Ontario College of Teachers v. Condy, 2021 ONOCT 131

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Condy 2021 ONOCT 131 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 George Joseph Condy, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

GEORGE JOSEPH CONDY (REGISTRATION #452566)

PANEL: Jonathan Rose Rachelle Coleman Stéphane Vallée, OCT

HEARD: October 25, 2021

COUNSEL: Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers No one appearing for George Joseph Condy 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.

By order of Justice M. Zivolak of the Ontario Court of Justice, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify the 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.

2George Joseph Condy (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have 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, the Panel received a certified copy of the transcript of the Member’s Arraignment, Plea and Ruling in the criminal proceeding before Justice M. Zivolak dated November 19, 2019 (Exhibit 2 at Appendix C). In these proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, an order restricting publication was made 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 the 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

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 30, 2021 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the George Joseph Condy 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);

(b) he 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);

(c) 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);

(d) 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), amended during the hearing, which provides the following:

1. George Joseph Condy is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. His 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 Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Bluewater District School Board (the “Board”) as a Math teacher at Saugeen District Senior School (the “School”) in Port Elgin, Ontario.

3. At all material times, Person A, Person B and Person C were adult females.

4. The Member met Person A, Person B and Person C on various online dating applications and engaged in an intimate relationship with each of them.

5. Between in or around January 2012 and in or around February 2018, during and/or after each of these relationships ended, the Member engaged in inappropriate conduct toward Person A, Person B and Person C, including but not limited to:

(a) harassing Person A and Person C;

(b) threatening Person A, Person B and Person C;

(c) attempting to extort Person A, Person B and Person C;

(d) threatening to distribute and/or to post online various intimate images, videos and/or text messages relating to Person C;

(e) threatening to make an unfounded complaint about Person C to Person C’s employer;

(f) making an unfounded complaint about Person C to Person C’s professional regulatory body.

6. Between on or about February 21, 2018 and on or about October 31, 2018, the Member was criminally charged with the following offences:

(a) one count of extortion of Person A, contrary to section 346(1.1)(b) of the Code;

(b) one count of harassment of Person A, contrary to section 264(3) of the Code;

(c) two counts of extortion of Person B, contrary to section 346(1.1)(b) of the Code;

(d) four counts of extortion of Person C, contrary to section 346(1.1)(b) of the Code;

(e) one count of harassment of Person C, contrary to section 264(3) of the Code; and

(f) one count of publication, etc. of an intimate image of Person C without consent, contrary to section 162.1(1) of the Code.

7. On November 19, 2020, the Member pled guilty to and was found guilty of three counts of extortion contrary to section 346(1.1)(b) of the Code, one count in relation to each of Person A, Person B and Person C.

8. The Member received a conditional sentence of six months for each count of extortion, to be served concurrently and in the community. The Member was also placed on probation for three years and made subject to various ancillary orders.

9. The Member did not appeal his conviction or sentence.

10. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” are copies of the various Court Informations, appearances/adjournments, endorsements and disposition pertaining to these charges.

11. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a certified copy of the transcript of the Member’s Arraignment, Plea and Ruling before the Honourable Justice M. Zivolak dated November 19, 2019.

12. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a certified copy of the transcript of Proceedings, including victim impact statements, before the Honourable Justice M. Zivolak dated February 24, 2020.

13. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” is a certified copy of the transcript of the Reasons for Sentence before the Honourable Justice M. Zivolak dated November 9, 2020.

14. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “F” are copies of the Adult Conditional Sentence Order and the Adult Probation Order, dated November 9, 2020.

GUILTY PLEA

15. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-14 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

16. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts at paragraphs 5-14 above 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(5), 1(16), 1(18), and 1(19).

17. 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 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 does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or the opportunity to have obtained the advice of legal counsel.

18. In light of the Admitted Facts and the 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

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, as amended during the hearing, and the submissions of College Counsel, 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(16), 1(18), and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1 to 14 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 harassed and threatened three of his intimate partners. He was subsequently found guilty of three counts of extortion in relation to these individuals, contrary to section 346(1.1)(b) of the Code.

9The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession and thereby contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s misconduct was so offensive and notorious that expert evidence on the standards was not required.¹ The Panel notes that the Member agreed that he breached the standards of the profession. Independent Legal Counsel suggested, and College Counsel agreed, that the Panel could consider, in particular, the ethical standard of “Trust” set out in section 32.02 of the Bylaws of the Ontario College of Teachers, in making its determination under this heading of professional misconduct. The ethical standard of “Trust” embodies fairness, openness and honesty and underlies teachers’ relationships with not only students, parents or guardians, but with the public as a whole. Threating to distribute intimate images, videos and/or text messages, or to make complaints about one of his partners (i.e., Person C) to her employer or regulatory body breached any sort of trust that his partners had placed in him.

10The Panel finds that the Member 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). Teachers hold a unique position of trust and authority in the classroom and their communities. It is imperative that only those individuals who can be trusted with ensuring the safety and well-being of others, especially children and those with relatively less power than the teacher, and those who can act fairly and set a good example for students hold the privilege of being a member of the teaching profession. Extortion is a serious criminal offence wherein one uses some form of threats, accusations, menaces or violence to induce behaviour from the person being threatened. The parties agree and the Panel accepts that the Member’s convictions call into question his suitability to hold certificate of qualification and registration. Through his serious and repeated criminal conduct, the Member has shown that his judgment and trustworthiness fall short of that expected of teachers.

11The Panel finds that the Member’s behaviour was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s conduct of threatening, harassing and extorting his romantic partners was intentional, dishonest, and shows not only poor judgment but moral depravity. As a member of a regulated profession, the Member ought to have known the importance of the complaints process and the impact it can have on regulated professionals. His act of threatening to make and making a false complaint about an intimate partner to her regulatory body is shameful. The Panel agrees with the parties that the Member’s misconduct is rightfully characterized by all three terms disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

12Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession are expected to be stewards of the public trust and to do their upmost to maintain the reputation of the teaching profession. The Member’s misconduct has completely undermined his trustworthiness to conduct himself as required by his professional obligations and training.

F. PENALTY DECISION

13The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 25, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

2. The Registrar is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

14The 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. Trinchi, 2020 ONOCT 134, Ontario College of Teachers v. Canacari, 2017 ONOCT 4; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Oliphant, 2019 ONOCT 72.

15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that the Member was convicted on three counts of extortion involving three separate intimate partners for repeated actions occurring over a period of five years. His misconduct was deliberate and his abhorrent and deceptive actions, including impersonating others, has had a devastating and long-lasting impact on his victims. 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 at, and saved the parties the time and expense of, a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

16The 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 to set an appropriate example and to strictly adhere, at all times, to the highest moral standards. The Member’s actions against intimate partners showed complete disregard for the security, well-being and dignity of others, and demonstrated lack of trustworthiness and integrity. 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. In relation to the form of the reprimand, the Panel accepts that a written reprimand is appropriate given the parties’ agreement.

17Given the nature, duration, and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that it is appropriate that the Registrar immediately revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration. 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 revocation is justified. The Member’s conduct was egregious. Harassing, threatening, and extorting intimate partners is abhorrent behaviour. Although the Member’s conduct occurred outside of the classroom, teachers are held to a high standard even when they are “off duty” by virtue of the unique position of trust and authority that they hold within their communities. The Member’s repeated, criminal behaviour has shown that he cannot be trusted to work as a teacher, where he would be responsible for the safety and well-being of children. The revocation 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 criminal misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s revocation will take effect immediately.

18The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: November 4, 2021

Jonathan Rose Chair, Discipline Panel

Rachelle Coleman Member, Discipline Panel

Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1College counsel relied on the decision of Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508, which 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 to prove a breach of professional standards.