Ontario College of Teachers v. Lancia, 2021 ONOCT 10

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Lancia 2021 ONOCT 10

Date: 2021-02-23

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

Ester Sonia Lancia, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ESTER SONIA LANCIA (REGISTRATION #422776)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair Richard Filion Wanda Percival

HEARD: January 11 and February 23, 2021

Aly Háji and Jordan Glick, for the Ontario College of Teachers Vanora Simpson, for Ester Sonia Lancia Erica Richler, 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 proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on January 11 and February 23, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Ester Sonia Lancia (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation attend on her behalf. 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 October 2, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Ester Sonia Lancia is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) 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);

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

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. At all material times, Ester Sonia Lancia was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the College’s Registered Member Information for the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the York Region District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at Vellore Woods Public School (the “School”) in Woodbridge, Ontario.

3. The Member was absent from the School from May 6, 2019 to June 30, 2019.

4. On June 10, 2019, the Board received a medical note, dated May 16, 2019, in support of the Member’s absence.

5. On June 24, 2019, the Board asked the Member to attend a meeting to discuss concerns that had come to the Board’s attention regarding the Member’s absence. The Member refused to meet with the Board on June 27, 2019 and on July 9, 2019, although she continued to correspond with the Board by e-mail during this period.

6. On August 26, 2019, the Member met with the Board to review her absence from work. At this meeting, the Member confirmed that she was in Italy from June 7, 2019 to July 19, 2019, having booked her trip in mid-March 2019. The Board was not aware that the Member travelled to Italy while on medical leave nor that she had booked her travel to Italy in March of 2019 in advance of her first date of absence.

7. During the meeting, the Member supplied a medical note from a physician in Rome indicating that she had received medical treatment while in Rome.

8. On September 19, 2019, the Board issued the Member a written reprimand and a 16-day unpaid suspension. It also reclaimed the pay that was given to the Member from June 7, 2019 to June 30, 2019.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

9. By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-8 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

10. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 3-8 of the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly:

(a) 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);

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

11. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that, by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she understands that the Discipline Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) 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;

(f) she understands that any agreement with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(g) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.

12. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, 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.

13. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 23, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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 travelled abroad during a medical leave without informing the Board of her intention to travel.

8The Panel finds that the Member’s actions would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member provided the Board with documentation to support a medical absence and neglected to inform the Board of her intended trip to Italy, which was booked months earlier. The Member did not inform the Board of her intention to travel to Italy either when the trip was booked or when medical leave was requested. As leaders and role models in their school communities, it is improper for members of the profession to engage in this type of misleading conduct. The Member’s misconduct involved dishonesty towards her employer, and is therefore properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

9The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s misconduct is an example of behaviour that seriously undermines the reputation of the teaching profession. The public places a great deal of trust in members of the profession and the Member demonstrated a breach of this trust by her actions.

F. PENALTY DECISION

10The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 23, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete, at her own expense, a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, regarding ethical practice, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 2(a)(i) above, the course practitioner shall 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 assignments to be completed by the Member; and

(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in paragraph 2(a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report from the course practitioner 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

11The 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 College Counsel Ontario College of Teachers v. Millson, 2018 ONOCT 18, Ontario College of Teachers v Roloson, 2018 ONOCT 60, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Marok, 2020 ONOCT 154.

12The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is the Member’s initial refusal to meet with her Board regarding her misconduct. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her misconduct, showing insight into her behaviour and saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Additionally, the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. The Member has also experienced consequences for her misconduct through Board discipline, which included a reprimand, a suspension, and a repayment of three-weeks’ salary. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

13The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. 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.

14The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding ethical practice will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with her employers.

15The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.