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
Andrew Reuben Camani, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
ANDREW REUBEN CAMANI (REGISTRATION #236985)
PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair
Irene Dembek, OCT
Jonathan Rose
HEARD: March 31, 2021
Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Andrew Reuben Camani
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 March 31, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Andrew Reuben Camani (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 and that the Member was represented by legal counsel during the negotiation of the facts of this agreement.
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 February 1, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Andrew Reuben Camani 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 signed or issued, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);2
(c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or 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); and
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Andrew Reuben Camani 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 Grand Erie District School Board (the “Board”) as an elementary teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in York, Ontario.
At all material times, Person A was a colleague of the Member at the School.
2012-2013 Academic Year
Person A became the principal of the School in September 2012. She had served as an administrator in a different country before her employment with the Board. Person A was aware at the outset of the 2012-2013 school year that the Member had been [XXX] the year prior and was just [XXX].
The Member advised Person A of the circumstances which precipitated his [XXX]. Thus, he was concerned about his mortality especially as he lived alone. Person A began calling the Member at home to check on his well-being, as they had discussed. The Member was grateful for this and asked Person A to continue, finding her calls reassuring. Person A continued to call and text the Member on a regular basis for up to fifteen months. Others were aware of their communications for this purpose.
Person A received a dozen yellow roses at the School in October 2012. The card that accompanied the flowers was signed “SA”. In fact, the Member had been the one to send the flowers to Person A. Person A spoke with the Member and advised him she would only receive them as a “thank you”.
Person A met with the Member for lunch in late August 2013. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Member’s [XXX] and the concerns that he had for the upcoming 2013-2014 school year. During lunch, the Member gave Person A an English Rugby shirt to thank her for her continued support, which she accepted.
The Member invited Person A to a theatre production for which he had season tickets in or around October 2013. Person A agreed to go as long as the performance was in the afternoon, she would meet him there, and she would make her own way home afterwards. Person A and the Member attended the performance on October 26, 2014 and then went their separate ways. Person A did not feel uncomfortable at any point.
December 2013
In or around December 2013, Person A gave Christmas gifts to all of her staff. The Member received two books. On Friday, December 13, 2013, the Member gave Person A a gift bag with wrapped items inside. There was a card attached to each item and the Member advised Person A that there was an order in which she was to open the gifts, one per day, starting the following day (December 14) and finishing on Christmas day, to mark the twelve days of Christmas.
Person A opened all of the gifts in December 2013. The Member had given her an entire nativity set, a necklace with her birthstone, and a poem he had written titled “Dreaming of You”. The poem was signed “LUD”, “Andrew”. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Member’s poem .
Person A was very uncomfortable with the gifts and the poem that the Member had written for her. She re-packaged all of the gifts and returned them to the Member on the first day back at school, explaining why they were inappropriate. Person A kept the Member’s poem to show her Superintendent.
January 2014
Person A showed her Superintendent the card, poem, and a picture of the necklace on January 8, 2014 and explained that the Member had been asking her out. Person A advised her Superintendent that she did not feel threatened or harassed by the Member and assured her that if anything else happened, she would let her know.
In late January 2014, the Member advised Person A that he was thinking of having his class read “To Kill a Mockingbird”. Person A told the Member that it was one of her favourite books and lent him her paperback copy. A student in turn borrowed it from the Member and when he brought it back, it was damaged. Rather than returning her damaged copy of the book, the Member purchased a replacement hardcopy version (the only edition available at the bookstore he visited) and gave that to Person A.
Autumn 2014
Throughout the fall of the 2014-2015 school year, Person A had several unpleasant interactions with the Member as a result of concerns which related to his teaching performance, program delivery, and conflicts that he was having with students and parents. The Member disagreed with Person A’s concerns.
Person A subsequently issued the Member a letter of expectation dated November 25, 2014 with respect to concerns that he had made gender biased comments. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a copy of Person A’s letter of expectation to the Member.
On the basis of a prior conversation Person A had with the Member, concerning an event that occurred while Person A was living overseas, the Member began researching her past. He used a pseudonym to send emails to Person A’s former school, under false pretenses, and requested the contact information of her former colleagues. Person A was unaware of the Member’s actions at that time.
Winter 2014-2015
On December 21, 2014, Person A found the gift card she had given the Member for Christmas that year under the windshield wiper of her car. Attached to the card was a note from the Member explaining that he did not feel comfortable accepting her gift.
The Member entered the School on December 21, 2014 and January 2, 2015 and used a Board-issued computer to source and print websites of schools or areas in the country where Person A had previously worked and lived.
