Ontario College of Teachers v. Hallman, 2021 ONOCT 123

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Hallman 2021 ONOCT 123

Date: 2021-11-04

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

Shae Erin Hallman, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

SHAE ERIN HALLMAN (REGISTRATION #424577)

PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Ben Drory Kevin McCarthy

HEARD: November 3, 2021

Charlotte-Anne Malischewski, for the Ontario College of Teachers Sheilagh Turkington, for Shae Erin Hallman 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 November 3, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Shae Erin Hallman (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 22, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Shae Erin Hallman is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(c) she 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;

(d) she engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;¹

(e) she 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);²

(f) she 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);

(g) 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);

(h) 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. Shae Erin Hallman 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Thames Valley District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. In or around the academic year 2017-2018, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class at the School. Student 1 was considered by the Principal to be a student at risk and vulnerable.

4. Prior to the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member had coached Student 1 in sports programs at the School, including [XXX] and [XXX]. The Member had also taught Student 1’s[XXX]. Student 1 was friends [XXX].

5. During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member developed a personal relationship with Student 1, raising boundary issues. This included the following activities:

(a) driving Student 1 alone in the Member’s vehicle to and from school, on several occasions;

(b) allowing Student 1 to attend sleepovers [XXX] at the Member’s home, which he did on more than one occasion;

(c) taking Student 1 to events outside of school [XXX], including a [XXX] game.

6. During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student [sic], which included the following:

(a) hugging Student 1;

(b) frequently communicating with Student 1 through text messaging, social media, phone calls, and FaceTime;

(c) on multiple occasions, telling Student 1 that she loved him.

7. In January 2018, the Member spoke with her Principal about Student 1 and expressed concerns that Student 1 had “creeped” her on Facebook. The Principal called Student 1’s mother while the Member was present. Student 1’s mother expressed that she felt that Student 1 had a crush on the Member. Following the call, the Principal told the Member that this was this was [sic] even more of a reason to not engage in anything extra with Student 1. The Principal told the Member to let her know if she required more support.

8. In March 2018, the Member advised her Principal that her [XXX] had taken Student 1 to a [XXX] game and that she was driving Student 1 to and from school. The Principal reiterated to the Member how important it was for her to keep her distance from Student 1 and that things can quickly spiral out of control in a small community.

9. Despite the advice and direction she received from her Principal, the Member continued to engage in the conduct with Student 1 as described in paragraphs 5 and 6.

10. The Member engaged in frequent electronic communications with Student 1 and continued to do so even after her discussion with the Principal in March 2018. The communications exchanged between the Member and Student 1 after March 2018 included the following text messages of a sexualized nature:

(a) Student 1: Getting in the shower (a)Member: I was just in the shower too! (a)Student 1: I’m out (a)Member: Me too! It’s like a shower together. But more appropriate.

(b) Member: I dumped about 550 ml of water down my sweater. I can still feel a fairly continuous water drip from my bra. (b)Student 1: If I was there I would clean it. (b)Member: I know.

(c) Student 1: What are you doing. Please don’t do anything with that guy (c)Member: Of course not. We made a deal! (c)Student 1: I know this sounds dumb but I’m actually stressing out (c)Member: So then you know how I feel.

(d) Student 1: Ily [I love you]; ILy [I love you]; So much (d)Member: I love you too [Student 1]

(e) Member: How was your day [Student 1]? (e)Student 1: Good how was your (e)Member: Good! What was your favourite part? (e)Student 1: When I saw you (e)Member: I didn’t see you… (e)Student 1: Face time (e)Member: Ahhh…Got it

(f) Member: Call me if you decide you want to stay here; Ily2 [I love you too]

(g) Member: Talking to sketchy girls? (g)Student 1: If you’re sketchy girl (g)Member: Apparently. But you weren’t talking to me for like 15 minutes (g)Student 1: I’m here now

(h) Student 1: What you doing (h)Member: Missing you? (h)Student 1: Me too

11. On or about April 10, 2018, two of the Member’s colleagues made reports to the School and the Children’s Aid Society regarding the Member’s inappropriate relationship with Student 1. The colleagues had seen text exchanges between Student 1 and the Member on Student 1’s phone.

12. The Board began an investigation regarding the Member’s conduct with Student 1. On September 28, 2018, the Board terminated the Member’s employment. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s September 28, 2018 letter to the Member.

