DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Rocco 2021 ONOCT 42

Date: 2021-04-16

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 Patrick Rocco, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

PATRICK ROCCO (REGISTRATION #179763)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair Josée Landriault, OCT Élaine Legault

HEARD: April 16, 2021

COUNSEL: Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers Philip Abbink, for Patrick Rocco 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 April 16, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Patrick Rocco (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation attend on his behalf. 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 first Notice of Hearing dated January 20, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Patrick Rocco is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);

(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);

(c) he falsified a record relating to the member’s professional responsibilities, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(13);

(d) 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);

(e) 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);

(f) 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

(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

5The allegations against the Member in the second Notice of Hearing dated January 22, 2020 (Exhibit 2) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Patrick Rocco is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);

(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);

(c) he falsified a record relating to the member’s professional responsibilities, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(13);

(d) 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);

(e) 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);

(f) 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);

(g) 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);

(h) 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 3), which provides the following:

1. Patrick Rocco was 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.

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

2. From 2008 to 2015, the Member was employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (“HWDSB”) as a Superintendent.

Expenses

3. The HWDSB provided the Member with a “corporate purchasing card” which acted as a credit card (the “card”) for the purposes of HWDSB related expenses. The Member was aware that the HWDSB automatically paid for all the Member’s purchases made on this card. In addition to using the card to cover certain expenses, the Member also submitted certain of his expenses using an expense form.

4. An internal review was conducted by the HWDSB of the Member’s card transactions. The internal review raised concerns regarding certain of the Member’s transactions. HWDSB retained an external accounting firm to analyze the Member’s card transactions from 2009 to 2015. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the report by KPMG – HWDSB Forensic Review of Activities of Patrick Rocco dated May 31, 2016 (the “Report”).

5. As confirmed in the Report, from 2009-2015, the Member used his card or obtained reimbursements for approximately $15,300 of “personal expenses”. The Report concluded that the Member incurred the majority of his personal card expenses in purchasing electronics and sporting goods for personal use and personal travel expenses. The Member was not interviewed by KPMG in the preparation of this report, and was not provided with an opportunity to respond.

6. In relation to certain of the personal card expenses, HWSDB determined that false documents had been submitted. The Member also split certain purchases that related to the same activity to lower the cost of the expense in order to circumvent transaction limits. The HWDSB’s policy is that it will not permit over $1000 per transaction and/or a monthly spending in excess of $4000. The Member’s actions were against HWDSB policy and were dishonest.

7. From September 2009 to September 2015, the Member did not comply with the HWDSB expense policy. KPMG concluded that the Member purchased and was reimbursed for approximately $15,300 worth of items for his personal use.

8. In June 2012, the Member made three purchases at Front Row Sports. He used his HWDSB credit card for separate transactions in the approximate amounts of $900, $800 and $540 for a total of $2240.

9. In July 2012, the Member submitted an invoice from Front Row Sports dated June 15, 2012 in relation to paragraph 8 above. The purchases which were actually made by the Member were for items of a personal nature, and not for Board purposes.

10. There were two additional purchases made by the Member at Front Row Sports in August 2014 in the amount of $380, and July 2015 in the amount of $720 using the HWDSB card that were of a personal nature.

11. In August 2015, the Member used his HWDSB card to pay for six chairs for a meeting room at the board offices. The transaction totalled approximately $600. Separately, the Member also submitted an expense form in the amount paid for the six chairs. This resulted in the Member improperly receiving reimbursement for a purchase he had not made personally.

12. The Member also signed off on a claim by another employee of the HWDSB to request payment for non-HWDSB related travel expense. Specifically, the Member signed a HWDSB cheque to the employee for personal travel expenses. The Member had signing authority at the HWDSB. The Member knew or ought to have known that this was inappropriate.

MacBook Laptop

13. The Member met with the Director of Education to discuss his transition to another position with another school board, specifically the Toronto District School Board (the “TDSB”). The Director of Education instructed the Member to return all HWDSB property before his departure. More specifically, the Director of Education asked the Member to return a Lenovo laptop issued to him by the HWDSB in 2013 as well as two MacBook laptops, which had been paid for using HWDSB funds. Neither the MacBook laptops were standard devices issued by the HWDSB.

14. The Member told the Director of Education that he provided the MacBook laptops to two schools within the HWDSB. He did not disclose to the Director of Education which two schools these were. Subsequently, the Member returned one of the MacBook laptops to the HWDSB and paid the residual cost for the other.

15. The Member knew or ought to have known that the MacBook laptops were not standard devices for the HWDSB. The Member ought not to have made those purchases.

