DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Dale 2021 ONOCT 05
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
Aaron Allen Dale, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
AARON ALLEN DALE (REGISTRATION #656130)
PANEL: John Hamilton, OCT, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT Wanda Percival
HEARD: December 3, 2020 and January 29, 2021
Andrew Matheson, for the Ontario College of Teachers Julianna Khou, for Aaron Allen Dale Rebecca Durcan, 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 January 29, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Aaron Allen Dale (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 June 5, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Aaron Allen Dale is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he provided false information or documents to the College or any other person with respect to the member’s professional qualifications, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(1);1
(b) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);2
(c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(e) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19);
(g) he failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the requested information is provided in a complete and accurate manner if the member is required to provide information to the College under the Act and the regulations, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(23).3
IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED that Aaron Allen Dale is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 437/97, section 2, in that a finding of professional misconduct or a similar finding against Aaron Allen Dale was made by the governing authority of the teaching profession in Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom, that is based on facts that would, in the Committee’s opinion, constitute professional misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act, in particular the aforementioned subsections.
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Aaron Allen Dale 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.
During the period November 1, 2014 – February 2, 2017, the Member was employed by the Surrey County Council as a [XXX] and [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Surrey, United Kingdom.
In the academic year 2016-2017, the Student was a female student at the School who was under the age of 16.
On or about September 23, 2016, the Member met with the Student after school hours at a public park without parental presence or permission, as alleged in section 4 of the Notice of Hearing. In relation to this incident, the Member failed to report to the Student’s parent or to a senior member of the School, and he failed to maintain professional boundaries with the Student, as found by the United Kingdom’s Teaching Regulation Agency (see paragraph 8 and Exhibit “C”, p. 7-8). The findings of the United Kingdom’s Teaching Regulation Agency included the following:
(a) The meeting was by chance, not pre-planned;
(b) The meeting was at a public park;
(c) The member stayed with the student for 40-45 minutes.
During the period November 1, 2014 – February 2, 2017, the Member used his personal mobile phone to take and store images relating to students and school activities, as alleged in section 5(a) of the Notice of Hearing.
During the period November 1, 2014 – February 2, 2017, the Member used his personal laptop to search for websites and material involving sexual activity with children, as alleged in paragraph 5(a) of the Notice of Hearing, as found by the United Kingdom’s Teaching Regulation Agency (see paragraph 8 and Exhibit “C”, p. 18-20). The findings of the United Kingdom’s Teaching Regulation Agency included the following:
(a) Web searches completed on the Member’s laptop revealed a number of searches relevant to child protection investigations;
(b) The Member had been involved in activity which may have led to him viewing and possessing indecent photographs or images of a child and that this was not isolated to one occurrence;
(c) No material involving sexual activity with children was found on his laptop;
(d) The searching was not an isolated incident (websites were accessed more than once, with months elapsing between searches);
(e) The titles entered into the search engines suggest the intentional searching for websites that involved sexual activity with children; and,
(f) Traces of file destruction software were found on the Member’s laptop. The Member’s explanation regarding the traces of file destruction software was implausible.
On March 29, 2018, the Member was [XXX] in the United Kingdom and was barred from working with or volunteering with children. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of a Final Decision Letter from the [XXX] to the Member dated March 29, 2018.
On or about April 4, 2018, after a hearing, the United Kingdom’s Teaching Regulation Agency found the Member committed unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. On or about April 10, 2018, a recommendation was made to the Secretary of State to prohibit the Member from teaching indefinitely and applying for a restoration of his eligibility to teach. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the outcome of the Teaching Regulation Agency as well as the decision of the Secretary of State for Education.
The parties agree that the findings of the Teaching Regulation Agency constitute findings of professional misconduct or a similar findings by a governing authority of the teaching profession in a jurisdiction other than Ontario that are based on facts that would constitute professional misconduct pursuant to section 2 of the Misconduct Regulation.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraph 4-9 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
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(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19), and 2.
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 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;
(f) he understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and himself 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.
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.
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
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), and (g) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(1), 1(5), and 1(23) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel did not provide reasons for this request; however, the Panel notes that this request is part of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. As such, the Panel granted this request.
7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on January 29, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, sections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19), and section 2.
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 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.
9The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by failing to meet the expectation of “trust” codified in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession at section 32 of the Bylaws of the Ontario College of Teachers. According to the standard of trust, teachers are expected to be trustworthy in their professional relationships with students, parents, and the school community. The Member failed to maintain this standard by using his personal mobile phone to take and store images related to students and school activities. Additionally, the Member’s meeting with the Student was entirely inappropriate and in breach of this ethical standard. Although the meeting between the Member and the Student occurred by chance, the Member met with the Student for 40-45 minutes, failed to maintain professional boundaries with her, and failed to report this meeting to the Student’s parents or to a senior member of the School. By this lack of reporting, the Member also showed a lack of professional judgment and a failure to adhere to the ethical standard of “trust”.
10The Member’s behaviour contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by breaching section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act, which requires teachers to serve as positive role models and set an example for students. By searching for websites and materials that involve sexual activity with children and that objectify and exploit children, the Member failed to behave as an appropriate role model. The Member’s conduct in this case was entirely at odds with his obligations as a teacher.
11The Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. It is unacceptable for members of their profession to search for websites and materials involving sexual activity with children. This behaviour is disgraceful, dishonourable, and demonstrates a lack of professional judgment.
12Similarly, the Member’s misconduct is unbecoming a member of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s behaviour served to in undermine the reputation of the profession and violated the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.
13Finally, the findings of the Teaching Regulation Agency in the United Kingdom are based on facts that would constitute, and that in fact do constitute, professional misconduct in Ontario. As such, the Panel finds that the Member has engaged in professional misconduct as per section 2 of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
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 January 29, 2021 the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.
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”).
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 represents an acceptable outcome, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Griffin, 2019 ONOCT 68, Ontario College of Teachers v. Stelpstra, 2014 ONOCT 98, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Maillard, 2013 ONOCT 63.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. While the Member was not criminally convicted of possession of child pornography, he nevertheless did not contest that he searched for and potentially accessed indecent images of a child. As such, the cases presented are comparable and the Member’s professional misconduct was extremely concerning. The Panel notes that the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. The Member also expressed remorse for his behaviour. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
17The Panel finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is appropriate in this case. The Member’s conduct in searching for and potentially accessing material involving sexual activity with children was abhorrent and reprehensible. The Member’s behaviour supported an illicit industry based on the exploitation of vulnerable children. As such, the Member’s misconduct warrants an order of the Panel’s most severe penalty available: revocation. Not only has the Member’s behaviour had a grave impact on the potential victims of his misconduct, but it has also jeopardized the public’s trust in the teaching profession. Accordingly, the Member is no longer entitled to be a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.
18The Panel finds that the Member’s behaviour also warrants a reprimand. 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.
19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: January 29, 2021
John Hamilton, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Wanda Percival Member, Discipline Panel