DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Charland 2020 ONOCT 196
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
Nadia Charland, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
NADIA CHARLAND (REGISTRATION #258021)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT Stéphane Vallée, OCT
HEARD: October 9, 2020
Charlotte-Anne Malischewski, for the Ontario College of Teachers Lise Leduc, for Nadia Charland 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.
1The matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on October 9, 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.
2Ms. Nadia Charland (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 23, 2015 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Nadia Charland is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1)1 of 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) she abused a student 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) 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 UNCONTESTED FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Nadia Charland (the “Member”) 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 Conseil scolaire public du Nord-Est de l’Ontario (the “Board”) as a teacher at École [XXX] (the “School”), in [XXX].
In the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years, Student 1 was in Grades [XXX] at the School. The Member was Student 1’s teacher. As of the 2009-2010 academic year, Student 1 attended [XXX].
Between November 2009 and November 2011, the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1. Specifically, the inappropriate relationship involved:
(a) personal visits to the home of Student 1, when his parents were not at home;
(b) providing Student 1 with cigarettes and alcohol when the Member visited Student 1 at his house;
(c) entertaining Student 1 at the Member’s home;
(d) allowing Student 1 to drink alcohol at the Member’s home;
(e) driving Student 1 in the Member’s car;
(f) lengthy personal telephone communications;
(g) holding hands with Student 1;
(h) giving Student 1 a kiss;
(i) personal Facebook communications;
(j) giving gifts to Student 1;
(k) allowing Student 1 to spend the night at the Member’s home.
- The Member is currently on long-term sick leave from the Board, with cancer.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the "Uncontested Facts").
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts described above constitute professional misconduct and admits the allegations of professional misconduct against her, 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 also acknowledges that the alleged conduct constitutes sexual abuse as defined in section 1 of the Act.
The Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct 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’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 Pour parler profession/ Professionally Speaking, the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between the College and the Member with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and 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 Act, 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 described above and plea of no contest, 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 Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 9, 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 abused a student sexually as defined in section 1 of the Act.
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member did not contest the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.
8The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, when she engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1. The Member’s professional misconduct included providing cigarettes and alcohol to the student, allowing the student to spend the night at her home and giving the student a kiss. In the practice of their profession, members are required to express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. The Member did the opposite.
9The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member had an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1, and that she abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). In addition to engaging in a personal relationship, which included lengthy telephone and Facebook communications with Student 1, the Member also gave him gifts. She also visited Student 1 when his parents were not at home and provided him with alcohol and cigarettes during those visits. She gave him a kiss and allowed him to spend the night at her home. Through her actions and behaviour towards Student 1, the Member abused her authority and took advantage of the power imbalance between teacher and student. The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct constitutes psychological or emotional abuse of a student.
10The Member abused Student 1 sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3). The definition of sexual abuse in section 1 of the Act includes touching, and behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by a member towards a student. The Member’s conduct in this matter meets this definition. The Member admitted that her personal relationship with Student 1 included holding hands and giving him a kiss. The Member acknowledged that such touching and behaviour constituted sexual abuse of Student 1.
11The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Members of the profession hold a unique position of trust and authority with respect to students. Members are expected to set an example and follow the ethical principles set out in subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act. The Member’s conduct contradicted her duties as a teacher.
12The Member committed disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). Members are required to respect the professional boundaries between a teacher and her students and prioritize the students’ safety and well-being, which the Member failed to do. Inappropriate personal or sexual relationships between a member of the profession and a student cannot be tolerated. These acts are disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
13The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19). Public confidence in the teaching profession is eroded when members abuse their position of trust and authority in order to abuse a student sexually and emotionally.
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 October 9, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order.
The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.
The Registrar is directed to immediately revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY dEcision
15The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included sexual abuse of a student, as provided in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. College Counsel argued that subsection 30.2(2) of the Act applied in this case, even though the Member committed her professional misconduct between 2009 and 2011. She argued that the Panel was required to apply the legislation in force on the date of the hearing, and that the transitional provisions in section 63.2 had taken effect. The transitional provisions provide for mandatory revocation pursuant to section 30.2 in the case of professional misconduct that consists of sexual abuse of a student and which occurred before the effective date of the amendment, if no order was made in respect of the matter pursuant to subsection 30(4) before that date.
16Given this finding, in accordance with section 30.2(1) of the Act, the Panel is required to make an order: 1) directing that the Member be reprimanded by the Panel; and 2) directing the Registrar to revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration. The Panel makes both of these orders and notes that it has no discretion in this regard. A written reprimand is reasonable given the circumstances of this matter. The Panel recognizes that it may impose a fine or make an order for costs in accordance with subsection 30(5) of the Act, but finds it reasonable not to make these additional orders because the Member admitted the allegations against her and signed a Joint Submission on Penalty.
17The Panel denounces the Member’s professional misconduct in the strongest terms.
October 22, 2020
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel