DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Margetson 2020 ONOCT 156
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
David Warren Margetson, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
DAVID WARREN MARGETSON (REGISTRATION #443662)
PANEL: John Hamilton, OCT, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT Tom Potter
HEARD: February 11, 2020
Shane D’Souza and Steven Chadwick, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Krista Kais-Prial, for David Warren Margetson
Rebecca Durcan, 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 11, 2020 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2David Warren Margetson (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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 April 29, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that David Warren Margetson is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in 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;
(d) he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;1
(e) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);2
(f) 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);
(g) 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);
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
David Warren Margetson 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 [XXX]as a teacher at [XXX]School (the “School”), in[XXX], a remote community in northern Ontario.
On August 26, 2015, the Member began a contract teaching position with the [XXX]and taught Grades[XXX]through [XXX] at the School.
At all material times, Student 1 was a student at the School.
During the second semester of the 2016-2017 school year and during the first semester of the 2017-2018 school year, Student 1 was enrolled as a student in the Member’s class.
In the late spring and into the summer of 2017, the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with Student 1.
In September 2017, the Member disclosed to his Principal that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with Student 1.
The [XXX]terminated the Member’s employment, effective September 27, 2017. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the termination letter sent to the Member.
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 paragraphs above (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(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member further does not contest that the alleged conduct constitutes sexual abuse as defined in Section 1 of the Act.
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 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, 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 allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (d) and (e) of the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), namely that the Member engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act and that he contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation of sexual misconduct was being sought because the Member’s conduct was more appropriately characterized as sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act. College Counsel further requested that the subsection 1(14) allegation be withdrawn because it overlaps with the allegation of subsection 1(5). The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 11, 2020 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(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act.
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 8 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 the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with one of his students.
9The Member’s conduct fell below the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a student is a clear breach of the standards of the profession, which, among other things, require members to demonstrate their commitment to students’ wellbeing and learning through positive influence and professional judgment (“Care”) and to demonstrate their trustworthiness by maintaining professional relationships with students at all times (“Trust”).
10The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused a student contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By engaging in a sexual relationship with a student, the Member took advantage of his position of trust and authority in an egregious manner. Given the imbalance of power inherent in the student-teacher relationship, the Panel accepts the parties’ joint submission that the Member’s conduct amounted to psychological or emotional abuse. Moreover, the Member does not contest that his conduct amounted to psychological or emotional abuse.
11The Member sexually abused a student, contrary to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In the late spring and into the summer of 2017, the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with Student 1. The Member disclosed this completely inappropriate relationship to his principal in September 2017.
12The Member’s abusive conduct contravenes section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. This provision requires that teachers exemplify the highest regard for a number of virtues including truth, justice, humanity, benevolence and purity. By engaging in a personal and sexual relationship with a student, the Member completely disregarded his professional duties as a teacher.
13The Member’s abusive conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Engaging in a personal and sexual relationship with a student demonstrates a profound lack of professional judgment and a failure to act in the best interest of students.
14Finally, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member, in that it undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and violates the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.
F. PENALTY Decision
15The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 11, 2020 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;
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee within 120 days of the date of the Committee’s Order on a date to be arranged by the Member, 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”).
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
16The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included the sexual abuse of a student, as described in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. Given this finding, section 30.2(1) of the Act provides that the Panel must make an order: (1) directing the Registrar to revoke the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration; and (2) requiring that the Member be reprimanded by the Panel. The Panel makes both of these orders and notes that it has no discretion in this regard. The Panel recognizes that it may also order costs or a fine in accordance with subsection 30(5) of the Act. The Panel, however, finds it reasonable to limit the penalty in this case to the statutory minimum in light of the Member’s plea of no contest and joint submission on penalty.
17The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.
Date: February 18, 2020
John Hamilton, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Tom Potter Member, Discipline Panel