Ontario College of Teachers v Chamberland 2020 ONOCT 215

Date: 2020-12-14

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

Paul Jacques John Chamberland, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

PAUL JACQUES JOHN CHAMBERLAND (REGISTRATION #520257)

PANEL: Jonathan Rose, Chair

Nancy Saunders, OCT

Stéphane Vallée, OCT

HEARD: December 3, 2020 and December 14, 2020

Eli Mogil and Steven Chadwick, for the Ontario College of Teachers

No one appearing for Paul Jacques John Chamberland

Rebecca Durcan, 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 Student 1 who was allegedly sexually abused or the subject of the sexual misconduct or a prohibited act involving child pornography.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on December 3, 2020 and December 14, 2020, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Paul Jacques John Chamberland (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have 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.

4Additionally, 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

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated May 4, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Paul Jacques John Chamberland 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);

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

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

Paul Jacques John Chamberland is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto 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 Upper Grand District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario and served as a [XXX]for the girls’[XXX].
At all material times, Students 1, 2 and 3 were female students at the School.

Failure to Observe Appropriate Professional Boundaries

During the fall of 2015, the vice-principal of the School was informed of concerns that the Member was spending too much time with students outside class time. At the request of the vice-principal, the Member’s local union representative reminded the Member to be careful about his interactions with students.
Also during the fall of 2015, the School principal was approached by three teachers who were concerned that the Member was repeatedly coming into their classes and taking students from the girls’ [XXX]into the hall to speak to them, without asking for the teacher’s permission in advance.
The principal thought that it was unusual for a [XXX] to approach students while they were in other teachers’ classrooms. The principal met with the Member about this issue and instructed him to only speak with students at [XXX] time.
In December 2015, the Member approached the principal in her office, crying, to report that he had hugged a student. The principal told the Member that he was to direct distraught students to guidance.
There were no further incidents of the Member removing students from class until early 2016, when the parent of Student 1 called to say that the Member had removed her daughter from class and had told her that she was making a poor choice in a boyfriend. The principal met with the Member and again told him to stop removing students from class and to stop engaging in personal conversations with students.
In or around March 2016, the vice-principal observed the Member remaining in the [XXX] for his entire preparation period, standing very close to female students, and not appearing to do preparation work. The vice-principal also saw the Member walking down a hallway with a student during class time, and believed that this student was Student 1.
The principal and vice-principal met with the Member on March 31, 2016. The Member was directed not to visit the [XXX], and to immediately bring students with personal issues to the attention of the School’s social worker and/or guidance teacher. The Member was also given a list of activities related to boundary management.
The Member visited the vice-principal’s office the next day to follow up on the previous day’s meeting. The vice-principal again told the Member that they were concerned about boundary issues. The Member asked the vice-principal what to do if he identified students who had been abused or had issues and wanted to help. The vice-principal again told the Member to send such students to the social worker or guidance teacher.
The Member visited the vice-principal’s office again on April 8, 2016 and informed him of a situation involving a student who was struggling with gender issues. Once again, the vice-principal told the Member to refer the student to the social worker, guidance, or give the student the website address of Family Services, which offered confidential counselling.

Student Reports and Board Directed Leave

On April 12, 2016, Students 2 and 3 approached the principal in her office to register concerns about their friend, Student 1, whom they believed was becoming too familiar with the Member. The students told the principal that the Member frequently met with Student 1 outside of class time, communicated with her via text message, shared personal information with her, and had been crying to her about issues with his wife in the [XXX], causing Student 1 stress. The students also had spoken with their parents about their concerns for Student 1 because they believed that the Member was making plans to meet with Student 1 in the summer after she had [XXX]. Student 2 had often heard the Member ask Student 1 and other female students if they would visit him during the summer and thought this was strange. She was concerned that, after [XXX], the rules which governed teacher-student relationships would no longer apply.
As a result of this report, the Board hired an external investigator to look into the matter (the “Investigator”). The Member was placed on a Board directed leave the next day. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s April 13, 2016 letter to the Member confirming same.

External Investigation and Findings

The Investigator’s report (the “Report”) was received by the Board in or around May 2016. The Report concluded that the Member had engaged in an inappropriate, personal relationship with Student 1 during the 2015-2016 academic year. The Member sent electronic messages to Student 1, engaged in inappropriate personal conversations with Student 1, and contacted Student 1’s boyfriend (a former student) regarding the Member’s relationship with her.
The Report also determined that the Member engaged in inappropriate personal conversations with other students at the School throughout the 2015-2016 academic year. The Member’s inappropriate conversations with students at the School included advising Student 2 and other students about traumatic incidents he had experienced as a child, informing Student 3 and her parent that he could no longer use the word “butt” (when referring to female buttocks) during [XXX] and would refer to it as “Sally” instead, and conversing with female students on his [XXX] about boyfriends and providing advice in relation to what boys the girls should or should not date.
The Investigator advised the Board that the Member had failed to meet his professional obligations as a teacher, that his conduct was in breach of the Board’s Employee Ethics policy, and further, that despite various professional advisories from the College, the Member had explicitly crossed professional boundaries on several occasions. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is an excerpt from the Board’s Employee Ethics policy, adopted in June 2011.

Communication with Students in Code

On May 17, 2016, an occasional teacher assigned to the Member’s classroom discovered materials in the classroom which were in the Member’s handwriting and referred to coded communications with students. The occasional teacher was alarmed by the content of the materials and provided them to the principal.
Among the materials found in the Member’s classroom was a note that the Member had written to one or more students on the girls’ [XXX].
Prior to his Board directed leave, the Member regularly communicated with students [XXX] using the mobile messaging application “Remind 101”.
The Member’s note found in the classroom explained that his [XXX] update messages to students on this application would contain secret messages to student(s) which could be deciphered using coordinates provided by the Member. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a picture of a message sent by the Member to the girls’ [XXX] on April 7, 2016 at 7:03 a.m. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Member’s instructional note, which includes the coded message hidden within his April 7th communication.

Inappropriate Notes About Students

The materials found in the Member’s classroom also included a number of other handwritten notes which appeared to be written in code. These handwritten notes were written by the Member. The Board researched and investigated the documents, and was able to decipher the Member’s code. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F” is a Board-authored document which translates the Member’s code into letters of the alphabet.
The notes written by the Member, which were found in his classroom, contained numerous inappropriate references to current and past students at the School, including sexual references to several students. Attached hereto as Exhibits “G” and “H”, respectively, is a copy of one of the Member’s coded notes, dated January 28, 2016, and a copy of the Board’s translation of the note. In this note, written by the Member, he describes his feelings for Student 1, alludes to a secret relationship with Student 1 in the future, and makes a sexual reference to another female student at the School.

Meeting on September 28, 2016

The Member attended a meeting with the Board on September 28, 2016 to discuss the materials found in his classroom. During this meeting, the Member acknowledged having an understanding of cryptology, explained what it was, stated that he liked writing in code, and confirmed that a notebook found in his classroom containing cryptographic writing was indeed his.
The Member also confirmed that the signature found on one of the coded documents in the classroom was indeed his signature. Attached hereto as Exhibit “I” is a copy of the document found in the Member’s classroom which includes the Member’s signature along with a poem that he wrote, and a coded message. The Member’s poem contains sexual language and is about a female student.

Termination of Employment

The Member was granted an opportunity to respond and/or provide further information for the Board to consider. The Member declined this opportunity. He was terminated for cause effective February 27, 2017. Attached hereto as Exhibit “J” is a copy of the Board’s termination letter to the Member. The termination letter contains the translation of a number of other sexually explicit comments about students. These sexually explicit comments were written in code by the Member in various documents, and subsequently translated by the Board.

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 paragraphs 1 to 26 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(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.
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 without 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

7Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as the misconduct is better captured by subsection 1(14) and as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. The Panel granted the request.

8Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on December 14, 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

9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 26 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. Due to this acknowledgment by the Member, the Panel’s role is not to determine whether the Uncontested Facts would better fit under other heads of misconduct. The Panel is required to place significant weight on the fact that the Member has not contested the finding when making their decision.

10The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1 in which the Member met with the student outside of class time, communicated with her via text messages, and shared inappropriate personal information with her. Additionally, the Member wrote a number of notes that include disturbing comments of a sexual nature, sexual references about his students, and allude to a secret future relationship with Student 1.

11The Member’s relationship with Student 1 constitutes emotional abuse of a student contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Student 1 was emotionally affected by the inappropriate relationship with the Member. The Member’s relationship with Student 1 included sending her messages and engaging in inappropriate personal conversations with her and caused Student 1 to feel stressed. The effect that the relationship was having on Student 1 was such that it was reported to the principal by Student 2, Student 3, and Student 1’s parents.

12The Member’s behaviour in this case constitutes sexual abuse of a student contrary to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and section 1 of the Act. Sexual abuse is defined at section 1 of the Act and includes remarks of a sexual nature by a member towards a student. The Panel finds that the Member’s notes found by the occasional teacher constitute remarks of a sexual nature towards and about his students. The Member’s notes were left in the classroom where they could easily be found, and indeed were found by the occasional teacher. Additionally, the Panel puts significant weight on the fact that the Member has not contested that his behaviour amounts to sexual abuse in making this finding.

13The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act or regulations or the bylaws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a student is a clear breach of the Ethical Standards for the teaching profession, codified in Bylaw 32 of the College Bylaws. The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct was a violation of all the ethical standards: care, respect, trust, and integrity. In particular, the Member’s actions violated the ethical standard of “care” which includes compassion and insight for developing students’ potential. The Member failed to uphold the standard of care by pulling Student 1 out of class and discussing inappropriate topics with Student 1 which caused her to feel stressed.

14The 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 their students in the pursuit of learning and to set an example for students. The Member’s conduct in his relationship with Student 1 was entirely at odds with these obligations as a member of the profession.

15The Member’s misconduct is disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to create a safe learning environment for students, and not to exploit their position of trust and authority. The Member acted disgracefully, dishonourably and unprofessionally by engaging in an unprofessional relationship with Student 1, asking students if they would visit him during the summer break, and leaving inappropriate notes in his classroom containing sexual language about students.

16Similarly, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is eroded when members abuse their position of trust and authority by emotionally and sexually abusing their students.

F. PENALTY Decision

17The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on December 14, 2020 the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member;
The Member is directed receive a reprimand, in writing, 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

18The 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) 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.

19The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.

Date: December 14, 2020

Jonathan Rose

Chair, Discipline Panel