Grade 11 Mathematics Course Teaching Materials/Answer Guides

16. On or about March 1, 2016, the Member requested that a Vice-Principal within the HWDSB send him course teaching materials and answer guides. The Member made this request while he was no longer employed with the HWDSB. The Member knew or ought to have known that this was inappropriate.

Forged Documents in Relation to Obtaining US Citizenship for his Children

17. In May 2016, the HWDSB Director of Education involved the Hamilton Police Service when he was made aware of concerns that the Member’s board issued email account may contain fraudulent documents. The Hamilton Police Service commenced an investigation into the Member’s involvement relating to the creation, use and transferring of fraudulent documentation. The falsified documents related to citizenship for personal gain that were submitted to the United States Department of State.

18. The Member requested that a Vice-Principal alter two university-issued documents. The altered documents were later submitted by the Member to the United States Consulate (the “U.S. Consulate”).

19. In December 2017, the Member and the Vice-Principal were jointly charged with two counts of making a forged document, two counts of causing the U.S. Consulate to use a forged document and two counts of transferring a forged document during the months of July and August 2015.

Criminal Charges and Outcome

20. In December 2017, the Member was also charged with fraud in relation to his expenses at the HWDSB.

21. On August 16, 2018, the Member provided the court with a trust cheque for $15,926. The charges were withdrawn in part based on the fact that the Member paid restitution to the HWDSB in excess of the amount at issue in the criminal proceeding.

22. Also on August 16, 2018, the Member pleaded guilty to two counts of causing the U.S. Consulate to use a forged document, contrary to Section 368(1.1) of the Criminal Code (Canada). The member received a 12 month conditional sentence including six months of house arrest and the remaining charges were withdrawn. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Certified Court Information in relation to both the fraud and forgery charges dated December 4, 2017. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Certified Conditional Sentence Order dated August 16, 2018. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of Plea and Sentencing Proceedings before Justice J. Fiorucci at Hamilton, Ontario dated August 16, 2018.

Toronto District School Board

23. The Member began his employment with the TDSB on or about October 1, 2015. At all material times, the Member was employed by the TDSB as the Executive Superintendent of Employee Services.

24. The Member breached the TDSB’s financial management polices. In particular, the Member breached the Employee and Trustee Expense Policy (the “Expense Policy”) and the Employee Expenditure Guidelines (the “Guidelines”). The Expense Policy states: “…employees and trustees will be reimbursed for legitimate expenses incurred in carrying out their responsibilities while representing the interest of students, the community and/or the Board”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the Expense Policy and the Guidelines.

25. The TDSB conducted an investigation into the expenses of the Member. The TDSB engaged Deloitte LLP (“Deloitte”). Deloitte provided a report to the TDSB which confirmed that the Member engaged in inappropriate activity relating to his expense claims in June 2017 and November 2017. The Member was not interviewed by Deloitte in the preparation of this report, and was not provided with an opportunity to respond. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the report dated May 3, 2018.

26. In June 2017, the Member submitted an expense claim for a laptop screen repair for approximately $800. The Member asked a computer repair specialist from Ridley College to repair the laptop screen. The Member’s daughter attended Ridley College. The Member was reimbursed for this expense later in June. The Member altered the invoice with respect to the laptop screen repair expense in order to make it appear as if it were a TDSB expense when in fact it was a personal expense. Copies of the original invoice and the invoice submitted for reimbursement are found in the Deloitte report referred to at paragraph 25 above.

27. In November 2017, the Member submitted an expense claim for approximately $880 for a conference that was to be held on November 14, 2017, titled “Workplace Investigation Training”. The Member submitted an expense claim and was reimbursed later, on November 24, 2017. This was in contravention of the TDSB’s policies with respect to expense claims which require original receipts to be submitted. The Member subsequently reimbursed the Board on November 30, 2017 for the same amount ($880) as outlined in the report.

28. About a week later, after the Member submitted the conference expense claim, the Member received an email reminder to register for the December version of the same conference. There was no confirmation to acknowledge that the Member had in fact registered for the conference. The Guidelines state that the attendee shall submit an expense claim at the completion of the conference; however, pre-payment of registration fees is possible with sufficient advance notice.

29. The Deloitte report also confirmed that the TDSB received two cheques from the Member in and around November and December 2017. A cheque issued to the TDSB dated November 30, 2017 for approximately $880.00 is the same amount that the Member claimed as an expense for the “Workplace Investigation Training” conference. Another cheque issued to the TDSB dated December 6, 2017 for approximately $800.00 is the same amount that the Member claimed as an expense for the laptop screen repair.

