DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Watson 2020 ONOCT 195
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 Anya Lee Watson, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
ANYA LEE WATSON (REGISTRATION #514959)
PANEL: Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT, Chair Élaine Legault Ann Ciaschini, OCT
HEARD: November 16, 2020
Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jerry Raso, for Anya Lee Watson 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 November 16, 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.
2Anya Lee Watson (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 June 11, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Anya Lee Watson is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she committed an act or 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);
(b) she 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:
At all material times, Anya Lee Watson was 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario (the “Board”) as a teacher at St. Patrick Catholic School in Russell, Ontario.
From 2010 to 2017, the Member knowingly participated with her husband in a false invoicing scheme to defraud her husband’s employer, Noreast Electronic Co. Ltd (“Noreast”). The scheme involved the Member’s husband sourcing parts for Noreast (an electronics manufacturer) from suppliers in China and the Member and her husband creating false invoices for Noreast with higher prices and diverting excess payments to bank accounts controlled by the Member and her husband.
The Member’s conduct in this fraudulent scheme included:
(a) Creating falsified invoices containing false representations for the purpose of defrauding Noreast;
(b) Assisting in incorporating a corporation in Wyoming, EAJ Technical Corporation (“EAJ”), for the purpose of defrauding Noreast;
(c) Arranging for payment to Chinese suppliers from EAJ’s bank account from money received from Noreast; and
(d) Transferring money paid to EAJ by Noreast to bank accounts controlled by the Member and her husband.
By a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dated September 4, 2018, the Member, her husband, and EAJ were found liable for civil fraud for their conduct against Noreast. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the decision of Justice Gomery of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The quantum of money defrauded from Noreast by the Member and her husband was $864,238.75 USD.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-6 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(18) and 1(19).
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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading no contest 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 can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) 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;
(f) she understands that any agreement with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, 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.
D. DECISION
6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 16, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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 took part in a lengthy and repeated large-scale fraudulent scheme. The Member created falsified invoices and fraudulently diverted excess moneys from Noreast to a corporation controlled by the Member and her husband.
8The Panel finds that the Member’s actions are disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In defrauding Noreast, the Member knowingly falsified invoices and arranged for fraudulent financial transfers. As leaders and role models in their school communities, it is unacceptable for members of the profession to engage in this type of conduct. The Member’s misconduct involved serious dishonesty and is therefore properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.
9Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member’s above-mentioned conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s misconduct undermined the reputation of the teaching profession. The public places a great degree of trust in teachers and the Member demonstrated a serious breach of this trust.
F. 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 November 16, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which may be delivered electronically or in person, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”); and
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of eight months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register. If the Oral Decision and Order is rendered between May 1st and August 1st, the suspension will commence on September 1st.
G. 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. Paik, 2019 ONOCT 83, Ontario College of Teachers v. Mackenzie, 2019 ONOCT 22, Ontario College of Teachers v. Syed, 2020 ONOCT 138, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Millson, 2018 ONOCT 18.
12The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that the misconduct involved serious dishonesty, was repeated, and occurred over a significant period of time. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, she has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past, and her misconduct did not involve students. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
13The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. 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.
14Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that an eight-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases involves fraud and dishonestly and is of a similar underlying nature to the Member’s. The cases confirm that a suspension is justified and show that similar fraudulent conduct warrants a suspension up to 12 months. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and as a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on December 1, 2020, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
15The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: November 16, 2020
Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Ann Ciaschini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel