Ontario College of Teachers v. Bonofiglio, 2020 ONOCT 163

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Ontario College of Teachers v Bonofiglio 2020 ONOCT 163

Date: 2020-05-25

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 Franca Teresa Renza Bonofiglio, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

FRANCA TERESA RENZA BONOFIGLIO (REGISTRATION #511673)

PANEL: Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT, Chair John Cammarata Jonathan Rose

HEARD: May 25, 2020

COUNSEL: Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jerry Raso, for Franca Teresa Renza Bonofiglio Julie Maciura, 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 May 25, 2020 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). With the consent of the parties, and in accordance with section 3 of the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 5, Sched 3, this matter proceeded by way of an electronic hearing.

2Franca Teresa Renza Bonofiglio (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 November 18, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Franca Teresa Renza Bonofiglio 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 abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) 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);

(e) 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);

(f) 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. Franca Teresa Renza Bonofiglio 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 by the York Catholic District School Board as an [XXX]teacher and was on a teaching assignment at [XXX]School (the “School”) in[XXX], Ontario.

3. At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2 were Grade [XXX] female students at the School.

4. On or about May 17, 2018, the Member engaged in inappropriate communication with students in the School, including Student 1 and Student 2.

5. The Member told a group of students at the School, including Student 1 and Student 2, about her personal relationship with her 39-year old male ex-partner that had recently ended, and asked Student 1 if she had any friends on Instagram who would be willing to message the Member’s ex-partner. Student 1 suggested her friend, Student 2.

6. The Member asked Student 2 to use her personal Instagram account to contact the Member’s ex-partner and attempt to engage him in conversation. She instructed Student 2 to advise her ex-partner that she was in her twenties (rather than in her teens) and to send him a photo she had in a bathing suit.

7. When Student 2 said that she did not feel comfortable messaging the Member’s ex-partner, the Member asked Student 1 if she had another friend who would be willing to do so. Student 1 gave the Member the name of another friend, but this friend did not respond to the Member’s request.

8. The Member used vulgar and inappropriate language with the group of students, including Student 1 and Student 2, when she stated:

(a) “I thought you were going to get me a “G” girl [i.e., gangster girl]”;

(b) “busting my balls”;

(c) “bitch”; and

(d) “fuck”.

9. The Member also disclosed to them that she had previously asked a former student to message her ex-partner via social media.

10. Student 2 called her parents from school after the incident as she indicated that she felt uncomfortable. Student’s 2’s parents contacted the School later that afternoon.

11. The Board reported the incident to the York Region Children’s Aid Society (the “CAS”). The outcome of the CAS investigation was inconclusive as it was unable to determine with certainty the impact the Member’s actions had on Student 2. In its reporting letter, however, the CAS noted that the Member’s actions were inappropriate and “could potentially pose a risk to the children in [her] care.” Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the CAS’ reporting letter dated July 10, 2018.

12. The Board suspended the Member from all teaching assignments pending the outcome of its investigation. The Member was ultimately removed from the Board’s [XXX]teaching list.

GUILTY PLEA

13. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-12 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

14. 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(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

15. 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.

16. 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 the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on May 25, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 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 12 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 engaged in inappropriate behaviour and used inappropriate language with her students.

8The Panel finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession by attempting to convince teenage students to engage her ex-partner in conversation and to pose as adults in their messages to him. Among other standards, the Member breached the ethical standard of “trust”, which embodies fairness, openness and honesty. Further, the Member failed to adhere to the College’s Professional Advisory on the Use of Electronic Communications and Social Media. The Member’s conduct lacked care, respect and integrity, and was entirely at odds with the ethical standards of the profession.

9The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused Student 1 and Student 2 by using vulgar and inappropriate language when speaking with them. Specifically, the Member scolded one of the students by saying “I thought you were gonna get me a ‘G’ girl [i.e., gangster girl]”. Speaking this way to students is abusive and inappropriate.

10The Panel also finds that the Member emotionally abused her students. By encouraging her students to abuse social media and to inappropriately engage with adults online, the Member engaged in behaviour that could have caused psychological or emotional harm to Student 1 and Student 2.

11The 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 are required to set a proper example for students. The Member’s attempts to use her students to engage her ex-partner in conversation was contrary to this requirement.

12The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The Member acted unprofessionally by using profanity while speaking to students and by attempting to involve her students in her personal life. In doing so, she failed to exercise good judgment.

13Similarly, the Member’s conduct toward her students was unbecoming a member. It undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and violated the trust that the public places in members.

F. 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 May 25, 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 to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered by video conference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

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

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order in this matter, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, regarding professional boundaries with students, 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 certificate 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

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. Wilson, 2019 ONOCT 41, Ontario College of Teachers v. Brown, 2017 ONOCT 38, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Sergeant, 2018 ONOCT 44.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the fact that the Member has committed this kind of conduct in the past and the emotional harm that the Member’s conduct had on at least one student. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Additionally, the Member has already been disciplined by the Board for this misconduct and she 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 conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. Members are expected to serve as role models for students, which the Member failed to do by attempting convince her students to misuse social media and by attempting to involve her students in her personal life. The reprimand allows the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and serves as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register serves as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional boundaries with students is intended to 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 any future interactions with students.

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