30. The Member retired from the TDSB on or about June 30, 2018.

Current Status

31. The Member is not employed in any teaching or administrative capacity and works as an independent education consultant.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

32. By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

33. 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(10), 1(12), 1(13), 1(14), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18), and 1(19).

34. 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 a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including reference to his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(f) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College 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 with the advice of legal counsel.

35. 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.

36. 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

7With the parties’ consent, and in accordance with section 9.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O 1990, c. S.22, the Panel combined the two Notices of Hearing so that this matter could proceed in a single hearing.

8Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on April 16, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(10), 1(12), 1(13), 1(14), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18), and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 31 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 serious and repeated acts of dishonesty. Most egregiously, he misused a credit card intended for board-related expenses for his personal gain and he submitted expense documents for items that were purchased for his own benefit.

10The Panel finds that the Member failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10). The Member’s professional duties under the TDSB Expense Policy require that any record of expenses submitted by an employee be legitimate and relate to professional expenses only. The Member failed to comply with this duty by creating and submitting invoices and other expense-related documents for transactions that were made for personal use and unrelated to his board or to his profession.

11The Panel finds that the Member signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12). The Member signed a cheque to reimburse a claim by a HWDSB employee for personal travel expenses. By signing this cheque, the Member was authorizing that the expense was an HWDSB-related expense. The Member knew or ought to have known that by approving a personal expense for an employee, he was signing a document that contained an improper or misleading statement.

12The Panel finds that the Member falsified a record relating to the member’s professional responsibilities, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(13). TDSB policy requires that any expenses paid by the TDSB are board-related expenses. The Member contravened this policy by altering an invoice for a personal expense and knowingly submitting this invoice while claiming TDSB-related expenses. This invoice was for a laptop screen repair of a personal computer and was not related to his duties at the TDSB. By his action, the Member created a false record contrary to his professional responsibilities.

13The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). In particular, the Member failed to adhere to the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. The ethical standard of “integrity” refers to honesty, reliability and moral actions as core values of the teaching profession. The ethical standard of “trust” requires members to embody fairness, openness and honesty in their professional relationships. The Member failed to uphold the ethical standards of “trust” and “integrity” by purchasing approximately $15,300 worth of items for his personal use and falsely expensing them to the HWDSB, contrary to the board’s expense policy.

14The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, and specifically subsection 264(1), contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Members are required to set a proper example for students and to exemplify the virtues set out in subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act. By repeatedly and knowingly using a credit card meant for HWDSB expenses to make purchases for his personal use, the Member acted in a way that showed a lack of moral character and poor judgment. His conduct was at odds with his duties as member of the profession.

15The Panel finds that the Member contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16). The Member was convicted of knowingly causing the U.S. Consulate to use a forged document contrary to section 368(1.1) of the Criminal Code. Members are entrusted with the responsibility to act honestly and with integrity when drafting or submitting documents. By his conviction, the Member contravened a law which is relevant to his suitability to be a member of the profession.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s actions are disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member knowingly and repeatedly used a credit card meant for HWDSB-related expenses to make purchases for his own benefit. After leaving the HWDSB, the Member further claimed false expenses during his employment with the TDSB. As leaders and role models in their school communities, it is unacceptable for members of the profession to engage in this type of conduct. The Member’s misconduct involved extreme dishonesty towards his employers and is therefore properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

17Finally, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s misconduct is an example of behaviour that seriously undermines the reputation of the profession. The public places a great deal of trust in members of the profession, and particularly administrators. The Member demonstrated a serious breach of this trust by his fraudulent actions.

F. PENALTY Decision

18The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on April 16, 2021, 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 in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or via 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 is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of twenty-two (22) 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;

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) prior to resuming or commencing a position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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;

(ii) following 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 practitioners [sic] 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 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 which:

(i) confirms that the Member has successfully completed the course and reports on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

19The 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. Howard, 2014 ONOCT 48, Ontario College of Teachers v. Elliott (15 March 2021), and Ontario College of Teachers v. Bird, 2019 ONOCT 5.

20The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the prolonged duration of the Member’s misconduct, that the Member repeated his misconduct with two different employers, and that the Member took advantage of his leadership position as a superintendent. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, he has returned misappropriated funds to the HWDSB and the TDSB, and he has been punished for some of the misconduct by the criminal court. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

21The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. The public entrusts administrators to manage public schools ethically, with the utmost care and integrity. The Member failed to do so by using board funds for his personal gain. 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.

22Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a 22-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 22-month suspension is justified. 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 unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on May 1, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

23The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics is intended to assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. If the Member returns to a position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a member of the profession and will help him to make better professional and ethical decisions in the future.

24The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: April 16, 2021

Rebecca Forte, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

Josée Landriault, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel