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 Stephanie Nadia Colangelo, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
Stephanie Nadia Colangelo (REGISTRATION #467929)
PANEL: Jonathan Rose Rachelle Coleman Stéphane Vallée, OCT
HEARD: October 25, 2021
COUNSEL: Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers James Melnick, for Stephanie Nadia Colangelo 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.
By order of Justice of the Peace R. Whalen of the Ontario Court of Justice, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify a victim or a witness in this matter, pursuant to subsection 486.4 of the Criminal Code.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on October 25, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Stephanie Nadia Colangelo (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, Student 2, and Student 3, 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, Student 2, or Student 3.
5The Panel also received a certified copy of the transcript of the Reasons for Judgment from the Member’s criminal proceeding before Justice F. O’Donnell dated November 24, 2020 (Exhibit 2 at Appendix E), which indicated that Justice of the Peace R. Whalen of the Ontario Court of Justice made an order on June 22, 2018, restricting publication pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”). The Panel is required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, any information that could identify a victim or a witness involved in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated July 12, 2021 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Stephanie Nadia Colangelo 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 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);
(e) she contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);
(f) she contrived [sic] a law, the contravention of which of has caused or may have caused a student who is under the member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);
(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 of a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
7College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), amended orally on the record, which provides the following:
Stephanie Nadia Colangelo is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). Her membership status with the College has been ‘Suspended – Non-Payment of Fees’ since April 17, 2019. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Member’s Registered Member Information with the College.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Niagara Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in St. Catharines, Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3 were male Grade [XXX] students, between the ages of [XXX] and [XXX], at the School. They were all previously taught by the Member at the School.
Between on or about June 15, 2018 and on or about June 17, 2018, the Member engaged in inappropriate online activities of a sexual nature with students from the School, including Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3. These activities included, but were not limited to:
(a) sending electronic messages of a sexual nature to the students, including Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3, some of which inferred sexual activity;
(b) sending sexualized photos and videos of herself to the students, including Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3, some of which contained nudity;
(c) suggesting that the students, including Student 1 and Student 2, send her provocative photos of themselves;
(d) suggesting to the students, including Student 1 and Student 2, that she would pick up any students who were interested so that they could engage in sexual activity, including sexual intercourse.
- On or about June 21, 2018, the Member was criminally charged with the following offences:
(a) luring a child to make child pornography, in respect of Student 1 and Student 3, contrary to section 172.1(2) of the Code;
(b) luring a child to commit sexual exploitation, in respect of Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3, contrary to section 172.1(2) of the Code; and
(c) making available sexually explicit material to a person under 18, in respect of Student 1 and Student 3, contrary to section 171.1(2) of the Code.
On or about June 27, 2018, the Member resigned from her employment with the Board.
On or about July 9, 2018, Family and Children’s Services Niagara (“FACS”) verified that the Member engaged in “inappropriate online sexual activities with students from [the School]”. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the letter dated July 9, 2018 from FACS to the Board to this effect.
On or about November 24, 2020, the Member pled guilty to the charge of luring a child to commit sexual exploitation, in respect of Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3, contrary to section 172.1(2) of the Code. The remaining charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.
On the same date, the Member received a conditional sentence of two years less a day, with the first ten months to be served in the Member’s home. The Member was also placed on probation for one year and made subject to various ancillary orders.
The Member did not appeal her conviction or sentence.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” are certified copies of the Court Information sworn June 22, 2018, appearances/adjournments and the disposition in the criminal proceeding.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” are certified copies of the Adult Conditional Sentence Order and the Adult Probation Order, dated November 24, 2020.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” is a certified copy of the transcript of the Proceedings at Trial (Guilty Plea, Reasons for Judgment, and Reasons for Sentence) before the Honourable Justice F. O’Donnell, dated November 24, 2020.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-13 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts at paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 to 13 above constitute conduct that is professional misconduct and pleads guilty 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(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also acknowledges that she engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students, as defined in section 1 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996. The Member further acknowledges that the conviction for child luring constitutes a prescribed sexual act as defined in section 1 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.1
By signing 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that she is pleading guilty to the allegations, and is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) 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;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her and the College with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or with the opportunity to have obtained the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
8Having considered the amended Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 25, 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(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act.
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 her. She 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 engaged in online sexual communications with students from her School. The Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea along with the transcript (which is an exhibit to the Agreed Statement of Facts) demonstrates that the Member also pled guilty to and was found guilty of the criminal offence of luring a child to commit sexual exploitation contrary to section 172.1(2) of the Code2, in respect of Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3.
10During the hearing and in the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Member also acknowledged that her conviction of child luring would constitute a “prescribed sexual act” which is one of the types of professional misconduct listed in section 1 of the Act. The Notice of Hearing did not include an allegation that the Member was guilty of professional misconduct for having engaged in a prescribed sexual act. As advised by Independent Legal Counsel, the Panel’s jurisdiction to make findings is generally constrained by the allegations that were referred to it by the Investigations Committee and particularized in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel notes that it was not necessary to make a finding under this head of misconduct in light of the other findings it made, but that if it had been necessary to do so, a finding could have been made given that there was no unfairness to the Member in this case. The Panel notes that the Member’s conviction under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code is indeed one of the prescribed sexual acts listed in Ontario Regulation 615/20 under the Act.
11The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted and the Panel accepts that misconduct of the nature committed by the Member is so notorious and offside of what is acceptable that expert evidence regarding the standards is not required to prove that the standards were breached.3 College Counsel also provided submissions as to why the Member’s conduct did not comply with the Ethical Standards of the Teaching Profession. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to, among other things, demonstrate a commitment to students’ well being through positive influence and professional judgment. The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness, and cognitive development. As a teacher, the Member is also required to abide by the ethical standard of “Trust” and to demonstrate reliability and moral action, in accordance with the ethical standard of “Integrity”. The Member acted immorally and showed no professional judgment, as well as a complete disregard for her students’ dignity, wellness, or development, when she engaged in sexual communications with students, including sending them sexualized photos of herself. The Member abused the trust that students and the public placed in her to be a positive influence. Rather than upholding boundaries, the Member crossed them and then invited students to do the same, suggesting they send provocative photos of themselves to her, and that they could engage in sexual activities with her. The Member’s conduct was antithetical to the ethical standards required of members of the teaching profession.
12The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused a student or students, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted that while the Panel did not have the benefit of any victim impact statements from the criminal proceedings, the threshold for a finding psychological or emotional abuse is very low, and the Member’s actions had made Student 3 uncomfortable (as evidenced from the transcript from the criminal proceedings). College Counsel also submitted that the Panel could draw an inference that the Member’s online sexual communications, which constituted the criminal offence of child luring, had an adverse emotional impact on the students exposed to her actions.4 Member’s Counsel initially submitted that, despite the Member having pled guilty to psychological or emotional abuse in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding under this heading of professional misconduct. However, the Member was then provided with an opportunity to make a statement in which she acknowledged that she had caused students emotional harm and emotional pain. Having considered the parties’ submissions, including the Member’s acknowledgement, the Panel finds the Member did psychologically or emotionally abuse a student or students. The Panel has taken particular note of the Discipline Committee’s reasons in Demopoulos, that “[t]eachers hold a unique position of trust and authority, and it is emotionally abusive for them to behave in a way that makes students feel uncomfortable at school”.5 While the Member’s misconduct occurred outside of school, it made Student 3 uncomfortable.
13The Member sexually abused Student 1, Student 2, and Student 3 contrary to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and engaged in sexual abuse of these students as defined in section 1 of the Act. Sexual abuse, as defined in the Act, includes behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by a member to a student, including communication made by electronic means.6 The parties agreed that the students, while not students of the Member herself, met the definition of students in the Act. Sending electronic messages of a sexual nature to students, sending sexualized photos and videos of herself to students (some of which contained nudity), suggesting to students that they send her provocative photos of themselves, and suggesting to students that she would pick them up so that they could engage in sexual activity, including sexual intercourse, are all examples of behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature that meet the definition of sexual abuse at section 1 of the Act.
14The Member failed to comply with the duties of a teacher set out in section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Section 264(1) of the Education Act requires teachers to, among other things, serve as positive role models and exemplify moral virtues. Engaging in online sexual communications with minors and suggesting that she could facilitate their sexual activities, including intercourse, is abhorrent and morally repugnant conduct. The Member failed to model appropriate behaviour as required by her professional duties as a teacher.
15The Member contravened subsections 1(16) and 1(17) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 as she has been found guilty of a criminal offence that is relevant to her suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration and which has put students at risk. The Member pled guilty to and was found guilty of luring a child to commit sexual exploitation contrary to section 172.1(2) of the Code. Sexual offences involving students are reprehensible and cast serious doubt on a member’s ability to ensure the safety and well being of students. The Panel therefore finds that it would no longer be suitable for the Member to hold a certificate of qualification and registration. Moreover, by luring students at her school for the purposes of sexual exploitation, the Member disregarded their well being and put them at risk.
16The Member contravened subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by engaging in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional. Members of the teaching profession are expected to be upstanding members of society, to model good behaviour and values, and to safeguard the well being and development of students. The Member did the opposite by engaging in online communications of a sexual nature with students. The teaching profession does not tolerate the sexual abuse of students. The Member’s egregious conduct demonstrates moral failings that call into question her ability to practice the profession ethically and her behaviour was clearly disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.
17The Member’s conduct, which ultimately led to her criminal conviction, was unbecoming a member of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members hold a unique position of trust in the community. The public’s trust and confidence in teachers is eroded when members of the profession sexually abuse students.
F. PENALTY DECISION
18The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), amended orally on the record, which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 25, 2021, the Panel accepted the amended Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive an oral reprimand, which will be delivered via video conference immediately after the hearing, and the fact of the reprimand will be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
19The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included the sexual abuse of a student or students, 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 it has no discretion in this regard. 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 guilty plea and joint submission on penalty.
20The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.
21Date: November 4, 2021
Jonathan Rose Chair, Discipline Panel
Rachelle Coleman Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- This acknowledgment that the Member’s conviction for child luring constitutes a prescribed sexual act as defined in the Act was added on consent by the parties orally on the record during the hearing.
- The transcript from the criminal process demonstrates that the Member pled guilty to communicating by telecommunication with Students 1,2 and 3, who were or were believed to be under the age of 18 years for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under subsection 153(1) of the Criminal Code with respect to those persons contrary to section 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
- Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 established that the College should generally present expert evidence on the standards of the profession, unless the conduct is so notorious and so manifestly contrary to the standards that expert evidence is not required.
- College Counsel referred to three cases in support of this position: Ontario College of Teachers v. Demopoulos, 2021 ONOCT 87 (“Demopoulos”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Philbrook, 2021 ONOCT 64; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Burnet, 2021 ONOCT 51.
- Demopoulos, at para 9.
- Subsection 1(7) of the Act states, “For greater certainty, for the purposes of the definitions of “sexual abuse” and “sexual misconduct” in subsection (1), behaviour, remarks and conduct include acts or remarks that are done or made by electronic means.”