DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Lamarche 2020 ONOCT 227

Date: 2020-02-13

REINSTATEMENT 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 an application for reinstatement by Jean-Paul Lamarche.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JEAN-PAUL LAMARCHE (REGISTRATION #263258)

PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT Godwin Ifedi

HEARD: August 14, 2019

Nadine Carpenter, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jean-Paul Lamarche, self-represented Rebecca Durcan, 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 is an Application by Jean-Paul Lamarche (the “Applicant”) to have a new Certificate of Qualification and Registration (“Certificate”) issued pursuant to section 33(1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”). The Applicant’s Certificate was revoked by a panel of the Discipline Committee on April 2, 2001 due to a finding of professional misconduct.

2This matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on August 14, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). The College opposed the Application. The Applicant attended the hearing and acted on his own behalf.

3After considering the evidence and the submissions of the parties on the date of the hearing, the Panel requested additional evidence to be submitted by the Applicant. The Panel received additional written materials from the Applicant on September 11, 2019. College Counsel had no further submissions in response to the Applicant’s additional materials. With the consent of parties and in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee(the “Rules”) the Panel considered the evidence and submissions presented on August 14, 2019 as well as the additional materials provided by the Applicant.

4For the reasons that follow, the Panel decides to allow the Application but directs the Registrar to impose necessary terms, conditions, and limitations.

A. PUBLICATION ban

5The 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. BACKGROUND

6The Applicant became a member of the College in 1995, and was employed by the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board from 1995 until his resignation in the fall of 2000. In a decision issued on May 7, 2001, a Panel of the Discipline Committee found the Applicant guilty of professional misconduct and directed the Registrar to revoke his Certificate.

(1) Facts Giving Rise to the Revocation of the Applicant’s Certificate

7On April 2, 2001, a panel of the Discipline Committee heard the matter relating to allegations of professional misconduct against the Applicant. The Applicant signed an Agreed Statement of Facts in relation to the misconduct but he was not present or represented at his original discipline hearing. Accordingly, the penalty portion of the hearing proceeded in a contested manner.

8As outlined in the Reasons for Decisions and Orders Re: Ontario College of Teachers v JL, dated May 7, 2001 (Exhibit 5), the panel made the following findings of fact:

1. JL is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the member was employed by the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic District School Board as a teacher at the high school.

3. During the[XXX] school year, the student, whose date of birth is [XXX] was a female grade [XXX] student at the school.

4. During the first semester of the[XXX] school year, the member [XXX]to the student, who was then [XXX] years old, during the [XXX]of each day. At that time, the student had general problems at school and at home. She was not enjoying school and was not getting along with other students.

5. The member, who was approximately 27 years old at that time, and the student would stay after school one or two times per week to discuss the matters referred to in paragraph 4 above. These discussions continued in the second semester of the[XXX] school year, even though the member was no longer[XXX]. The student would go to see him if there was something she wanted to talk about.

6. Around the end of the[XXX] school year, the student’s mother, who was aware of the relationship between the student and the member, met with the member and told him that she felt that the student was infatuated with him. The member told the mother that he should, under those circumstances, distance himself from the student.

7. During the[XXX] school year, the[XXX]. The discussions concerning matters referred to in paragraph 4 above continued during the[XXX] school year.

8. Towards the end of the first semester of the[XXX] school year, the student, who was then [XXX] years old, was being asked by other students why she and the member were meeting so often. As a result, the student arranged with the member to pick her up in his car in front of a store close to her home, or from the parking lot of[XXX],[XXX]. They would go for short drives to the [XXX]where they would sit in his car and talk. The member would then drop her off near her home. Six or seven such episodes took place.

9. The nature of the discussions were always the same and were with respect to her family, other students and difficulties she was experiencing at school.

10. On one of the occasions referred to in paragraph 8 above, the member took the student for a drive to[XXX], near Ottawa, where he bought her an ice cream. On other occasions, the member gave the student a[XXX], as well as two [XXX]that she had told the member she enjoyed.

