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
Bradford Hudson Smith, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
BRADFORD HUDSON SMITH (REGISTRATION #425767)
PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, Chair Élaine Legault Jennifer McMaster, OCT
HEARD: August 20, 2021
Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Fady Mansour, for Bradford Hudson Smith
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.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on August 20, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Bradford Hudson Smith (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.
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.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated November 18, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Bradford Hudson Smith is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);1
(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(d) he failed to comply with the Act, or the regulations or the by-laws, and 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);
(g) 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 2), which provides the following:
Bradford Hudson Smith 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Nepean, Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1 was a female student at the School during the 2010-2015 academic years.
During the 2014-2015 academic years, the Member engaged in an ongoing inappropriate personal and romantic relationship with Student 1. The Member spoke with the student about personal matters and the student spoke to the Member about her personal matters.
The Members actions and attention towards Student 1 during 2014-2015 academic year established a special or privileged relationship between them. The Member treated Student 1 like his favourite. The Member asked Student 1 to volunteer at the [XXX] and at his [XXX].
During the 2014-2015 academic year, Student 1 and the Member also exchanged electronic communications of an inappropriate and personal nature. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the College’s Professional Advisory – Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media.
In or about January 2013, after having been directed by the School’s administration not to have any further contact with Student 1, the Member disregarded this direction and continued to have contact with Student 1. The Member was discovered alone in his vehicle in a parking lot with Student 1 by a police officer. Student 1 lied about her age in response to questions posed by the police officer.
Shortly after the student’s [XXX] from [XXX] school, the Member engaged in an adult or dating relationship with Student 1. Examples include, but are not limited to, the Member took the student out for drinks and/or lunch as well as engaged in romantic conversations between the two of them.
Student 1 suffered emotional harm as a result of the Member’s actions. This harm included stress, upset and confusion as a result of the Member’s behavior.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the College’s advisory on professional misconduct related to sexual abuse and sexual misconduct. As the advisory makes clear, responsibility for ensuring that the member-student relationship is professional and appropriate rests with the member and not the student. Conduct directed towards establishing a personal or romantic relationship with a student is inappropriate and professional misconduct even if it does not result in the establishment of a relationship until after the student has graduated. Members also have an obligation to avoid activities which may reasonably raise concerns as to their propriety. Meeting with a student in an isolated location is an example of conduct which Members have a professional obligation to avoid.
The Member resigned from the Board on February 28, 2018.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
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”).
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(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19). The Member further pleads no contest to the alleged conduct constituting sexual abuse as defined in Section 1 of the Act.
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 the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain 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
7Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought as proceeding under both subsection 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. The Panel granted the request.
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 August 20, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act.
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 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 an ongoing inappropriate personal and romantic relationship with Student 1.
10The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused Student 1, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member’s actions caused Student 1 emotional harm such as stress, upset and confusion. College Counsel submitted, and Member’s Counsel agreed, that the Member’s conduct while Student 1 was still a student at the School supports a finding of psychological or emotional abuse. The Panel accepts these submissions. The Member’s inappropriate conduct towards Student 1 while she was still a student at the School included being alone with the student in his vehicle, treating her as his favourite and exchanging inappropriate and personal electronic messages with her. Given the power imbalance that exists between a student and a teacher, the Member’s conduct would reasonably cause Student 1 to feel stressed, upset and confused. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct was psychologically or emotionally abusive.
11The Member sexually abused Student 1 contrary to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and section 1 of the Act. The definition of sexual abuse at section 1 of the Act includes behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by a member towards a student. Although paragraphs 4-7 of the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest do not list explicit sexual behaviour or remarks, both parties confirmed, in response to a query from the Panel, that the paragraphs amount to evidence of grooming behaviour of the Member towards Student 1, which can be characterized as “behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature” in this case. As a result, the Panel finds that the Member’s grooming behaviour of Student 1, which ultimately developed into an adult or dating relationship after Student 1 [XXX], meets the definition of sexual abuse under the Act. The Member’s grooming behaviour included: continuing to have contact with Student 1 contrary to the directions of the School’s administration; being alone in a parking lot with Student 1 in his vehicle; talking about his personal matters with Student 1; treating Student 1 as his favourite; and, exchanging inappropriate and personal electronic communications with Student 1. Additionally, the Panel gives significant weight to the fact the Member has pleaded no contest to sexual abuse under section 1 of the Act.
12The Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening section 32 of the College By-Laws, which sets out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. The Member’s abuse of Student 1, fell well below the standards in this case. In particular, the Member breached the ethical standards of “Care” and “Trust”. The standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate a commitment to students’ well-being. The Member’s inappropriate behaviour towards Student 1, while she was a student, caused her emotional harm, which is contrary to the ethical standards. The ethical standard of “Trust” provides that members’ professional relationships with colleagues are based on trust. By continuing to have contact with Student 1, contrary to the direction of the School’s administration, the Member broke the trust which his administrators had placed in him.
13The 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. Section 264(1)(c) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to “inculcate by precept and example […] the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.” Simply put, teachers must behave with integrity and serve as positive role models within their school communities. The Member’s conduct was antithetical to these principles. The Member abused his position of trust and authority by engaging in an ongoing inappropriate personal and romantic relationship with Student 1. By engaging in such immoral and abusive conduct with his student, the Member failed to fulfil the fundamental duties of a teacher.
14The 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. It is unacceptable for teachers, who are expected to be upstanding members of the community, to groom and ultimately date a student, after they [XXX]. Such conduct demonstrates serious moral and professional failings by the Member. It casts doubt on the Member’s ability to practise the profession without putting students at risk. The Member’s conduct can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
15Finally, the Member’s conduct, as described above, is also unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. When parents send their children to school, they expect that they will be safe and that teachers will not exploit their position of trust and authority to develop romantic or adult relationships with them. The Member’s egregious conduct has undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and violated the trust that parents, students, and the public place in teachers.
F. PENALTY Decision
16The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on August 20, 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
17The 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. The Panel makes both of these orders and notes that it has no discretion in this regard. 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 plea of no contest and joint submission on penalty.
18The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.
Date: August 25, 2021
Hanno Weinberger Chair, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Jennifer McMaster, OCT Member, Discipline Panel