13. The Member is no longer teaching and does not intend to return to a teaching position.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

14. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

15. 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 her being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19). The Member further acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute sexual abuse as defined in Section 1 of the Act.

16. 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 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 between counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

17. 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.

18. In light of the Uncontested Facts and the circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (d) and (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act and that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw subsection 1(14) was being sought because it would be duplicative in this case to proceed under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14), and the College is seeking a finding under subsection 1(5) only. College Counsel further submitted that the behaviour in this case is best characterized as “sexual abuse”, and not “sexual misconduct” and, as such, the College is not requesting that the Panel make a finding of “sexual misconduct”. The Panel granted these requests.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 3, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Panel also finds that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student of a nature defined in section 1 of the Act.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 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 engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with and sent sexual messages to Student 1.

9The Panel finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The standards of the profession include, among other things, the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. The Panel finds that the Member breached these ethical standards, and in particular, the ethical standards of “Respect” and “Trust”. The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity and emotional wellness of their students and others. The ethical standard of “Trust” provides that “Members’ professional relationships with students and parents are based on trust”. The Member repeatedly abused her trusted position as a teacher through her inappropriate relationship with Student 1. She frequently communicated with Student 1, told him that she loved him, and alluded to inappropriate behaviours such as showering with him. The Member continued to have these inappropriate communications even after being told to keep her distance from Student 1 by her principal. By violating appropriate professional boundaries with Student 1, the Member showed a complete disregard for his emotional wellness and created a negative learning environment for him. Furthermore, the Member breached the trust placed in her by her principal and by Student 1’s parents.

10The Panel finds that the Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted that evidence from Student 1 regarding the effect of the Member’s conduct is not required to prove that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused him. It can be inferred that by sending sexualized messages and entering into an inappropriate relationship with Student 1, the Member’s actions had the potential to adversely affect his emotional well-being since he was young and vulnerable. The Panel accepts these submissions and places significant weight on the fact that the Member has pleaded no contest to the allegation of psychological or emotional abuse. Given the power dynamic that existed between the Member and Student 1, it was psychologically or emotionally abusive for the Member to engage in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1.

11The Member’s conduct constitutes sexual abuse of a student contrary to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and as defined in section 1 of the Act. The definition of “sexual abuse” at section 1 of the Act includes behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by a member towards a student. The Member’s communications with Student 1 are self-evidently of a sexual nature, as they allude to showering together and to Student 1 cleaning up water from the Member’s bra. This behaviour meets the definition of sexual abuse under the Act.

12The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among other things, this provision requires teachers to demonstrate the highest regard for a number of virtues and to serve as positive role models. The Member abused her position of trust and authority by having an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1, growing close to him, and exchanging messages of a sexual nature with the student. By engaging in this conduct the Member demonstrated a fundamental breach of her duties as a teacher.

13The Member breached subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. It was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional for the Member to foster an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1 that included communications of a sexual nature. The Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment since it persisted for the duration of an academic year. Members of the teaching profession are expected to be upstanding members of society, to safeguard the well-being of students and to maintain professional boundaries with students at all times. The Member failed to meet these expectations. The teaching profession does not tolerate such abhorrent conduct.

14The Member’s conduct, as described above, is also unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. This conduct undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and violates the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.

F. PENALTY Decision

15The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on November 3, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

2. 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”).

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

16The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included the sexual abuse of a student, as described in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. Given this finding, section 30.2(1) of the Act provides that the Panel must make an order: (1) requiring that the Member be reprimanded by the Panel; and (2) directing the Registrar to revoke the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration. The Panel makes both of these orders and notes that these mandatory penalty provisions apply retrospectively in this case pursuant to section 63.2 of the Act.³ The Panel recognizes that it may also order costs or a fine in accordance with subsection 30(5) of the Act but finds it reasonable not to make these additional orders in light of the Member’s plea of no contest and joint submission on penalty.

17The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
3. 3Although this mandatory penalty provision for the kind of misconduct exhibited by the Member (i.e., communications of a sexual nature) was not in force at the time of the Member’s sexual abuse of Student 1 (i.e. during the 2017-2018 academic year), section 63.2 of the Act provides that the mandatory penalty provisions at section 30.2 of the Act (which apply to all forms of sexual abuse, including behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature) apply retrospectively where the sexual abuse occurred before April 3, 2019 and no order has been made under subsection 30(4) of the Act before then. These conditions are met in this case and the Panel must therefore apply the mandatory penalty provisions set out at section 30.2 of the Act.