DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Sincennes 2020 ONOCT 221
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
Judith M. Sincennes, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JUDITH M. SINCENNES (REGISTRATION #283613)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Josée Landriault, OCT Élaine Legault
HEARD: December 3 and 15, 2020
Émilie Bruneau and Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers Anna Lichty, for Judith M. Sincennes 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.
1In accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, this electronic proceeding was held before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on December 3 and 15, 2020.
2Judith M. Sincennes (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 September 19, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Judith M. Sincennes 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)1;
(b) she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7)2;
(c) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 47/97, subsection 1(7.2)3;
(d) she signed or issued, in the Member’s professional capacity, a document that the Member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);
(e) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(f) 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);
(g) 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);
(h) 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:
Judith M. Sincennes 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 des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est (the "Board") as Principal of École secondaire catholique Marie-Rivier (the "School") in Kingston, Ontario.
In or around the period from June 16, 2016 to June 15, 2017, when the Member was working as the School Principal, she was often absent during the academic year and could not give explanations for all of her absences. Specifically, in February and April 2017, during her non-medical absences, the Member asked some teachers to sign report cards, which was her own responsibility.
On several occasions between April 28, 2015 and September 15, 2016, the Member made inappropriate personal use of the credit card she was given as part of her professional duties.
Between January 20, 2016 and August 15, 2017, the Member claimed some expenses more than once from the Board.
Between July 21, 2015 and June 22, 2017, the Member exceeded the allocations for items including meals and coffee for School staff.
On or about April 10, 2017, the Member issued cheques in her name which drew on Board funds without supporting documents.
On or about January 6, 2016 and in July 2016, the Member failed to submit supporting documents to the Board for transactions.
In 2015 and 2016, in connection with the hiring of her [XXX] as a casual janitor, the Member acted inappropriately in that:
(a) she sat on the selection committee that was reviewing her [XXX]’s application;
(b) she failed to notify her supervisor concerning a conflict of interest related to the hiring of her [XXX];
(c) she called the Board’s Human Resources department to express her satisfaction concerning her [XXX]’s work and encourage the Board to ask her to work in other schools, without indicating that it was her [XXX];
(d) she authorized overtime for her [XXX] without prior authorization.
From 2014 to 2017, some staff members felt belittled by the Member, when it was the Principal’s duty to be a leader for the staff. These staff members felt that the Member kept a list of staff members whom she discussed with others.
In June 2017, the Board opened an investigation into the Member’s conduct. On or about August 25, 2017, the Board assigned the Member to work from home.
The Member resigned from the Board on December 22, 2017.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Agreed Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Agreed 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(12), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she fully understands the nature of the allegations of misconduct against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Agreed 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 and Counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Agreed 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
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5), 1(7) and 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that permission was being sought from the Panel to withdraw allegation 1(5) because it duplicated allegation 1(14), and to withdraw allegations 1(7) and 1(7.2) because of insufficient evidence and as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the signing of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on December 15, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(12), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The 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. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Agreed Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.
9The Agreed Facts demonstrate that the Member signed or issued, in her professional capacity, a document that she knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12). The Member issued cheques in her name without supporting documents and made inappropriate use of Board funds and the Board credit card. In addition, she claimed unsubstantiated expenses from the Board.
10The Agreed Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). She failed to observe the ethical standards for the teaching profession, which are set out in section 32.02 of the College Bylaws. The ethical standard of Trust embodies fairness, openness and honesty and the ethical standard of Integrity includes reliability and moral action. By absenting herself without good reason, the Member displayed a lack of integrity and trustworthiness towards her employer and colleagues. She also showed a lack of fairness and honesty in failing to disclose a conflict of interest in relation to her [XXX]’s hiring and remuneration.
11The Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). One requirement in this provision of the Act is for members to “inculcate by precept and example … the highest regard for truth [and] justice,” among other virtues. The Member’s above-mentioned dishonest conduct was at odds with these virtues. Furthermore, members are to “assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school,” a requirement that is especially important for the principal of a school, who is expected to be a leader for the staff. The Member did the opposite. Because of her conduct, some staff members felt belittled by the Member and she created a toxic environment.
12On multiple occasions, the Member 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). The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that the facts as a whole support this finding. The Member demonstrated a lack of integrity in her performance of the professional duties and responsibilities of a school principal. Moreover, the Member’s inappropriate personal use of the employer’s credit card on several occasions demonstrates dishonourable conduct.
13Similarly, the conduct as a whole described above is unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19), and undermined public trust in the teaching profession.
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 December 15, 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 to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, which fact is to be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of five months, as of the 15th calendar day following the oral decision of the Discipline Committee in this matter, which fact is to be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following conditions or restrictions on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, which will be recorded on the Register:
(a) Within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics, 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 that were made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) following review of the documents noted in 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 course goals;
(b) Within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:
(i) 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 the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. MacKellar, 2017 ONOCT 76, Ontario College of Teachers v. Udema, 2015 ONOCT 82 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Vellinga, 2018 ONOCT 10.
16The Panel considered the circumstances in this matter in comparison to the cases provided. Aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the repeated nature of her misconduct in a variety of situations over several years. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her professional misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Moreover, the Member has no previous history of appearing before the Discipline Panel or being disciplined by the Board. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
17The Panel finds that the Member warrants a reprimand by her peers for, among other reasons, her inappropriate use of the funds provided to her school by the Board. A school principal is expected to behave with professionalism, honesty and integrity towards the community at all times. The Member’s actions demonstrate poor judgment and a lack of integrity. 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.
18In view of the seriousness of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a five-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct in some ways from this matter, the underlying nature of the professional misconduct is similar and confirms that a suspension of the Member’s certificate is warranted. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making it clear that such professional misconduct is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration will be suspended effective December 30, 2020; that is, 15 days after the Panel’s decision and order.
19The Panel considers that the course on professional ethics will contribute to the Member’s rehabilitation process. It will remind her of her obligations as a principal towards the school community and her employer and will help her to make better decisions in the performance of her professional responsibilities.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
December 17, 2020
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Josée Landriault, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel