DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION ON MOTION
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
Lucien Michel Rolland Chaput, OCT, and Gilles Auger, OCT, members of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
LUCIEN MICHEL ROLLAND CHAPUT (REGISTRATION #470553)
AND GILLES AUGER (REGISTRATION #262605)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Josée Landriault, OCT Élaine Legault
HEARD: August 27, 2021
Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Corey Willard, for Lucien Michel Rolland Chaput and Gilles Auger
Richard Nolin, for the [XXX Police Service
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.
1On August 27, 2021, the motion was brought before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the "Panel") of the Ontario College of Teachers (the "College"). Pursuant to Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, the proceeding was held electronically.
2Gilles Auger and Lucien Michel Rolland Chaput (the "Members") did not attend the hearing but had legal representation. Counsel for the [XXX] Police Service (“[XXX]PS”) also attended the hearing. Counsel for the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) and the Ministry of the Attorney General did not attend the hearing. The Panel received written submissions from the OPP and the Ministry of the Attorney General, which were produced at the motion.
3The Members agreed to the motion and the Order sought by Counsel for the College. The OPP did not contest it, but set certain conditions. The [XXX] PS neither contested the motion nor took a position on the Order sought. In addition, the Ministry of the Attorney General took no position with regard to the motion or the Order sought.
A. Publication BAN
4The 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 MOTION
5Counsel for the College brought the following motion:
MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD-PARTY PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
THE MOTION seeks to obtain records in the possession of a third party regarding the incidents of September 22 and December 4, 2018 and the investigations conducted into the incidents. Specifically:
- An order compelling the SBPS1 to produce to the Discipline Committee of the College for the Committee’s review and determination as to their provision to College Counsel:
a) An unredacted copy of the general report concerning the incidents of September 22 and December 4, 2018;
b) The unredacted statements of witnesses and recordings (audio and video) of their interviews with regard to the incidents of September 22 and December 4;
c) The unredacted handwritten notes of the officers concerned (school liaison officers, Robin Boucher and Eric Krmpotic) with regard to the incidents of September 22 and December 4;
d) Unredacted copies of any other report(s) or note(s) relating to the incidents of September 22 and December 4.
- An order compelling the OPP to produce to the Discipline Committee of the College for the Committee’s review and determination as to their provision to College Counsel:
a) An unredacted copy of the general report concerning the incidents of September 22 and December 4, 2018;
b) The unredacted statements of witnesses and recordings (audio and video) of their interviews with regard to the incidents of September 22 and December 4;
c) The unredacted handwritten notes of the police officer(s) concerned (Chris McCabe) with regard to the incidents of September 22 and December 4;
d) Unredacted copies of any other report(s) or note(s) relating to the incidents of September 22 and December 4.
THE REASONS FOR THE MOTION ARE as follows:
The allegations of professional misconduct are set out in the Notice of Hearing.
The incidents at issue in this matter involve students at École [XXX] (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario, in the Conseil scolaire catholique Franco-Nord (the "Board"). The incidents took place during the 2018-2019 school year.
At all material times, Mr. Chaput was employed by the Board as Principal of the School. Mr. Auger was employed by the Board as Vice-Principal of the School.
On Saturday, September 22, 2018, some of the School’s students and some members of the [XXX] attended a private party.
Two police services and at least three police officers investigated the incident.
The School’s liaison officers, Constables Robin Boucher and Eric Krmpotic of the [XXX] Police Service, opened an investigation. Because the party on September 22 had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP"), the investigation was turned over to the OPP and was continued by OPP Constable Chris McCabe.
During their investigations, the police officers met with some students and had discussions with the Principal. The officers were also present at some of the meetings between the Principal and some students.
The College has attempted to obtain the documents that are the subject of this motion, but has been unsuccessful, and these documents are relevant and necessary to the hearing.
Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee and section 12 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
C. DECISION
6The Panel has reviewed the motion record produced by College Counsel, the affidavit of Annie Lacroix, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, the prior decisions produced, the submissions by Counsel for the College, Counsel for the Members and Counsel for the [XXX] PS, and the written submissions of the OPP and the Ministry of the Attorney General.
7With regard to the motion to compel third-party production of records, and to enable the Panel to make a determination on the issue of the relevance of the documents, the Panel makes the following Order:
The OPP is to provide the Panel with a copy of the documents described in the notice of motion, within 60 days following receipt of this order, redacting only: the witnesses’ personal information, information that could compromise the interests of the police authorities and privileged information. Should the records contain information that is subject to the provisions in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“YCJA”), the OPP shall inform the Panel and this information shall not be disclosed except as set out in the YCJA.
The [XXX] PS is to provide the Panel with a copy of the documents described in the notice of motion, within 60 days following receipt of this order, redacting only: the witnesses’ personal information, information that could compromise the interests of the police authorities and privileged information. Should the records contain information that is subject to the provisions in the YCJA, the [XXX] PS shall inform the Panel and this information shall not be disclosed except as set out in the YCJA.
8The Panel finds that the criterion of likely relevance of the documents required met the threshold for the first stage of the test set out in R. v. O’Connor, 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411 [O’Connor].
9Once the Panel has obtained the aforementioned documents, its analysis will proceed to the second stage of the test set out in O’Connor; that is, determining whether they should be produced to the parties. Following this review, the Panel will issue a written decision and reasons, as well as a supplementary order.
August 27, 2021
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Josée Landriault, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel