DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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 Michael Paul Costigan, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MICHAEL PAUL COSTIGAN (REGISTRATION #590886)
PANEL: Emile Ramlochan, Chair Rebecca Forte, OCT Diane Freeman
HEARD: October 1, 2021
Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jordan Donich and Carley Reynolds, for Michael Paul Costigan Erica Richler, 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 the person 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 October 1, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Michael Paul Costigan (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.
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 December 21, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Michael Paul Costigan is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) 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;1
(b) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, and specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(c) 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);
(d) 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);2
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Michael Paul Costigan 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 Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Hamilton, Ontario.
Student 1 was a female student in the Member’s [XXX]class during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 academic years. In the 2015-2016 academic year, she completed her [XXX] school [XXX] requirements through a [XXX] and remained a student of the Board until June 2016.
Between August 2014 and August 2016, the Member engaged in a personal relationship with Student 1. There is no evidence that the Member and Student 1 were involved in sexual activity during this time.
The Member and Student 1 met at school. Student 1 frequently spent time between classes, often with friends, visiting the Member in his class to socialize with him and discuss personal matters.
Over the relevant time period, the Member also came to know Student 1’s family, as he assisted them with car repairs and the purchase of car parts. This involved attending at Student 1’s home from time to time. On occasion, the Member would stay for a meal or to socialize with Student 1 and her family.
In August 2014, Student 1 was diagnosed with [XXX] and, in October 2014, she began [XXX]. Student 1 shared this personal information with the Member. While Student 1 was in [XXX], the Member came to visit her there on two occasions.
Following this difficult time, the Member and Student 1 became friends.
The Member and Student 1 spent time together outside of school. Their interactions often revolved around their mutual interest in [XXX]. On occasion, the Member drove Student 1 home from work and met with her for a coffee.
The Member and Student 1 spoke on the phone about non-school related matters. They also texted one another in relation to school matters and to discuss repairs to the student’s and her family’s vehicles.
In July 2016, one month after Student 1 [XXX] from the [XXX], the Member accompanied her on an all-inclusive, week long vacation to [XXX] where they stayed in the same hotel room. It had been over two years since Student 1 had been a student of the member.
In March 2018, the Member and Student 1 had a heated argument relating to money that Student 1 owed the Member for car parts that he had provided to her. Their dispute took place in the driveway of Student 1’s parents’ home. The Member angrily grabbed a torque wrench from his trunk to remove the parts from the student’s car, and held the wrench in an aggressive manner. This caused great upset to Student 1 who cried and ran away from the Member. The incident was captured on a video security camera.
When Student 1’s parents learned about the nature of the Member’s relationship with their daughter, they reported the matter to the Board. Following a Board investigation, the Member’s employment was terminated on May 2, 2020.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional only), and 1(19).
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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty 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’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;
(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and the plea of guilt, 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 subsections 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and/or that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Panel find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation with respect to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 was being sought because the evidence did not support this allegation. In relation to the narrowing of the subsection 1(18) allegation, College counsel submitted that this request was being made as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. The Panel granted these requests to withdraw or narrow the allegations set out above.
8Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 1, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Student 1.
10The Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, which are set out in section 32 of the Bylaws of the Ontario College of Teachers. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate a commitment to students’ well-being and learning among other things. The ethical standard of “Respect” refers to the honouring of human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development of others. The ethical standard of “Trust” embodies fairness, openness and honesty, and is the basis of teachers’ professional relationships with students, parents or guardians, and the public. The ethical standard of “Integrity” refers to honesty, reliability and moral action as core values of the teaching profession. By engaging in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1 while she was his student, including attending her home, meeting her for coffee, extending favours and assisting her and her family with car issues, socializing and having dinner with Student 1 and her family, occasionally driving her home from work alone, and communicating privately with her over text and telephone about non-school matters, the Member showed a lack of professional judgment and violated the trust that Student 1 and her parents had placed in him. The Member did not honour the emotional wellbeing of Student 1, when he put his own personal interests above the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship. Student 1 was in a vulnerable position relative to the authority held by the Member, and it was not fair for the Member to have blurred the lines of their relationship.
11The Member’s conduct as described above also contravenes subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among other things, as teachers are in a position of trust and authority, they are expected to set an example for students by acting as positive role models. Teachers must exemplify moral values both on and off duty. When the Member used his position of trust and authority to get close to Student 1 and extended their relationship to outside of the school, he fundamentally failed his duties as a teacher. The Member should have known that he was putting his personal interests above the moral duties of a teacher.
12The Panel finds that the Member’s behaviour was unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Unprofessional conduct is conduct that shows a disregard for the Member’s professional obligations, contrary to the Member’s training. The Member’s boundary violations with Student 1 demonstrated a serious lack of professional judgment. Teachers are responsible for maintaining appropriate, professional boundaries with students at all times, and the Member repeatedly failed to do so by developing a personal relationship with Student 1 while she was a student.
13Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. As stewards of the public trust, teachers are expected to exercise sound professional judgment both inside and outside of the school environment. They are held to a high standard because of the important role that they play in their communities, which requires them to be trusted members of society. The Member’s trip with Student 1 to [XXX] so shortly after she had [XXX] as a student from the Board, during which they shared a room and could appear for all intents as a couple, was highly inappropriate and showed poor judgment. On a separate occasion, the Member entered into an argument with Student 1 and took a threatening pose, with a raised torque wrench, causing Student 1 to fear for her safety, run away and cry. The Member’s inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1 was a violation of the trust that is placed in teachers and reflects poorly on the Member and on the teaching profession as a whole.
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 October 1, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of eight (8) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) prior to returning to teaching, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundary violations with students, 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 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 (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course or courses 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 or courses to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) 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 or courses and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course or courses.
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 College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Riley, 2019 ONOCT 61, Ontario College of Teachers v. Gidney, 2020 ONOCT 174; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Montgomery, 2018 ONOCT 4.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that the Member’s conduct toward and relationship with Student 1 occurred over a long period of time, and when she was in an unsettling and vulnerable time in her life. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct and has taken responsibility for his actions. By entering into a resolution with the College, the Member has spared witnesses from having to testify and has saved the time and expense of a contested hearing. The Member also has no prior discipline history with the College. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
17The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. As a role model in a position of trust and authority, teachers must be mindful and always maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students. While it is entirely appropriate for teachers to show concern for and maintain positive relationships with their students, the Member’s conduct toward and interactions with Student 1 crossed the line of what is appropriate and acceptable. The Member showed a lack of professional judgment and disregard for his professional obligations. 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 also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that an eight-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on October 16, 2021, which is 15 calendar days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The Panel expects that the course provider will assist the Member in developing insight and awareness into his misconduct. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: October 12, 2021
Emile Ramlochan Chair, Discipline Panel
Rebecca Forte, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Diane Freeman Member, Discipline Panel