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
Hassib Reda Salhani, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
HASSIB REDA SALHANI (REGISTRATION #622717)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Myrna Tulandi Hanno Weinberger, OCT
HEARD: November 12, 2021
Nicholas Fitz, for the Ontario College of Teachers Hassib Reda Salhani, self-represented Erica Richler, 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 November 12, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Hassib Reda Salhani (the “Member”) attended 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, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request of College Counsel on behalf of Student 1, who was allegedly sexually abused, or the subject of sexual misconduct or a prohibited act involving child pornography. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated April 23, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Hassib Reda Salhani is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(b) 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;
(c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(d) 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);
(e) 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);
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming 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:
Hassib Reda Salhani is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (the “Board”) as an Occasional Teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Ottawa, Ontario. In early February 2019, the Member had recently completed a Long Term Occasional teaching assignment at the School, and was working as a daily occasional teacher at the School.
At all material times, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old female student in Grade [XXX] at the School.
In early February 2019, the Member initiated contact with Student 1 through social media. Over the course of approximately three days, the Member and Student 1 exchanged electronic messages of a personal nature, over Instagram and Snapchat, in the evenings and on the weekend. Some of the Member’s communications to Student 1 included remarks of a sexual nature. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of some of the messages the Member sent to Student 1.
As their communications over social media became more frequent, the Member told Student 1 that she was attractive, asked Student 1 not to tell anyone about their communications, and invited Student 1 to meet with him in-person outside of School.
The Member’s communications with Student 1 made Student 1 feel uncomfortable and she reported the communications to the School administration.
The Board met with the Member on February 19, 2019, at which time the Member acknowledged his conduct was inappropriate. He disclosed that his conduct was the result of a “major lapse of judgment” which occurred at a time when he was facing significant personal issues in his life. The Member produced a medical note from a physician dated February 22, 2019, confirming same.
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 1 – 7 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(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19). The Member further acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute sexual abuse 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 having had the opportunity to obtain 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
7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 12, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student as 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 7 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 engaged in inappropriate electronic communications with Student 1, including remarks of a sexual nature toward Student 1.
9The Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s inappropriate communications had a detrimental effect on Student 1’s psychological or emotional well being and made her feel uncomfortable. It was psychologically or emotionally abusive for the Member to repeatedly fail to maintain appropriate boundaries with Student 1 by sending her communications that included sexual remarks, and to ask her to keep their communications a secret. The Member abused his position of trust and authority by putting Student 1 in an uncomfortable position. Teachers must ensure student safety, which requires them to ensure that their interactions with students are professional, whether they are inside or outside the classroom. The Member failed to create a safe space for Student 1 by sending her sexually suggestive communications over social media.
10The Member abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and engaged in sexual abuse of a student 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 towards a student, including communication made by electronic means.1 The Panel finds that the following electronic communications made by the Member towards Student 1 were sexual in nature and therefore constitute sexual abuse as defined in the Act:
“I like to be touched by certain people. You know some people have ‘that touch’”;
”You’d be distracted by the wrong balls”; and
“I’d be checking out your booty all the time” (Exhibit 2 at Exhibit B).
In making this finding, the Panel also placed considerable weight on the fact that the Member did not contest that the messages to Student 1 were sexual in nature.
11The Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 32 of the College by-laws, which codify the standards of the profession. The Member’s actions of sending electronic communications of a sexual nature to Student 1, asking her to conceal those communications, and inviting her to meet him outside of school, clearly 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 and emotional wellness, as well as to promote cognitive development. As a teacher, the Member is also required to abide by the ethical standard of “Trust” and to demonstrate honesty and moral action, in accordance with the ethical standard of “Integrity”. The Member acted immorally and showed a lack of professional judgment, as well as a complete disregard for Student 1’s dignity, wellness, or development, when he engaged in sexual communications with her. The Member abused the trust that students and the public placed in him to be a positive influence and act with honesty and integrity. Rather than maintaining professional boundaries, the Member crossed them and then invited Student 1 to do the same, suggesting that she be complicit and secretive about their communications, and suggesting that they meet in person outside of school. The Member’s conduct was antithetical to the ethical standards required of members of the teaching profession.
12The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, thereby contravening subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act requires teachers to, among other things, serve as positive role models and exemplify moral virtues. It was abhorrent and morally repugnant for the Member to have sent Student 1 remarks of a sexual nature, to invite her to meet him outside of School, and to encourage secrecy on the part of Student 1 about his inappropriate communications with her. The Member failed to model appropriate behaviour as required by his professional duties as a teacher.
13The Member’s conduct as described in the Uncontested Facts were acts that were clearly disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). 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 electronic communications of a sexual nature with Student 1. The teaching profession does not tolerate sexual abuse of students.
14The Member’s actions were also unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Teachers hold a unique position of trust and authority. The public’s confidence in the profession is eroded when teachers send students electronic communications of a sexual nature. The Member’s misconduct was an abuse of power and degraded the reputation of the teaching profession.
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 12, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member;
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.
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 it has no discretion in this regard.
17With respect to the form of the reprimand, the Panel finds that a written reprimand is appropriate given that the parties agreed to this form for the reprimand in their joint submission on penalty.
18The 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.
19The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.
Date: November 15, 2021
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Myrna Tulandi Member, Discipline Panel
Hanno Weinberger, OCT Member, Discipline Panel