Following a discussion with Person A, the Superintendent met with the Member on January 7, 2015 and assigned him to home with pay pending an investigation. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Superintendent’s letter to the Member.
Communication in February 2015
- On or about February 6, 2015, Person A received an email from her [XXX] stating that someone was planning a surprise party for her and had requested information and names of people from her past. The email had been sent from the Member’s gmail address on February 1, 2015. It then came to Person A’s attention that similar emails had been sent to other people from her past, including some of her friends and a secretary of a school where she formerly taught.
Board Investigation and Discipline
The Board’s Superintendent of Education (Human Resources) (“Superintendent B”) received Person A’s complaint on January 13, 2015. The Member and his Federation objected to Superintendent B’s ability to conduct a neutral investigation. As a result, on June 5, 2015, the Board appointed an external investigator.
A report was prepared by the external investigator which concluded that the Member had engaged in harassment of Person A. By letter dated September 18, 2015, the Board advised the Member that he was being suspended for ten days without pay from September 3 to 18, 2015 inclusive. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts 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(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).
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 otherwise 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 proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and the plea of guilt, 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 (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(12) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought because it duplicated the subsection 1(14) allegation. College Counsel sought to withdraw the subsection 1(12) allegation because the evidence does not substantiate one of the aspects of this head of misconduct, namely that the Member’s conduct occurred in a professional capacity. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on March 31, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 22 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.
9The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Section 32 of the College by-laws prescribes the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Panel finds that the Member failed to uphold the “Leadership in Learning Communities” standard of practice, by failing to maintain a collaborative, safe and supportive learning community. After Person A returned the Member’s poem and gifts, explained to the Member why they were inappropriate, and made it known to the Member’s that his personal feelings were not reciprocated, the Member persisted in harassing Person A, which undermined a respectful professional environment. The Member’s conduct was also contrary to the ethical standards of “Trust” and “Integrity” which, among other things expect that members embody fairness, as well as honesty, reliability and moral action. The Member failed to abide by these ethical standards when, after Person A rejected his romantic gestures, he sought out personal information about Person A and made inquiries into Person A’s past through surreptitious means. The Member’s unwelcome and intimidating behaviour made Person A feel threatened and harassed and falls far below the professional and ethical standards expected of members.
10The 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. Subsection 264(1)(d) requires that members “assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school.” The Member’s behaviour interfered with Person A’s duty as a principal to provide feedback to the Member regarding his teaching performance and interfered with the Member’s ability to receive and respond to that feedback professionally. By harassing Person A, the Member created a negative work environment and undermined the authority of school administration. This behaviour was contrary to his duties as a teacher.
11The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to maintain appropriate and professional boundaries with colleagues and superiors, and to uphold a safe and collegial work environment, which the Member failed to do by harassing Person A. Members should know how to conduct themselves professionally in relation to their superiors and are expected to possess the judgment and skills to cope with ordinary inter-personal life circumstances without resorting to harassing behaviour. Among other things, the Member pried into Person A’s past, sent emails under a pseudonym to Person A’s former colleagues, [XXX], and friends, and gave Person A inappropriate gifts. The Member’s intimidating and deceptive conduct casts doubt on his moral fitness to execute his professional duties as a teacher and, as such, is characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
12Similarly, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By repeatedly breaching professional boundaries with Person A, the Member’s conduct undermined the public’s trust in the teaching profession.
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 March 31, 2021 the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
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 (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 Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register; and
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) prior to commencing or returning to teaching or any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, 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
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 accepts 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. Fazl, 2019 ONOCT 2, Ontario College of Teachers v. Fazl, 2020 ONOCT 222, Ontario College of Teachers v. Béarez, 2019 ONOCT 17 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Laing, 2019 ONOCT 55.
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’s conduct was not a momentary lapse in judgment but demonstrated a pattern of escalating behaviour that the Member knew was unwelcome and inappropriate. The Member continued to surreptitiously seek out information about Person A, after the Member was assigned to work from home pending an investigation into a harassment complaint against the Member by Person A. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and saving witnesses from having to testify. Finally, the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
16The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members of the profession are expected to interact with their colleagues in a professional and respectful manner and to respond to concerns about their teaching practice through professional means, which the Member failed to do. The Member’s escalating harassment of Person A demonstrated a concerning lack of professionalism and integrity, and breached the public’s trust in teachers. The written reprimand, as agreed to by the parties, will allow the Panel to 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.
17Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, 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 is justified. The suspension will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on April 15, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, should he return to a position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with colleagues or superiors.
19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: April 5, 2021
Tom Potter Chair, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Jonathan Rose Member, Discipline Panel