DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Ontario College of Teachers v Partridge 2020 ONOCT 205

Date: 2020-10-07

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

Michael Richard Partridge, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

MICHAEL RICHARD PARTRIDGE (REGISTRATION #199221)

PANEL: Diane Ballantyne, OCT, Chair

John Hamilton, OCT

Tom Potter

HEARD: October 7, 2020

Christine Wadsworth and Noam Uri, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Jack Brown, for Michael Richard Partridge

Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(3) and 32.1(4) 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 or the person who was allegedly sexually abused or the subject of the sexual misconduct or a prohibited act involving child pornography.

1This matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on October 7, 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.

2Michael Richard Partridge (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation attend on his behalf. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

3Two Notices of Hearing dated January 28, 2019 (Exhibit 1) and August 5, 2019 (Exhibit 2) were served on the Member, specifying the allegations and requesting his presence on a date to be determined for the hearing. The hearing with respect to the allegations set out in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 was subsequently set for October 7, 2020. The parties agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations of professional misconduct set out in both Notices of Hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

4The 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.

5Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request of College Counsel on behalf of Student 1, who was allegedly sexually abused, or the subject of sexual misconduct or a prohibited act involving child pornography. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated January 28, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Michael Richard Partridge 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);¹

(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 failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(e) 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);

(f) 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); and

(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

7The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated August 5, 2019 (Exhibit 2) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Michael Richard Partridge 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);²

(b) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, and specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(c) 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);

(d) 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);

(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

8College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 3), which provides the following:

1. Michael Richard Partridge 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Lambton Kent District School Board (the “Board”) as an [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

2017

3. At all material times, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year old female high school student in [XXX], Ontario.

4. During the summer of 2017, students went to [XXX] in [XXX] where they observed the Member drinking alcohol with his friends. The Member was aware of and did not object to underage students helping themselves to alcohol from the Member’s bag. Underage students drank alcohol in the Member’s presence.

5. On or about July 19, 2017 while at [XXX], a student took a photograph of the Member with Student 1. The Member put his arm around Student 1 for the photograph. The Member was not wearing a shirt. Both the Member and Student 1 were holding alcohol in the photograph. The Member did not provide Student 1 with the alcohol she was holding. Student 1 felt uncomfortable as the photograph was being taken. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a coloured copy of the photograph of the Member and Student 1 dated July 19, 2017.

6. After the photograph was taken, the Member said to Student 1, “Now that you have a picture with me, you have to trade and give me a kiss”. While continuing to pose with Student 1, the Member moved his arm around Student 1’s waist and tried to kiss her. This made Student 1 feel weird. Student 1’s friends told the Member to back off and walk away.

7. Concerns about the Member’s conduct were reported to the police. On August 15, 2017, the police cautioned the Member about the repercussions of selling alcohol to minors and they informed the Member of “potential consequences given his profession of being a teacher”. The police did not pursue charges against the Member.

8. On or about September 27, 2017, the Board advised the Member that he was reassigned to home with pay pending completion of the Board’s investigation into this matter. On October 13, 2017, the Member received a letter of discipline suspending him for three days without pay and requiring him to complete a boundaries course at his own expense prior to January 31, 2018, as a condition of continuing employment in February 2018. In the letter, the Board insisted that the Member not repeat the professional misconduct described above. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is the letter of discipline from the Board to the Member dated October 13, 2017.

9. On November 9, 2017, the Member attended a full day training course on professional boundaries.

2018

10. On or about June 21, 2018, a group of students went to [XXX] after exams. Underage students observed the Member with other men his age drinking beer at [XXX]. The Member approached the students, asked them about their exams and sat with them. The Member provided one underage student with alcohol at the student’s request.

11. The Member retired from the Board on June 30, 2018.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

12. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-11 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

13. 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(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee should find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

9Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing dated January 28, 2019 (Exhibit 1) and paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing dated August 5, 2019 (Exhibit 2), namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel submitted that proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative based on the facts outlined in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Guilty Plea. The Panel accepted College Counsel’s submission and granted these requests.

10Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 7, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student of a nature defined in section 1 of the Act.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

11The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 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 acted inappropriately by drinking alcohol with underage students and by providing a student with alcohol. The Member further inappropriately touched and tried to kiss Student 1.

12The Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by putting his arm around Student 1’s shoulder and waist and by trying to kiss her. The Member’s actions made Student 1 feel weird and uncomfortable. As such, the Member’s egregious conduct towards Student 1 had a negative psychological and emotional impact on her, and was psychologically and emotionally abusive.

13The Member’s conduct constitutes sexual abuse of a student contrary to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and section 1 of the Act. The Member made inappropriate physical contact with Student 1 and he made inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature towards Student 1. The definition of sexual abuse at section 1 of the Act includes touching and behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by a member towards a student. The Member’s comment to Student 1 in this case (that she had “to trade and give [him] a kiss”) and his attempt to kiss Student 1 clearly meet this definition.

14In his submissions, Member’s Counsel drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that the Member did not teach Student 1, that Student 1 was not a student at the Board, and that the conduct occurred on a public beach and not in the classroom. Member’s Counsel submitted that, while these facts should not bear on the Panel’s ultimate finding, these were nevertheless important facts to bear in mind. The Panel finds this argument to be without merit. For the purposes of the definition of “sexual abuse”, the Act defines “student” as “a student who, at the time the behaviour, remarks or conduct occurred or were made, was enrolled in a school or private school in Ontario, within the meaning of the Education Act and was under 18 years old or, in the case of a student who had special needs, was under 22 years old.” Student 1 meets this definition. Additionally, the fact that the Member was not Student 1’s teacher does not mitigate the fact that Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old girl who the Member inappropriately touched and tried to kiss. The Member’s conduct was sexually abusive regardless of whether it occurred in the classroom or in a public place, and regardless of whether he taught Student 1.

15The Member failed to comply with the Act, regulations, or by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Section 32 of the College By-Laws requires members to comply with the Ethical Standards of the Teaching Profession. Among other things, the Ethical Standards require members to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence and professional judgment (“Care”) and to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development of students (“Respect”). The Member’s psychologically and sexually abusive conduct toward Student 1 demonstrates a failure to use professional judgment and to honour Student 1’s emotional wellness contrary to the ethical standards.

16The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Members hold a unique position of trust and authority. They are expected to encourage students in the pursuit of learning, serve as positive role models and demonstrate the highest regard for a number of virtues set out at section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act. The Member acted contrary to these expectations and failed to act as a positive role model by drinking alcohol with students and allowing underage students to take alcohol from him.

17The Member’s misconduct is disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to behave professionally and to treat their students with respect in and out of the classroom. The Member failed to do so by giving a student alcohol even after being cautioned by police about drinking with underage students. The Member was suspended from the Board, took a course about professional boundaries, and was explicitly warned about his behaviour. Nevertheless, he engaged in the same professional misconduct less than one year later. The Member further acted disgracefully and dishonourably by trying to kiss a [XXX]-year-old girl.

18The Member’s conduct is also unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulations 437/97. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is grossly eroded when members abuse their position of trust and authority to emotionally and sexually abuse students.

F. PENALTY Decision

19The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 7, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member;

2. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee 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 or by videoconference 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

20The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included 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) requiring 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. The Panel recognizes that it may also order costs or a fine in accordance with subsection 30(5) of the Act but finds it reasonable not to make these additional orders in light of the Member’s plea of no contest and joint submission on penalty.

21The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.