11. On two or three occasions, other than those referred to in paragraph 8 above, the member invited the student to his apartment where they stayed for approximately 45 minutes. The member and the student sat at his kitchen counter and talked about everyday things. The member also prepared grilled cheese sandwiches for the student and showed her his paintings.

12. On some of the occasions referred to in paragraphs 8 and 10 above, the student hugged and, at times, kissed the member on the cheek when leaving his car. The student had the feeling that the member did not feel comfortable with what she was doing and he never reciprocated other than to pat her on the cheek on one occasion. There was no other physical contact between them. However, when the student told the member that one of her classmates had inquired as to why she was going to another school campus, the member told her that she should not worry until she saw him “being led away in handcuffs.” Consequently, the student formed the impression that her meetings with the member were somehow illegal.

13. On discussing the student’s [XXX] birthday, the member said that he would put glow-in-the-dark stars on his living room ceiling for her as that was something she had always wanted. He also told her, without being specific, that he would do something that involved the five senses.

14. These matters became known in March[XXX], when the student was observed ducking down in the front seat of the member’s car on one occasion when he picked her up at[XXX] of a nearby[XXX]. The student was confronted by the principal and after initially making a denial, recounted the whole matter. She was then questioned by the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse division of the Ottawa-Carleton Police and again described the events as set out above, with respect to the member.

15. The member was suspended from his employment with the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic District School Board for the[XXX] school year. The member brought grievance proceedings and an arbitration was conducted before M. Brian Keller, sole arbitrator, on September 1, 1999 and October 18, 1999. The student gave evidence at the arbitration hearing. Her accounts to the police and at the arbitration were consistent. The arbitrator limited the suspension to 10 weeks. The reasons of M. Brian Keller were made available to the Committee.

16. The member, JL, accepts that the matters referred to in the preceding paragraphs constitute professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing, in particular breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), (7), (15), (18), and (19).

9In considering the appropriate penalty, the panel in 2001 heard evidence regarding the propriety of the Applicant’s conduct. In particular, the panel heard evidence from one expert in the field of adolescent sexual assault and another expert in the field of applied psychology. The experts acknowledged that the Applicant did not engage in a sexual relationship with the student, but they were concerned that the Applicant exhibited conduct that was consistent with grooming behaviour that could have potentially led to an abusive relationship in the future.

10Accordingly, a panel of the Discipline Committee found that the Applicant committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7)¹, 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19), and directed the Registrar to revoke the Applicant’s Certificate.

C. THE EVIDENCE

(1) The Applicant’s Evidence Presented at the Reinstatement Hearing

11The Applicant submitted a personal statement to the Panel as his case for reinstatement (Exhibit 4). In the statement, the Applicant expressed sincere remorse and took responsibility for his actions. The Applicant acknowledged that his behaviour was a product of bad judgment and terrible decisions. The Applicant went on to provide context to assist the Panel with understanding his behaviour. He explained that he experienced great success in his career immediately following teacher’s college, which he took for granted. The Applicant disclosed that, at the time of the misconduct, he had a very serious [XXX]problem that led to the destruction of his marriage, his career, and to his isolation from family and friends.

12The Applicant was suspended without pay by his Board for approximately five months due to the improper relationship with his student. He grieved the length of the suspension and it was reduced to 10 weeks following a hearing (Exhibit 6). In addition, the arbitrator ordered the Applicant to attend counseling regarding professional boundaries. The Applicant explained that he attended approximately 10-20 sessions with a counselor, he acknowledged that counseling was necessary and that he was happy to complete the program. The Applicant returned to the classroom for one year following his suspension but resigned from his position pending the hearing before the Discipline Committee.

13Following the revocation of his Certificate, the Applicant was “depressed, angry, frustrated and without hope of any kind” (Exhibit 4). It was a low point in his life and a signal to turn his life around. Following the revocation, the Applicant reconnected with family, began attending [XXX]meetings, and started to rebuild his support network. Since that time, he has remarried, had children, and has been successfully teaching in the post-secondary school system for 17 years.

