DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Meighan 2021 ONOCT 100

Date: 2021-09-20

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

Sean Andrew Meighan, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

SEAN ANDREW MEIGHAN (REGISTRATION #426913)

PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair Diane Freeman Gary Pieters, OCT

HEARD: September 16, 2021

Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Michelle Sun and Mukta Batra, for Sean Andrew Meighan

Julie Maciura, 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 September 16, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Sean Andrew Meighan (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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 14, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Sean Andrew Meighan is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) 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);

(b) he 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, Sean Andrew Meighan was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “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 Near North District School Board (the “Board”) as a Vice-Principal, working at various schools within the Board’s district.

3. [XXX] School (the “School”) is a school within the Board’s district in North Bay, Ontario. At all material times, the [XXX] was a student at the School under the age of 19.

4. On October 27, 2017, the Member permitted [XXX] to have a small private gathering with his invitees only at [XXX] following the School’s [XXX]. The party was attended by youth, both invited and uninvited, under the age of 19, including students from the School and the Board.

5. The party was held in the Member’s [XXX]. The Member greeted guests at the [XXX], but primarily stayed [XXX]. Many attendees circumvented the [XXX] and went into the [XXX] directly without the Member’s knowledge.

6. Over the course of the night, the Member periodically went into the [XXX] and onto [XXX] to check on attendees of the party. During these checks, the Member knew or ought to have known that attendees of the party were drinking alcohol.

7. One or more students at the party smoked marijuana in the Member’s [XXX]- without the Member’s knowledge.

8. During the party, a fight broke out among a few attendees of the party without the Member’s knowledge.

9. When the Member noticed uninvited guests were coming and that the volume of guests was greater than expected, the Member spoke to [XXX] and put an end to the party. The Member assisted attendees of the party to get home safely.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

10. 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 1-9 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

11. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 5-8 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 him, being more particularly:

(a) he committed an act or omission 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) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

12. By this document the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

(b) he understands that 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 Discipline 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 with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

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

13. 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.

14. 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 September 16, 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 9 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.

8The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct is unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Conduct characterized as “unprofessional”, is commonly understood to involve a disregard for a member’s professional obligations, including a failure to demonstrate good judgment. The Member allowed [XX] to host a party following a [XXX] where students of the Board attended. The Member did not serve or encourage students to consume alcohol or marijuana during the party taking place in the [XXX], but the Member knew or ought to have known that there was a risk of underage consumption of alcohol and/or marijuana at [XXX], and that party attendees were in fact drinking alcohol and/or using marijuana at [XXX]. During the party, a fight broke out without the Member’s knowledge. In his role as a member of the profession and a leader of the school community, the Member should have been more vigilant about what students were doing at [XXX]. While these events occurred within the Member’s private life, his duties as a member of the profession and senior leader in the school community still applied. By his lack of vigilance, the Member jeopardized the safety and well-being of students. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct can properly be characterized as unprofessional. The Panel did not find that the Member’s misconduct rose to the level of disgraceful or dishonourable conduct given the circumstances of this case.

9The Panel also finds that the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public could lose confidence in the profession knowing that a member knew or ought to have known that underage drinking or marijuana use by students was occurring on his [XXX]. The public’s confidence could be further eroded given the professional expectations of members occupying a senior leadership role within the school community.

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 September 16, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to 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”);

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 enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics and boundaries, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member shall provide the 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 his 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. Halliday, 2014 ONOCT 47 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Beebakhee, 2016 ONOCT 3.

12The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are two main aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, Member’s poor decision-making jeopardized student safety. By allowing [XXX] to host a party at [XXX], the Member provided an opportunity for underage drinking and marijuana use to occur among students of the Board and other youth. Indeed, a fight broke out at the party where attendees had consumed alcohol and marijuana. Second, the Member was a senior leader within the school community and ought to have known better than to allow [XXX] to host this type of gathering at [XXX] without more vigilant supervision. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct and entered into a resolution with the College, which saved the time and expense of a contested hearing. The Member has also not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. When the Member noticed that uninvited guests were attending, the Member put an end to the party and ensured that students got home safely. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

13The Panel finds that the Member’s poor judgment with respect to students attending at [XXX] for a party warrants a reprimand. 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 professional ethics and boundaries will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and administrator and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. Given the nature of the Member’s misconduct, it is recommended that the course consider the risks and harms of alcohol and marijuana use by underage students.

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