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
Bradley James Ziegler, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
BRADLEY JAMES ZIEGLER (REGISTRATION #283152)
PANEL: Jonathan Rose, Chair Jessica Saffran Reimers, OCT Kimberley Westfall-Connor
HEARD: October 18, 2021
Charlotte-Anne Malischewski for the Ontario College of Teachers Jack Brown, for Bradley James Ziegler Julie Maciura, 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 18, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Bradley James Ziegler (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 for Student 1, Colleague 1, Colleague 2, Colleague 3, and Colleague 4, who were allegedly sexually abused, or the subject of sexual misconduct or a prohibited act involving child pornography. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identities of, or any information that could disclose the identities of Student 1, Colleague 1, Colleague 2, Colleague 3 and Colleague 4.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 12, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Bradley James Ziegler is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);1
(b) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) 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;2
(e) he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(f) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(g) 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);
(h) 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);
(i) he engaged in conduct unbecoming of a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Bradley James Ziegler 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 District School Board of Niagara (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).
At all material times Student 1 was a female grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class.
At all material times Colleague 1 was a female Educational Assistant at the School.
At all material times Colleague 2 was a female Educational Assistant at the School.
At all material times Colleague 3 was a female Teacher at the School.
At all material times Colleague 4 was a female Teacher at the School.
Interaction with Student 1
During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member interacted with Student 1 in an inappropriate fashion by play fighting with her and poking her in the side on more than one occasion. The Member also stood close to Student 1 and stared at her.
Student 1 felt very uncomfortable with the Member’s behaviour.
Interactions with Colleague 1
During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member engaged in professional misconduct in respect of Colleague 1.
The Member would often touch Colleague 1 without her consent including touching her leg, rubbing her back and patting her buttocks.
On three or more occasions, the Member told Colleague 1 that he had sexual dreams about her. On one occasion, the Member detailed a dream he had of Colleague 1 being on his snowmobile, naked under her jump suit.
On one occasion, while Colleague 1 was delivering a coffee to the Member, the Member touched Colleague 1’s shirt and tickled her without her consent. The Member then pointed to Colleague 1’s midsection and touched her shirt stating that he wanted to see her belly button ring.
During a conversation with Colleague 1, Colleague 2 and three other educational assistants, two of whom were male, the Member showed Colleague 1 a photo of a bedframe he had purchased and asked both her and Colleague 2 if they wanted to go to Amish-county in Pennsylvania with him to pick it up.
Colleague 1 had another job working at a [XXX]. The Member attended the [XXX] and hugged Colleague 1 when he arrived and when he left, without her consent.
Colleague 1 felt very uncomfortable and nervous and she went out of her way to avoid the Member because of his behaviour.
Interactions with Colleague 2
During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member engaged in professional misconduct in respect of Colleague 2.
The Member would often touch Colleague 2 without her consent including touching her lower back. On one occasion, Colleague 2 told the Member to stay out of her personal space in reaction to his touching of her.
Colleague 2 felt uncomfortable with the Member’s behaviour.
Interactions with Colleague 3
During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 academic years, the Member engaged in professional misconduct in respect of Colleague 3.
In April 2017, while the Member and Colleague 3 were watching the school dance team in the gymnasium, while the lights were down low, the Member placed his hand on her side and then on her buttocks, without her consent. The Member then snickered and grinned at Colleague 3.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member offered Colleague 3, on two separate occasions, to park her car at his home and use his access to a private beach.
Colleague 3 felt very uncomfortable with the Member’s behaviour and she made sure to never be alone with the Member and to always face him.
Interactions with Colleague 4
During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 academic years, the Member engaged in professional misconduct in respect of Colleague 4.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member repeatedly asked Colleague 4 if he could walk her to her car after a party. The Member kept approaching Colleague 4 throughout the party.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, during an after-hours staff social event, the Member sat beside Colleague 4 who was sitting with her hands between her thighs. The Member reached out and grabbed Colleague 4’s hand from her lap.
The Member would often touch Colleague 4 without her consent including touching her back.
Colleague 4 felt very uncomfortable with the Member’s behaviour.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 8-28 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member further does not contest that the Uncontested Facts in paragraph 8-9 constitute sexual misconduct as defined in Section 1 of the Act.
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 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 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 between counsel for the College and himself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, 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.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, 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 allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. College Counsel sought the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation with respect to subsection 1(5) because the allegation was duplicative with the allegation under subsection 1(14). With respect to the allegations that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.3) and/or that he engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct was more accurately captured by the allegation that he had engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in the Act. The Panel granted these requests.
8Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 18, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act.
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 8 to 28 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. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member made inappropriate comments towards and engaged in unwanted and inappropriate touching of several female colleagues and that he also engaged in inappropriate behaviour with respect to Student 1.