14The Applicant has decided to seek reinstatement for both personal and professional reasons. Personally, the Applicant submitted that reinstatement would be the final step in his rehabilitation and would reinforce his belief that people can learn from their mistakes. Professionally, the Applicant explained that he had no intention to return to a full-time secondary teaching career and that he is permanently rooted in the post-secondary school system. However, the Applicant would like to have the opportunity to teach in the secondary school system on an occasional basis. Reinstatement would provide the Applicant with opportunities to teach secondary school courses online, or potentially teach out of province or overseas.

15The Applicant submitted that he is no longer the same person that he was at the time of the misconduct. Following obtaining employment in the post-secondary school system, he did not take anything for granted. The Applicant described himself as caring, professional, dedicated, trustworthy and respectful.

(2) The Applicant’s Additional Evidence Submitted in Writing

16In the course of deliberations in this matter, the Panel requested further evidence to be submitted by the Applicant by letter dated August 23, 2019. The Panel communicated its concerns that the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence for the Panel to make an informed decision. The Panel requested that the Applicant provide:

1. At least two character references, one of which was to be from the Applicant’s current employer;

2. An attestation from a current medical practitioner regarding whether the Applicant’s self-disclosed issues with [XXX]represent a material risk to students; and

3. Further details about the Applicant’s “personal and professional reasons” for requesting reinstatement.

17On request of the Panel, the Applicant submitted:

(a) A letter of reference from an employer (“Employer Reference”);

(b) A personal letter of reference from a colleague and friend (“Personal Reference”);

(c) A medical note from a general practitioner (“Medical Note”); and

(d) A statement from the Applicant further outlining his personal and professional reasons for seeking reinstatement (“Second Personal Statement”).

(a) Employer Reference

18The Applicant submitted a letter of reference from the Vice President of Human Resources at Algonquin College. The letter confirms that the Applicant has been employed by Algonquin College since January 2002, that his record of employment is in good standing, and that he has received good employee evaluations during his time at Algonquin College.

(b) Personal Reference

19The Applicant submitted a personal letter of reference from his close personal friend and long-time colleague at Algonquin College. The Applicant’s reference writes:

[The Applicant] is a dependable and trustworthy person. There are few people outside of my wife and children that I would vouch for, and [the Applicant] is one of them. He is also a dedicated family man who always puts the needs of his family ahead of his own. […] I can say with full confidence that [the Applicant] is an upstanding individual with solid values and beliefs. As a colleague, [the Applicant] is a well respected member of the faculty, and someone from whom I often seek advice.

We have discussed the nature of the request for this character reference, and with that in mind, I stand behind [the Applicant] in his application.

(c) Medical Note

20The Applicant submitted a letter from a physician at Algonquin College Health Services confirming that he has been treated by the clinic since 2013 and has not been seen for any[XXX] medical issues or [XXX] concerns. The physician goes on to state that she supports the Application for Reinstatement.

(d) Second Personal Statement

21In his second personal statement, the Applicant described in further detail his personal and professional reasons for seeking the reinstatement of his Certificate. He explained that, on a personal level, he was seeking reinstatement as a part of the final stage of a long process of redemption. The Applicant again expressed sincere remorse and took responsibility for his actions. He acknowledged that he exhibited poor judgment, that he made mistakes and that he has paid for them.

22On a professional level, the Applicant submitted that the reinstatement of his Certificate could afford him additional employment opportunities. He explained that he may seek employment in the secondary school system on an occasional basis, or teach online or out of province. The Applicant believes that, if his Certificate was reinstated, the most likely scenario is that he will attempt to find employment as an occasional teacher as he nears retirement or following his retirement from the post-secondary school system.

D. SUBMISSIONS OF the Applicant

23The Applicant submitted that there are five factors that the Panel should focus on in granting his application. First, a great deal of time has passed since the revocation. In that time, he has had the benefit of perspective and life experience. He is a different person than he was at time of the misconduct. Second, the Applicant has learned from the revocation of his Certificate that he should not take his opportunities for granted. Third, the Applicant submitted that, while his misconduct was wrong, the arbitrator in his grievance proceedings did not make findings of improper motives. The Applicant also submitted that his misconduct should be viewed in the context of his circumstances at the time – his former[XXX]. Fourth, the Applicant submitted that he has been rehabilitated since the time of the misconduct. He has attended[XXX] and his life is now stable. Fifth, the Applicant submitted that reinstatement would reinforce his belief that people can learn from their mistake and make positive changes in their lives.

24Overall, The Applicant submitted that, at 48 years old, he has had the benefit of perspective and life experience to guide him in his decision making process. He no longer [XXX], he is not hopeless about the future, and his life is stable. He stated:

I am very different than I was all those years ago. I would ask that the committee issue me a new Certificate of Qualification with the confidence that I have learned from my experience and that I know the professional responsibility and boundaries that come with an OCT designation.

25The Applicant urged the Panel to give him a second chance by granting the Application.

E. submission of college counsel

26College Counsel first presented the Panel with the legal test that applies to the determination of applications for reinstatement, as described in Ontario College of Pharmacists v. Manoukian, 2016 ONCPDC 4 (“Manoukian”) and as previously adopted by the College. College Counsel submitted that the Panel ought to consider some or all of the following eight factors when determining whether or not to reinstate the Applicant’s teaching certificate:

1. the nature of the professional misconduct;

2. the character of the applicant at the time of the application;

3. the time elapsed since the misconduct;

4. the applicant’s efforts at rehabilitation;

5. whether there is a likelihood of the applicant repeating the misconduct;

6. the effect of reinstatement on the public trust in the profession;

7. whether the original penalty has served its purpose; and

8. whether the applicant possesses the skills and competence necessary to teach.

27College Counsel made submissions with regard to each of the eight factors and ultimately asked the Panel to deny the Application.

28First, College Counsel submitted that the Panel should give great weight to the Applicant’s previous misconduct and to the fact that the Discipline Committee decided to revoke his Certificate. The nature of the Applicant’s professional misconduct was an inappropriate relationship with a young and impressionable student. While the Applicant’s misconduct was not sexual abuse, there was concern from expert witnesses that the Applicant’s behaviour could be considered grooming towards a sexual relationship. College Counsel noted that although the Applicant’s misconduct was not a clear cut case of revocation, the Panel in this instance cannot overlook that a former panel of the Discipline Committee chose to order the most serious penalty available to them.

29Second, the College had no issue with the character of the Applicant at the time of the Application. College Counsel stated that the Applicant is in the best position to provide the Panel with the evidence of his character.

30Third, College Counsel submitted that, given the fact that the Applicant waited 18 years to bring the Application, his application was not made in haste and seems to have been thought through carefully. According to College Counsel, this factor weighs in favour of the Applicant.

31Fourth, regarding the Applicant’s rehabilitation, College Counsel submitted that the Applicant took the steps necessary to rebuild his life and that there is no information before the Panel to suggest that he has not taken rehabilitation seriously.

32Fifth, College Counsel submitted that while it is impossible to predict the Applicant’s future behaviour, even the smallest risk is hard to accept. College Counsel submitted that the severity of the conduct underlying the revocation should not be overlooked by the Panel in considering this factor.

33Sixth, College Counsel acknowledged that the question about whether reinstatement would have a positive or negative influence on the reputation of trust that the public has on the profession is murky. However, in the absence of clarity, the College wants to ensure that the public is clear on its view of such conduct. In light of the serious conduct that gave rise to the revocation, the College does not support the Application.

34Seventh, College Counsel submitted that there have been serious consequences for the Applicant as a result of the revocation of his Certificate. He lost his job and the fact of the revocation was noted on the public register. The College submitted that the Panel should consider if the Applicant has learned from the revocation in considering this factor.

35Eighth, College Counsel submitted that, if the Applicant was to be reinstated, there is no requirement that he would be required to update his teaching qualifications.

36According to College Counsel, the Panel’s primary focus in the Application ought to be the protection of the public. College Counsel submitted that granting the Application is not in the public interest and that the Panel should refuse the Application.

F. DECISION

37The Applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that reinstating his Certificate is appropriate and that it is in the public interest in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.

38Having carefully considered the evidence and the submissions of the parties, and having weighed the Manoukian factors, the Panel finds that the Applicant has successfully proven on a balance of probabilities that he is suitable for reinstatement and that reinstatement is in the public interest. The Panel grants the Application.

G. REASONS FOR DECISION

(1) The Applicant’s Past Misconduct

39The Panel finds that the Applicant’s prior professional misconduct was very serious. It is unacceptable and unprofessional to foster a close physical relationship with a student. The Applicant engaged in serious boundary violations, including hugging the student, hosting the student in his apartment, giving the student rides in his car, giving the student gifts, and meeting with the student outside of school on several occasions. The Applicant clearly exploited his position of trust and authority. While the panel in 2001 did not find that the Applicant’s behaviour had psychological consequences for the student, the Reinstatement Panel believes that the Applicant’s conduct likely had a negative impact. As set out in the 2001 Decision and Reasons (Exhibit 5), the Board offered the student psychiatric counseling and the student accepted this support.

40The Applicant’s conduct fell far below the standards to which members of the teaching profession are held. While the misconduct did not carry with it a mandatory penalty of revocation, a panel of the Discipline Committee nonetheless chose to exercise their discretion under the Act and ordered the most severe penalty available. The Discipline Committee’s order of revocation further demonstrates the gravity of the Applicant’s professional misconduct.

41The Panel notes that the Applicant did not deny his misconduct. He took responsibility for his actions at the original Discipline Committee hearing and again in his submissions with respect to this Application. He made no attempt to defend his behaviour but provided the Panel with some context regarding his circumstances at the time. The Panel accepts the Applicant’s evidence that at the time of the misconduct he had a serious [XXX]problem and was going through a crisis in his marriage.

(2) Applicant’s Character

42The Panel assessed the Applicant’s character at the time of the Application and finds him to be of good character. The Applicant has demonstrated awareness that his behaviour was reprehensible, he expressed sincere remorse, and he accepted responsibility for his prior misconduct.

43The evidence submitted by the Applicant further establishes that he is of good character. Both of his character references were impressive and consistent in their support of the Applicant’s pursuit for reinstatement. The Applicant’s employer confirmed that he has had a positive employment record at Algonquin College for the last 17 years, and the Applicant’s Personal Reference stated that he is dependable, trustworthy, and a dedicated family man.

(3) Time Elapsed Since Misconduct

44The Panel accepts that a significant amount of time has elapsed and that the Application has not been brought in haste. It has been 22 years since the time of the misconduct and almost 19 years since the Applicant’s Certificate was revoked. The Panel finds that sufficient time has passed to allow the Applicant the opportunity to reflect on his behaviour and to understand what a privilege it is to have an Ontario teaching certificate.

(4) Applicant’s Rehabilitation

45The Panel had some concerns with the Applicant’s self-disclosed prior problems with[XXX] and with the fact that these problems were a major contributing factor to his prior misconduct. However, having reviewed the evidence provided by the Applicant regarding his rehabilitation, the Panel concludes that the Applicant is to be commended for his efforts over the past 18 years. He has turned his life around. He attended[XXX] for one and a half years, reconnected with family, grew his support network, remarried and had children. The Applicant has been under the care of the same clinic since 2013. In that time he has not been seen for any [XXX]related issues or [XXX] concerns. The Applicant’s physician also fully supported this Application.

46The Applicant’s successful rehabilitation is further demonstrated by his lengthy employment record. He has been at the same employer since January 28, 2002. During that time he has become a well-respected member of the faculty and has received good employee evaluations.

(5) Likelihood of the Applicant Repeating the Behaviour

47This is a very important factor in the Panel’s consideration as it goes directly to the issues of student safety and wellbeing. The Panel agrees with the submission of College Counsel that it is impossible to predict the Applicant’s future behaviour with absolute certainty.

48Nevertheless, the Applicant has satisfied the Panel that he is unlikely to repeat the kind of behaviour that led to the revocation of his Certificate. The Panel comes to this conclusion in light the Applicant’s rehabilitation. The Applicant’s[XXX], which was a major issue at the time of the misconduct, is no longer of concern according to the Medical Note. The Panel accepts the Applicant’s submission that he has learned better coping skills than he had at the time of the misconduct. Additionally, since the misconduct, the Applicant has had a long history of employment without any disciplinary issues. Throughout his career as a post-secondary school teacher, he has held a position of trust and has been responsible for the welfare of his students. The evidence presented by the Applicant confirms that he has kept his record of employment in good standing, that he has received good employee evaluations, and that he is a well-respected member of the faculty. As such, the Panel believes that there is a very low likelihood of the Applicant repeating his prior misconduct.

(6) Effect of Reinstatement on the Public’s Trust in the Profession

49The Panel finds that reinstatement will maintain the trust and confidence of the public in the teaching profession. As a result of his efforts at rehabilitation, the applicant has achieved the respect of his colleagues and community. The Applicant has shown the public that he is worthy and capable of returning to the profession.

50The Panel also notes that the decision to reinstate the Applicant will not have the effect of erasing the record of the Applicant’s misconduct. The fact of the Applicant’s revocation will remain on the Register and the Decision and Reasons will remain publicly accessible. The Applicant will continue to be accountable to the public for his prior misconduct.

(7) Whether the Original Penalty has Served its Purpose

51The Panel finds that revocation of the Applicant’s Certificate has served its purpose to both the Applicant and the public. The Applicant was unable to teach in Ontario’s publicly funded school system for 19 years. The revocation of the Applicant’s Certificate has been a matter of public record and the Applicant’s public register profile has reflected the revocation.

52Further, the Panel accepts the Applicant’s submission that he has learned from the experience of going through the College’s discipline process and from the revocation of his Certificate. This is evidenced by the fact that the Applicant has taught in the post-secondary school system for 17 years without disciplinary issues. Rehabilitation is one of the purposes and principles that the Discipline Committee considers when making penalty decisions. The original penalty of revocation has served the purpose of rehabilitation.

(8) The Applicant’s Skills and Competence

53The Panel finds that the Applicant likely has most of the necessary skills and competencies to teach as he has been competently teaching post-secondary students for the past 17 years. However, since the Applicant was initially qualified as a teacher, there have been changes to the standards required of members of the College. The Panel believes that the Applicant’s skills can be brought up to date through a course of instruction regarding ethical and professional standards. The Panel has the jurisdiction pursuant to section 33(6) of the Act to direct the Registrar to order terms, conditions and limitations on the Applicant’s Certificate. The Panel’s order in this regard is set out below.

(9) Conclusion

54The Panel takes into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct that led to the revocation of the Applicant’s Certificate and denounces the misconduct in the strongest terms. Nothing in the Panel’s decision should be interpreted as diminishing the Applicant’s prior misconduct. The issue of student wellbeing and safety has been at the forefront of the Panel’s mind during the deliberation process. Having considered all of the factors in totality, the Panel concludes that the Applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that reinstatement is appropriate given the circumstances of this case.

55The Applicant has shown remorse and taken responsibility for his actions in the 22 years that have passed since the misconduct. He has attended professional counselling, sought help for his [XXX], reconnected with family and has achieved success in his career. The Panel is satisfied that the Applicant understands the privilege that comes with being a member of the College and the consequences of abusing that privilege. The public interest is served when individuals who demonstrate awareness of their misconduct, take full responsibility for it, accept the consequences, and work hard at rehabilitation are allowed a second chance. Reinstatement of a Certificate after revocation for the misconduct engaged in by the Applicant is a second chance that must not be granted lightly, but it should also not be impossible to attain.

H. ORDER

56The Panel grants the Application and makes the following order:

1. The Registrar is directed to issue a Certificate of Qualification and Registration to the Applicant.

2. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Applicant’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) Prior to commencing or resuming a teaching position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Applicant shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding ethical and professional standards subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Applicant will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Reinstatement Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) following review of the document noted at 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 Applicant’s skills and competencies. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Applicant and the assignments to be completed by the Applicant;

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Applicant shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner which:

(i) confirms that the Applicant has successfully completed the course and reports on the progress of the Applicant with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

57The Panel is satisfied that the order is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1During the time of the misconduct, subsection 1(7) categorized as misconduct “abusing a student physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally”.