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 Michael Biagino Geremia, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MICHAEL BIAGINO GEREMIA (REGISTRATION #170248)
PANEL: Nicola Powadiuk, OCT, Chair Élaine Legault Emile Ramlochan
HEARD: April 22, 2021
COUNSEL: Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers Christopher Stienburg, for Michael Biagino Geremia Rebecca Durcan, 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 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 April 22, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Michael Biagino Geremia (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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 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.
5The Panel also received a copy of the transcript of the Reasons for Judgment from the Member’s criminal proceeding before Justice K. Crosbie dated August 1, 2019 (Exhibit 2 at Appendix D). 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 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
6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated December 3, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Michael Biagino Geremia is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section 13 of Ontario Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1990, c T.2 and amendments thereto (the “TPA Regulation”);
(b) he failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, contrary to subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation;
(c) he failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation;
(d) he failed to comply with the duties of a teacher, contrary to subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O., 1990, Ch. E.2 and amendments thereto (the “Education Act”);
(e) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(f) he abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7) [pre-May 2008 amendments to Ontario Regulation 437/97] and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(g) he failed to comply with the Education Act, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof, and/or the regulations made under the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(h) 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);
(i) he contravened a law, the contravention of which has caused or may cause 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);
(j) 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);
(k) he engaged in conduct unbecoming 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), which provides the following:
Michael Biagino Geremia is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
On December 19, 2017, the Member’s membership status with the College was changed to “Retired.” 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 Toronto Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher and led the school [XXX] at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.
Student 1 was a female student who attended the School between September [XXX] and June [XXX].
Student 1 played [XXX] and took [XXX]classes from the Member at the School for [XXX]or [XXX] years, beginning in Grade [XXX]. Student 1 was also in the School [XXX] by the Member.
From in or around July 1997 to in or around 2000, when Student 1 was between [XXX] and [XXX] years old, the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship and a sexual relationship with Student 1.
The Member and Student 1 saw each other regularly, both in and out of school, and frequently engaged in various forms of sexual activity, including kissing, touching of a sexual nature, digital penetration, and sexual intercourse.
Most of the sexual contact between the Member and Student 1 took place in the School, during school hours, usually in the Member’s [XXX] in the [XXX].
The Member also had sexual contact with Student 1 out of school in various places and on multiple occasions.
On or about December 18, 2017, the Member was charged with sexual exploitation of Student 1, contrary to section 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada).
On or about August 1, 2019, the Member was found guilty of the same offence.
On November 1, 2019, the Member was sentenced to a custodial term of two years less a day, followed by one year of probation. He was also made subject to various ancillary orders.
The Member did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” are certified copies of the Court Information sworn December 18, 2017, appearances/adjournments, and disposition in the criminal proceeding.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a certified copy of the Adult Probation Order dated November 1, 2019.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice K. Crosbie dated August 1, 2019.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” is a certified copy of the transcript of Proceedings before the Honourable Justice K. Crosbie dated September 30, 2019.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “F” is a certified copy of the transcript of the Reasons for Sentence of the Honourable Justice K. Crosbie dated November 1, 2019.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-18 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts at paragraphs 6-12 and 14-18 above constitute conduct that is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of:
(a) sections 13, 14(d) and 14(f) of Ontario Regulation 63/55, made under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1990, c T.2, and any amendments thereto;
(b) subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O., 1990, Ch. E.2, and any amendments thereto; and
(c) subsections 1(5), 1(7) [pre-May 2008 amendments to Ontario Regulation 437/97], 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, made under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 12 (the “Act”).
The Member also acknowledges that he engaged in “sexual abuse” of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act.
By signing 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 he is pleading guilty to the allegations, and 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 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 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 Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on April 22, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to sections 13, 14(d) and 14(f) of the TPA Regulation, subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O, 1990, Ch. E.2 and subsections 1(5), 1(7)1, 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student 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 18 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 engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship and a sexual relationship with Student 1. The Member was found guilty of sexual exploitation of Student 1 contrary to section 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
10The Panel notes that prior to December 4, 1997, Ontario Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act (the TPA Regulation) was in force. As such, the TPA Regulation applied to the Member’s conduct which occurred from July 1997 to December 3, 1997. On December 4, 1997, the provisions of Ontario Regulation 437/97 made under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 came into force and as such applied to the Member’s conduct which occurred from December 4, 1997 to 2000.
11The Panel finds that the Member contravened section 13 of the TPA Regulation, which provided the following:
A member shall strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession.
By having an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1 and by sexually abusing Student 1, the Member acted dishonourably and as such failed to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession.
12The Member breached sections 14(d) and 14(f) of the TPA Regulation. Section 14(d) required members to show “consistent justice and consideration” in all their relations with students. Section 14(f) required members to show concern for the welfare of students under their care. The Member abused his trusted position as a teacher to sexually exploit Student 1, who was under his care and supervision. The actions of the Member negatively affected Student 1’s emotional well-being and her formative years as an adolescent. The Panel finds that by doing so, the Member showed a complete disregard for Student 1’s well-being, during a period in her life where she should have been learning how to develop healthy relationships with her peers.
13The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel finds that by sexually abusing Student 1, the Member failed to comply with these standards. Misconduct of this nature is so notorious that expert evidence of the standard is not required to prove the professional standards.
14The Member breached subsection 1(7)2 of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member abused Student 1 physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, as set out below.
15The Panel finds that the Member physically abused Student 1. This physically abusive conduct included multiple incidents of inappropriate physical contact with Student 1 such as kissing, touching of a sexual nature, digital penetration and having sexual intercourse with Student 1.
16The Member’s conduct constitutes sexual abuse of a student. The definition of sexual abuse at section 1 of the Act includes:
(a) sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between the member and the student,
(b) touching, of a sexual nature, of the student by the member, or
(c) behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the student.
The Panel finds that the Member sexually abused Student 1 by having a sexual relationship with Student 1 and engaging in various forms of sexual activity with her such as kissing, touching of a sexual nature, digital penetration and sexual intercourse, all of which meet the definition of sexual abuse under the Act. This finding is further supported by the fact that the Member was found guilty of sexual exploitation of Student 1 in his prior criminal proceedings.
17The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused Student 1. College Counsel submitted that given that the Member was in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1 for several years, it can be implied that the Member had verbal interactions with Student 1 which constitute verbal abuse. Member’s Counsel agreed with College Counsel’s submissions. In Student 1’s victim impact statement (Exhibit 2 at Appendix E), Student 1 explains that the Member “destroyed the last few years my [XXX] and I had together” by making Student 1 believe that her [XXX] was “jealous of [her]” and “nuts”. Having considered College Counsel’s submissions and based on the evidence before the Panel and the guilty plea of the Member, the Panel finds that the Member’s verbal manipulations of Student 1 were abusive. The Member held a position of trust and authority over Student 1, and his verbal manipulations of the student had an extremely negative impact on her life.
18The Member abused Student 1 psychologically or emotionally. In her victim impact statement in the criminal proceedings, Student 1 stated that, in addition to sexually exploiting her, the Member also manipulated her psychologically by isolating her from her [XXX] and peers in [XXX] school. Student 1 described how the Member’s exploitative conduct caused her significant [XXX] emotional harm. The actions of the Member caused her to have [XXX] such as [XXX], and [XXX]. The Panel therefore finds that the conduct of the Member constitutes psychological or emotional abuse. Given the power dynamic that exists between teachers and their students, it is psychologically or emotionally abusive for members of the profession to engage in an inappropriate personal relationship and a sexual relationship with a student.
19The Member contravened subsection 264(1) of the Education Act and subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. The Panel notes that both were alleged and admitted by the Member. The Panel is concerned that both allegations speak to the contravention of subsection 264(1) of the Education Act. The Panel is mindful that is should not make multiple findings for a single act of professional misconduct. However, as noted by College Counsel, on December 4, 1997, the regulatory landscape changed for teachers. In addition to the repeal of the TPA Regulation, Ontario Regulation 437/97 was introduced. Therefore, the Panel finds that prior to December 4, 1997 the Member breached subsection 264(1) of the Education Act and that as of December 4, 1997, the Member breached subsection 1(15) of Regulation 437/97. Given that both provisions set out the duties of a teacher, the Panel finds it appropriate to deal with both of these provisions at the same time. Among other things, subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act requires teachers to demonstrate the highest regard for a number of virtues including truth, justice, humanity and purity. Essentially, teachers are expected to serve as positive role models. The Member abused his position of trust and authority by having an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1 and sexually exploiting Student 1 for several years. Most of the sexual activity with Student 1 took place in the School, during school hours and usually in the Member’s [XXX] in the [XXX]. By engaging in such egregious conduct, the Member demonstrated a fundamental breach of his duties as a teacher.
20The Panel finds that the Member’s criminal conviction for sexual exploitation of Student 1, contrary to section 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, demonstrates that he contravened a law relevant to his suitability to hold a Certificate of Qualification and Registration and which has caused a student under the Member’s supervision to be put at risk, contrary to subsections 1(16) and 1(17) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession are responsible for student safety. By contravening a law so fundamental to student safety, the Member put Student 1 at risk and he demonstrated that he is no longer suitable to hold a teaching certificate.
21The Member breached subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. It was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional for the Member to sexually abuse Student 1 for several years. The Member prevented Student 1 from having a normal school life and caused Student 1 [XXX] emotional harm. Members of the teaching profession are expected to be upstanding members of society, to provide students with a safe and supportive learning environment and to safeguard the well-being of students. The Member did the opposite. The teaching profession does not tolerate such reprehensible conduct.
22The Member’s egregious conduct which led to his criminal conviction, as described above, is also unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulations 437/97. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is eroded when members of the profession sexually abuse their students.
F. PENALTY DECISION
23The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on April 22, 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; and
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
24The 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.3 The Panel makes both of these orders and notes that it has no discretion in this regard. In relation to the form of the reprimand, the Panel finds that a written reprimand is appropriate in the circumstances, given that the parties agreed to this form for the reprimand in their joint submission on penalty. 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.
25The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.
Date: April 28, 2021
Nicola Powadiuk, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Emile Ramlochan Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- Pre-May 2008 amendments to Ontario Regulation 437/97, in which subsection 1(7) included physical, sexual, verbal, psychological or emotional abuse, unlike the current regulation which addresses each type of abuse in a separate subsection.
- Pre-May 2008 amendments to Ontario Regulation 437/97, in which subsection 1(7) included physical, sexual, verbal, psychological or emotional abuse, unlike the current regulation which addresses each type of abuse in a separate subsection.
- Although this mandatory penalty provision was not in force at the time of the Member’s sexual abuse of Student 1 (i.e. from July 1997 to 2000), section 63.2 of the Act provides that the mandatory penalty provisions at section 30.2 of the Act apply retrospectively where the sexual abuse occurred before April 3, 2019 and no order has been made under subsection 30(4) of the Act before then. These conditions are met in this case and the Panel must therefore apply the mandatory penalty provisions set out at section 30.2 of the Act.