Marok 2020 ONOCT 154
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
Gurjit Kaur Marok, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
GURJIT KAUR MAROK (REGISTRATION #444472)
PANEL: Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT, Chair
Marlène Marwah
Jonathan Rose
HEARD: February 14, 2020
Ava Arbuck and Kathryn McChesney, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Patricia D’Heureux, for Gurjit Kaur Marok
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 14, 2020, at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Gurjit Kaur Marok (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had 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 9, 2018 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Gurjit Kaur Marok 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 failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);1
(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); and
(f) she practised the profession while the member was in a conflict of interest, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(26).
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:
Gurjit Kaur Marok 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 Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX](the “School”) in Caledon, Ontario.
At all material times during the 2015-2016 school year, the Member taught Grade [XXX] at the School.
The Member has no prior history of discipline with her Board or with the College.
PRIMERICA:
At all material times during the 2015-2016 school year, the Member was also an employee of PRIMERICA, a multi-level marketing company that sells insurance and financial services. She worked alongside her husband, who worked for PFSL Investments Canada Ltd, a mutual fund dealer that includes PRIMERICA as one of its strategic partners.
On February 18 and 19, 2016, the Member attended a PRIMERICA conference in the Bahamas with her husband. The Member entered these two days of absence in her Board’s reporting system as “sick time”.
Packages:
On or about March 30, 2016, the Member’s husband contacted the Board regarding a proposal by him to distribute securities marketing material to the parents of students with special learning needs who attended Board schools. The Member’s husband wanted to provide the Board with a package of materials regarding Registered Disability Savings Programs (“RDSPs”), along with certain mutual fund investments offered by PRIMERICA.
The Member’s husband was advised that the Board would not distribute his packages. Specifically, he was advised by two Board Superintendents, including by email on April 11, 2016, of the Board’s concern that his package contained commercially branded materials, thus it could appear as though the Board was endorsing one company over others. The Member saw the Superintendent’s email advising her husband that the specific financial information he wanted to forward to Board families would not be approved by the Board. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the email dated April 11, 2016.
The Member:
In February 2016, the Member showed her Principal a Registered Disability Savings Program (“RDSP”) brochure. She advised her Principal that RDSPs may be available for parents of students with disabilities, and suggested that her husband had talked to superintendents and the brochure had been Board approved. In fact, the brochure had not been approved by the Board. The Principal agreed that if the RDSP brochure was Board approved, it should be shared with parents. During this conversation the Member did not share any additional commercially branded materials with her Principal, or discuss distribution of the RDSP brochure with her Principal, and the brochure she showed him did not include her husband’s name or contact information.
Approximately 4-6 weeks later, on or about March 20, 2016, as the Member passed her Principal in the hallway at School, she asked him how she could obtain the names of students on individual education plans (“IEP”) at the School. She did not provide any context for her request, and the Principal did not connect her request with their previous conversation about RDSPs. The Principal advised the Member to speak with Special Education staff, who had access to that information.
On or about March 30, 2016, the Member emailed a colleague in special education asking for a list of students on IEPs. During a subsequent conversation with another special education colleague, the Member advised she had the Principal’s permission to obtain the list. Based on that information, the colleague provided the Member with a list of formally identified students. The Member did not share the list with anyone or take the list home.
The Member’s husband assembled materials that he placed into approximately 31 plain brown envelopes. The materials included information about RDSPs produced by PRIMERICA, securities marketing materials, information about other products and services he offered, his business card, a gift certificate for financial advice advertising his services, and a letter inviting parents to contact him. He sealed the envelopes and provided them to the Member to take to School. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the contents of the envelope received by parents.
On or about May 16, 2016, while at School on a break, the Member put the names of students with IEPs on the envelopes. She put the envelopes into the mailboxes of each student’s teacher for distribution. Each teacher receiving envelopes also received a note from the Member asking them to give the package to the identified student to take home, advising that it was Board approved and approved by the Principal. In fact, the package had not been Board approved. The teachers gave the packages to the students identified, who took them home.
The Principal was not aware of the contents of the packages, and did not know that packages had been sent home with students until the following day, when the parents of one student showed him the contents of the package.
Beginning on or about May 17, 2016, the School and the Board received complaints from parents who had received the package and were concerned that their child’s personal information had been accessed to distribute the packages.
The Member was sent home pending investigation on or about June 6, 2016.
By letter dated September 2, 2016, the Board wrote to parents to explain that on May 20, 2016, the Member had written down the names of all students with an I.E.P. who attended the School, and inappropriately used that information to send out information related to investments to which her husband was connected. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Board’s letter to parents.
By letter dated September 9, 2016, the Board disciplined the Member for violating its Conflict of Interest Policy and for breaching privacy in relation to the handling of confidential student information. It reported the matter to the College, and provided her with a Letter of Discipline with expectations including that she understand and respect confidentiality and privacy related to the handling of personal student and family information; follow Board policies and procedures including the Conflict of Interest policy; uphold the College’s Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession; and ensure she is “open and honest in [her] communication and professional relationships with [her] colleagues, [her] principal and superintendent”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter to the Member.
The Member continues to work for the Board.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, 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 conduct described in paragraphs 6-15 of the Admitted Facts constitutes 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(15), 1(18), 1(19), 1(26).
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 otherwise 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 and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she 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.
D. DECISION
6Counsel 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. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as it duplicated the subsection 1(5) allegation. The Panel granted the request.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 14, 2020, 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), 1(19) and 1(26).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 19 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.
9The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In particular, the Member breached the ethical standards of “trust” and “integrity”. The ethical standard of “trust” embodies “fairness, openness and honesty.” The ethical standard of “integrity” provides that members are expected to conduct themselves with “honesty, reliability and moral action”. The Member did the opposite. She misused her sick days to attend a conference in the Bahamas, and she inappropriately accessed information relating to students with IEPs and misled her principal and colleagues in order to distribute packages of marketing and other materials related to her or her husband’s business without Board approval.
10The Panel finds that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act provides that teachers must demonstrate the highest regard for a number of virtues including truth, justice and loyalty. By providing false information to colleagues and to her principal and by using her position as a teacher to obtain confidential information of students for her personal gain, the Member breached this provision. The Member’s dishonest conduct in this case was at odds with her obligations as a member of the profession.
11The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional. By misleading her colleagues in order to access confidential information and by using her position as a teacher to solicit business for personal gain, the Member demonstrated a profound lack of professional judgment and abused the trust that parents, her colleagues and students placed in her.
12Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member’s deceitful and self-serving conduct is unbecoming a member in that it undermined the reputation of the teaching profession.
13The Panel finds that the Member practised the profession while she was in a conflict of interest, contrary to subsection 1(26) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. While also an employee of PRIMERICA, the Member claimed sick time from her school board to attend a PRIMERICA conference in the Bahamas. Furthermore, the Member used her position as a teacher to obtain confidential information about students with IEPs to promote PRIMERICA’s products to the parents of those students. By engaging in such conduct, the Member put her personal interest ahead of her responsibility to respect the confidentiality and privacy of her students’ personal information.
PENALTY DECISION
14The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 14, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
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”);
The Registrar of the Ontario college of Teachers (“the Registrar”) is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of one month commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed 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 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional 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;
(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 her 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.
F. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
15The 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. Roloson, 2018 ONOCT 60 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Patry, 2017 ONOCT 73.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is the fact that the Member knowingly deceived her principal and colleagues for her personal gain, and placed her financial interests above the privacy interests of students. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
17The Panel finds that the Member’s dishonest conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. Members of the profession are expected to conduct themselves honestly and with integrity, which the Member failed to do through her deceitful and self-serving behaviour in this case. 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.
18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a one-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. 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. 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.
19The Panel 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 will help her to make better decisions in her professional practice.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: February 20, 2020
Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah
Member, Discipline Panel
Jonathan Rose
Member, Discipline Panel