DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Ontario College of Teachers v Allore 2021 ONOCT 03

Date: 2021-01-04

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

Arthur Joseph Allore, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ARTHUR JOSEPH ALLORE (REGISTRATION #179841)

PANEL: Sara Nouini, OCT, Chair

John Cammarata

Richard Filion

HEARD: December 3, 2020 and December 18, 2020

Jean-François Schaan, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Jerry Raso, for Arthur Joseph Allore

Erica Richler, 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 December 3, 2020 and December 18, 2020, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Arthur Joseph Allore (the “Member”) attended the hearing on the merits on December 18, 2020 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.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated January 15, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Arthur Joseph Allore 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 failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

(c) 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);

(d) 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);

(e) 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:

1. Arthur Joseph Allore is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). 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 Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. The Member has been employed by the Board since October 9, 1990.

4. Prior to the events set out at paragraphs 5 to 15, the Member did not have a disciplinary history with the College.

5. At all material times, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student at the School.

6. In April or May 2017, the Member allowed Student 1 to drive his truck on school property for an outdoor school project. While Student 1 drove the Member’s truck, two other students jumped onto the back of the truck.

7. On May 15, 2017, the Board suspended the Member for one day with respect to the circumstances set out at paragraph 6. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the Board’s letter of discipline, dated May 15, 2017.

8. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Student 2 was a female Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class. In December 2018, Student 2 left the School [XXX].

9. After Student 2 left the School, the Member and Student 2 communicated by email and/or telephone (the “communications”). The communications occurred between mid-December 2018 and mid-February 2019. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” are copies of the emails exchanged between the Member and Student 2.

10. In the communications, Student 2 expressed to the Member her desire to leave [XXX] and return to [XXX]. Student 2 also expressed apprehensions about her physical and emotional safety and wellbeing while in the care of [XXX], including [XXX], and sought advice and support from the Member.

11. The Member did not report the concerns Student 2 shared with him about her safety, wellbeing and/ [XXX] to the School’s Principal.

12. Among the topics discussed in the communications with Student 2, the Member:

• advised Student 2 to file a complaint against [XXX], to attempt to emancipate herself from [XXX] and/or to leave the care of [XXX];

• advised Student 2 on how to purchase a plane ticket and how to return to [XXX]; and

• advised Student 2 to go to the [XXX] Consulate to seek assistance.

13. The Member continued to communicate with Student 2 despite being informed by the School’s Principal in January 2019 that Student 2 would not be returning to the School and that there would be no further communication with Student 2.

14. In February 2019, the Children’s Aid Society and the Board became aware of the communications between the Member and Student 2. The Ontario Provincial Police reviewed the communications between the Member and Student 2. No charges were filed against the Member with respect to his communications with Student 2.

15. Following its investigation into the communications between the Member and Student 2, the Board suspended the Member without pay for 10 days. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a copy of the Board’s letter of discipline, dated March 18, 2019.

16. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” is a copy of the College’s updated Professional Advisory entitled “Maintaining Professionalism – Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media.”

GUILTY PLEA

17. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-16 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

18. 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(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

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 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 the parties with respect to the penalty proposed 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.

20. In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member jointly submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on December 18, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 16 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, in 2017 the Member allowed Student 1 to drive his truck on school property for an outdoor school project. Also, in 2018-2019, the Member engaged in communications with Student 2 which were of a personal nature and he did not report the concerns that Student 2 shared with him about her safety, wellbeing and/or [XXX] to the School’s principal. Furthermore, the Member continued communicating with Student 2 despite being informed by the School principal that there would be no further communication with Student 2.

8The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel finds that the Member breached the ethical standard of “care” with respect to Student 1 and Student 2. The ethical standard of “care” provides that “Members express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice.” The Panel finds that by allowing Student 1 to drive his truck on school property for an outdoor project and failing to report Student 2’s concerns about her safety, well-being and/or [XXX] to the School’s principal, the Member demonstrated a lack of care and commitment towards the well-being of these students. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Member breached the ethical standards of “trust” with respect to Student 2 by advising Student 2 to leave the care of [XXX]. By doing so, the Member breached the trust which [XXX] placed in him. In addition, the Member breached the ethical standards of “integrity” by communicating with Student 2 despite being told by the School’s principal to stop communications with Student 2.

9The Member contravened subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to adequately supervise Student 1, who was under his professional supervision. The Member allowed Student 1 to drive his truck on school property for an outdoor school project. The Member did not have a visual on the student driving his truck for most of the time that he was behind the wheel (see Exhibit 2, Appendix B). While Student 1 drove the Member’s truck, two other students jumped onto the back of the truck. The Panel agrees with the Board that, “This is a significant safety concern and something that should never have happen[ed].” Members of the profession are expected to provide students with a safe learning environment by adequately supervising students who are under their professional supervision. The Member failed to meet this expectation.

10The Panel finds that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which set out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(e) provides that teachers are expected to “maintain […] proper order and discipline in [their] classroom and while on duty in the school and on the school ground.” It is unacceptable and dangerous for a teacher to allow a Grade [XXX] student to drive a teacher’s truck on school property. By doing so, the Member failed to maintain proper order and discipline while on duty in the school and on the school ground, which is a breach of his duties as a teacher.

11The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By failing to adequately supervise Student 1, failing to report concerns about Student 2’s safety and/or [XXX] to the School’s principal, and engaging in communications of a personal nature with Student 2, the Member demonstrated a concerning lack of professional judgment and put the safety of students at risk.

12Finally, 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 properly supervise their students and maintain professional boundaries in all forms of communication with students. This is vital to maintaining the public’s trust. When members do the opposite, as the Member did in this case, the public loses faith 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 December 18, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions and limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction covering professional boundaries. These courses¹ shall be pre-approved by the Registrar and be subject to the following conditions:

(i) for each course, 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, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee; and

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, for each course, 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; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of each course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner 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 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. Erland, 2017 ONOCT 54, Ontario College of Teachers v. Sergeant, 2018 ONOCT 44, Ontario College of Teachers v. Quaglia, 2018 ONOCT 17, Ontario College of Teachers v. Legros-Stewart, 2014 ONOCT 57, Ontario College of Teachers v. Handscomb, 2014 ONOCT 114, Ontario College of Teachers v. Grima, 2018 ONOCT 16, Ontario College of Teachers v. Lepage, 2017 ONOCT 29, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Ste-Croix, 2015 ONOCT 75.

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 lapses in professional judgment put the safety of Student 1 and Student 2 at risk and that the Member disregarded his principal’s direction to no longer communicate with Student 2. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and he has no prior discipline history with the College. 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 by his peers. Members are expected to create a safe and supportive learning environment for their students and to serve as positive role models for students. The Member failed to do so by inadequately supervising Student 1 and by not reporting Student 2’s safety concerns to the School principal. 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 serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

17The Panel finds that the course of instruction covering professional boundaries will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. 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 students.

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

Footnotes

1. 1It was clear from the parties’ submissions that the parties agreed that the penalty should include a requirement for the Member to successfully complete one course relating to professional boundaries. The Joint Submission on Penalty states that he must complete “a course of instruction covering professional boundaries.” The Panel determined that the references to “courses” (plural) and “each course” were typos in the Joint Submission on Penalty.