10The Member physically abused Student 1 contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member did not contest that he engaged in inappropriate contact of Student 1 when he play fought with her, and, on more than one occasion, poked her in the side. This type of repeated physical contact is completely unnecessary and demonstrates a lack of respect for the professional boundaries that teachers must maintain with students. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct constitutes physical abuse of Student 1. In making this determination, the Panel places significant weight on the fact that the Member has pleaded no contest to the allegation of physical abuse of a student.
11The Member psychologically or emotionally abused Student 1 contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession are expected to ensure that the school environment is a safe space for students – both physically and emotionally. By standing close to Student 1 and staring at her, and by inappropriately touching the student, the Member made Student 1 feel very uncomfortable. The Panel therefore accepts that the Member’s conduct constituted psychological or emotional abuse of Student 1.
12The Panel find the Member engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act. The Panel notes that the Member did not contest that his behaviour as described in paragraphs 8-9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest constitutes sexual misconduct toward Student 1. Moreover, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct toward his female colleagues constituted sexual misconduct. After having considered the advice of Independent Legal Counsel that the definition of sexual misconduct in section 1 of the Act does not require the misconduct to necessarily be directed to a student, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct toward Colleague 3 in the school gymnasium while they were watching the school dance team, as described in paragraph 21 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, constitutes sexual misconduct as defined in the Act. The Member’s conduct toward Colleague 3, namely touching her side and buttocks in the school gymnasium without her consent, then grinning and snickering at her, was inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature, though not directed toward a student, that occurred under circumstances where the Member knew or ought to have known that one more students were likely to be exposed to the behaviour; and a reasonable person would expect the behaviour to cause distress to a student exposed to the behaviour, be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of a student, or create a negative environment at the school for a student exposed to that behaviour.
13The Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). In particular, the Member breached the ethical standards of the profession set out at section 32.02 of the by-laws. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment, and empathy in practice. The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness, and cognitive development. The Member’s repeated boundary violations with Student 1 and his female colleagues showed a clear disregard for their human dignity and wellness. The Member’s conduct did not create a safe and supportive learning environment at the school. Rather, the Member made Student 1 and four female colleagues uncomfortable.
14The Member failed to comply with the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Section 264(1) of the Education Act outlines the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(c), in particular, requires teachers to act as positive role models by upholding several enumerated moral values. The Member’s conduct was at odds with the modelling required of him. Teachers must maintain proper boundaries at all times.
15The Member’s conduct could reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). The Member’s conduct toward Student 1 and his female colleagues was entirely inappropriate. The Member failed to show the good judgment and ethical values required of him as a teacher in his interactions with these women. The Member’s professionalism was repeatedly called into question as he directed unwanted attention at his female students and colleagues, which made them feel uncomfortable around him. The Member does not contest, and the Panel is of the view that the Member’s conduct can be rightfully characterized by all three terms in subsection 1(18).
16The Member’s conduct was unbecoming of a member of the College, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession are expected to be stewards of the public trust. Students, parents, and colleagues should be able to trust that when they go to school or are around their colleagues, they will be safe from unwanted contact, comments, or staring. The public’s trust and confidence in the teaching profession is eroded when members engage in boundary violations as the Member has done in this case.
F. PENALTY Decision
17The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 18, 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 shall 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 four (4) 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) within 120 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations, 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 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;
(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 and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
18The 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. Boyce (22 September 2021);3 Ontario College of Teachers v. Tudor, 2021 ONOCT 46; Ontario College of Teachers v. Fazl, 2019 ONOCT 2; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Phillips, 2019 ONOCT 74.
19The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The Panel considers it an aggravating factor that the Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment but rather consisted of a pattern of disregard and disrespect for Student 1 and several of his female colleagues. The Member also failed to remediate his behaviour on his own, and at least one instance of his misconduct involving his colleagues occurred in the presence of students and contributed to a negative school environment. In terms of mitigating factors, this is the Member’s first appearance before the Discipline Committee. The Member has participated in the discipline process and has willingly entered into a resolution, thereby sparing witnesses from having to testify and saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
20The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members of the teaching profession are expected to maintain professional boundaries at all times, both with colleagues but especially with students. Teachers are expected to act as positive role models and to create safe spaces for students and colleagues alike. The Member did not do so. This 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.
21Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a four-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 of a significant term 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, especially in its repeated nature, is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on November 2, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
22The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his professional obligations and will help him to make better decisions in future interactions with students and colleagues. The Panel appreciates that the coursework will be conducted while the Member is suspended, to help the Member gain insight into what is appropriate conduct prior to returning to teaching. The Panel is satisfied that this will ensure the protection of the public.
23The Panel is satisfied that the penalty ordered is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: October 28, 2021
Jonathan Rose Chair, Discipline Panel
Jessica Saffran Reimers, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Kimberley Westfall-Connor Member, Discipline Panel