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
Angela Marie Defosse, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
ANGELA MARIE DEFOSSE (REGISTRATION #586437)
PANEL: Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT, Chair
Sara Nouini, OCT
Tom Potter
HEARD: January 11, 2021 and April 23, 2021
Eli Mogil, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Jerry Raso, for Angela Marie Defosse
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 January 11, 2021 and April 23, 2021 in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Angela Marie Defosse (the “Member”) attended the hearing 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 February 7, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Angela Marie Defosse is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) she abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act;1
(d) she engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;2
(e) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);3
(f) she 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);
(g) she 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
(h) she 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:
Angela Marie Defosse 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 Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).
During the 2015-2016 academic year, Student 1 was a male student at the School and in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class.
In or around the period November to December 2015, the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1.
The inappropriate personal relationship included exchanging personal electronic communications. During or around the period November 23, 2015 to December 18, 2015, the Member and Student 1 exchanged approximately 213 emails. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the emails exchanged between the Member and Student 1.
The Member’s email correspondence to Student 1 included inappropriate comments of a personal nature including saying: “this love cuts you more than comforts you. You should actually run away, I’m messed up and you’re right, you can’t make good decisions right now and I don’t know if I could stop this if you were in front of me or if you made a move”; “I guess the best way to describe this is like saying you broke into Alcatraz, because I haven’t felt this way except once, before. Lots of worthy and unworthy guys have tried and I have never thought twice about ignoring them”; and “I completely got caught up in what you had to say to me because of how it made me feel and the fact that I am missing it in my life.”
On or about December 18, 2015, the parent of Student 1 reported the Member’s inappropriate communications with Student 1 to School administrators. Following an investigation by the Board, the Member’s employment was terminated effective January 12, 2016. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s January 13, 2016 letter to the Member. Following a grievance, the termination was withdrawn and the Member resigned from the Board.
Expert Reports
In 2017-2018, the Member underwent a [XXX] assessment by [XXX], an expert in [XXX]. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of [XXX] report dated June 21, 2018.
In [XXX] view:
[The Member]’s actions represent a composite of impaired judgement owing to [XXX]
[XXX] noted that the Member had a history of [XXX] and that following the events at issue, the Member had completed [XXX]sessions with a[XXX].
On February 6, 2019, [XXX] provided a supplementary report, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E”. In his report, [XXX] states that a [XXX] may have been attributed to the Member in respect of her emotional state for the bulk of the Fall of 2015, and in respect of her conduct towards and involvement with Student 1.
The College has obtained an expert report prepared by Dr. Mary Louise Arnold, a Developmental Psychologist with expertise in the areas of adolescent socio-moral development, moral/character education, and the ethical dimensions of teacher-student relationships and schooling. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of Dr. Arnold’s report dated September 16, 2020.
Dr. Arnold opines that the Member violated the widely-acknowledged above standards of practice. The relationship with Student 1 clearly overstepped appropriate teacher-student boundaries. This opinion is based on the nature of the relationship and the impact on the well-being of Student 1.
Both [XXX] and Dr. Arnold note that the Member reported her concerns for Student 1’s well-being to School administrators but did not receive sufficient support. This did not exonerate the Member from her professional responsibilities.
Current Status
- The Member is not currently teaching.
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 paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him [sic] and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that he [sic] 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 (c), (d) and (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act, that the Member engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act, and that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel sought the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(7.3) allegation and the allegations that the Member sexually abused a student and engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act because the Admitted Facts do not support a finding under these heads of misconduct. College Counsel sought to withdraw the subsection 1(14) allegation because it duplicates the subsection 1(5) allegation. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on April 23, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 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 15 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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 developed an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1.
9The Panel finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession expect teachers to express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through professional judgment (“Care”) and to be trustworthy in their professional relationships with students (“Trust”). Over a two-month period in 2015, the Member exchanged 213 emails with Student 1 (Exhibit F of Exhibit 2). Many of these emails contained personal and inappropriate comments by the Member expressing a high level of emotional intensity and personal attachment toward Student 1. The Member continued her personal communication with Student 1 until Student 1’s parent discovered and reported the emails and the Member’s inappropriate relationship to School administrators (Exhibit C of Exhibit 2). Teachers are relied upon to put the safety and well-being of students first. The Member breached this trust through her emotionally charged and highly personal conversations with Student 1. In finding that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, the Panel further relies on the expert opinion of Dr. Arnold who opined that the Member breached the standards of practice and overstepped appropriate teacher-student boundaries. According to Dr. Arnold, while the Member may have intended to provide support and validation to Student 1, she “lost all perspective on her role as a professional teacher” and formed a “mutually-dependent” relationship that was “strikingly aberrant from anything one might reasonably expect of a teacher and student” (Exhibit F of Exhibit 2, at pages 144, 145 and 148).
10The Panel finds that the Member’s failure to maintain appropriate and professional boundaries with Student 1 was psychologically or emotionally abusive to the student, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Though the Member’s electronic communications with Student 1 occurred over a brief time during November and December 2015, the Panel accepts that Student 1 was vulnerable and experiencing serious personal and emotional challenges, which “threatened [Student 1’s] well-being and placed him at emotional and/or psychological risk” (Exhibit F of Exhibit 2, at page 147). The Member’s emails encouraged Student 1 to develop an unhealthy emotional attachment to her that Student 1 believed to be love. The emails also show that the Member was aware of Student 1’s vulnerability as he had disclosed his struggles with [XXX] to her, including that he was experiencing [XXX] (Exhibit C of Exhibit 2, at pages 14 and 35). Furthermore, the Panel places weight on the fact that the Member admitted that her actions were psychologically or emotionally abusive to Student 1. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Member’s conduct constitutes psychological or emotional abuse of a student.
11The 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. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority. They are expected to act as positive role models and to conduct themselves morally and with integrity, as described at subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act. Though the Member did initially report and confer with the Guidance department at her School about concerns regarding Student 1’s [XXX], she chose not to follow the advice she received and continued to engage Student 1 in inappropriate personal exchanges (Exhibit F of Exhibit 2, at page 150). By breaching teacher-student boundaries and failing to appropriately respond to the information that Student 1 disclosed to her, the Member failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.
12The Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted that while the terms “disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional” are not legislatively defined, conduct can be characterized as disgraceful when it is so serious that it has the effect of shaming a member and by extension the profession, and where it casts doubt on a member’s moral fitness to practice the profession. This is commonly viewed as the most serious of the three terms. “Dishonourable” conduct also has an element of moral failing to it and generally involves acts of dishonesty or deceit. Conduct characterized as “unprofessional” does not generally entail a moral failing, but involves a disregard for a member’s professional obligations, including a failure to demonstrate good judgment. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct can be characterized by all three terms because the Member knew that what she was doing was wrong, as stated in her emails, but she continued to correspond with Student 1 and even expressed reluctance to end the relationship. This placed Student 1 in a difficult and uncomfortable position. It is entirely a teacher’s responsibility to maintain professional boundaries and to discontinue communications that encourage an inappropriate relationship with a student. By continuing to engage with Student 1 through emotionally charged emails, the Member’s conduct brought shame to herself and to the profession and demonstrated a serious lack of professionalism. The Panel also places weight on the fact that the Member admitted that her conduct can properly be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct breached subsection 1(18).
13Finally, the Member’s improper relationship with Student 1, as described above, is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is diminished when teachers abuse their privileged position by developing and fostering inappropriate personal relationships with students.
F. PENALTY DECISION
14The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on April 23, 2021 the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference 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 six (6) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) within ninety (90) days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries, 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 her 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
15The 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 the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Lepage, 2017 ONOCT 29, Ontario College of Teachers v. Riley, 2019 ONOCT 61, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Patry, 2017 ONOCT 73.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the nature of the misconduct with Student 1 and the intensity of the emotional attachment generated by the Member’s actions. While the Member’s misconduct occurred during an isolated two-month period, there were an extensive number of emails exchanged with Student 1, which demonstrates that the Member’s misconduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment. Also aggravating, is the fact that Student 1 was vulnerable and had expressed [XXX] to the Member. The Member’s conduct placed Student 1 at significant risk. In terms of mitigating factors, College Counsel presented evidence from [XXX] report about [XXX] and personal difficulties that the Member was experiencing at the material time, which interfered with the Member’s professional judgment. Furthermore, the Member admitted her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, expressed sincere remorse and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. While Member’s Council submitted that, at the time, the Member was trying to help Student 1, the Panel considers this to be a neutral factor because the Member’s good intentions do not change the fact that she demonstrated a profound lack of professional judgment through her misconduct. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
17The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate communications with Student 1 warrant a reprimand by her peers. Members of the teaching profession are expected to exercise sound professional judgment in all their interactions with students. As role models in a trusted position of authority, members must ensure that their communications with students preserve boundaries that are consistent with a student-teacher relationship. Furthermore, teachers must not take on the role of a counsellor when they are not qualified to provide such support to students, and they must not encourage or foster communication with students that creates inappropriate emotional attachments. The Member’s extensive personal correspondence with Student 1 demonstrates a concerning lack of professional judgment in this regard. 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.
18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The Member took advantage of her privileged position by pursuing and encouraging an improper personal relationship with a student that she knew to be vulnerable based on information that the student had confided in her about his personal issues. Through these communications, the Member fostered an inappropriate emotional dependency with Student 1 that jeopardized his personal safety and well-being. The suspension 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 misconduct the Member exhibited is not tolerated by this College. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on May 8, 2021 which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional boundaries will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: May 4, 2021
Mary Ellen Gucciardi, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Tom Potter Member, Discipline Panel