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
Leonard Stuart Cohen, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
LEONARD STUART COHEN (REGISTRATION #622421)
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Emile Ramlochan Jessica Saffran Reimers, OCT
HEARD: September 9, 2021
Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers Amin Nur, for Leonard Stuart Cohen Julie Maciura, 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 September 9, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Leonard Stuart Cohen (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation. The Member attended immediately after the hearing for the delivery of his reprimand as agreed to by the parties. 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 September 16, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Leonard Stuart Cohen is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) 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);
(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
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:
At all material times, Leonard Stuart Cohen was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “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 Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at the [XXX] in Toronto, Ontario. The [XXX]offers education to students through [XXX] the Board.
At all material times, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old female student from the Toronto Catholic District School Board completing a [XXX] at the [XXX].
At all material times, Person A was a female staff member employed at the [XXX].
In June 2018, the Member engaged in inappropriate conduct with Student 1 and conduct he knew or ought to have known was unwelcome, including:
(a) asking Student 1 for her address and where she lived;
(b) asking Student 1 how old she was;
(c) telling Student 1 about problems with his girlfriend and that he wanted to be with someone else;
(d) asking Student 1 for her personal telephone number, including after she told him that she was [XXX] years old;
(e) asking Student 1 to go to the movies with him, including after she told him that she was [XXX] years old; and
(f) providing his cellphone to Student 1, which resulted in Student 1 viewing images of sex dolls on his cellphone.
- From January 2018 to June 2018, the Member engaged in inappropriate conduct with Person A and conduct which he knew or ought to have known was unwelcome, including:
(a) telling Person A that his girlfriend abuses him and spits in his face;
(b) asking Person A if she has ever visited a dating website and telling her that she would get a lot of hits on a dating website;
(c) telling Person A that she did not need her boyfriend;
(d) asking Person A to come to his house to teach him how to do laundry;
(e) asking Person A for her personal phone number;
(f) asking Person A if they could hang out together;
(g) asking Person A if she would go to the gym with him; and
(h) telling Person A that she “looked really good on stage” after she [XXX] as part of a [XXX].
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 appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-6 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 5-6 of the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:
(a) he abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he committed an act or acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);
(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
- By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that 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 Discipline 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 with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, 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 and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 9, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 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 inappropriate and unwelcome conduct with Student 1 and Person A.
8The Member breached subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by making several inappropriate remarks to Student 1, who was a [XXX] student at the [XXX] where the Member taught. The Member’s remarks included: asking Student 1 for her age, her address, and her personal phone number; asking her to go to the movies with him; and telling Student 1 about problems with his girlfriend and that he wanted to be with someone else. The Member’s comments to Student 1 were unwelcome. The Panel finds that it is highly inappropriate for a teacher, who is in a position of trust, to make such unwelcome remarks to a student. Such conduct amounts to verbal abuse by the Member. Additionally, the Panel places significant weight on the fact that the Member has pleaded no contest to the allegation of verbal abuse.
9The Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted, and Member’s Counsel did not object, that by making inappropriate remarks as described above and, in particular, by asking Student 1 to go to the movies with him, the Member was attempting to establish a personal relationship with Student 1. The Member also provided his cellphone to Student 1, which resulted in Student 1 viewing images of sex dolls on his phone. The Panel accepts College Counsel’s unopposed submission that this conduct would reasonably have an adverse impact on Student 1’s emotional well-being and therefore amounts to psychological or emotional abuse.
10The Member committed acts which would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members must always maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students. It is unacceptable for a teacher, who is in a trusted position, to ask a student for her personal phone number and to invite a student to the movies. The Member was aware that Student 1 was [XXX] years old, but nevertheless made unwelcome advances. Such conduct demonstrates significant moral and professional failings by the Member. Moreover, the Member demonstrated a serious lack of professional judgment by engaging in inappropriate and unwelcome conduct towards Person A. Among other things, the Member told Person A that she would get a lot of hits on a dating website and asked her if they could hang out together. There is no place for such unprofessional conduct in a learning environment. Members of the teaching profession should behave honorably and professionally towards students and staff alike, which the Member repeatedly failed to do in this case. As such, the Member’s conduct can be properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
11The Member’s conduct, as described above, was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Teachers who engage in boundary violations with students and behave inappropriately with colleagues compromise the reputation of the teaching profession and undermine the trust and confidence that the public places in its members.
F. PENALTY DECISION
12The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 9, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered electronically, 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 5 months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and the 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) prior to accepting any position in Ontario that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall provide 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 and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 3(a)(i) above, the course practitioner shall 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; and
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in paragraph 3(a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report from the course practitioner 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
13The 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. Eyiah, 2015 ONOCT 20, Ontario College of Teachers v. Grant, 2015 ONOCT 33, Ontario College of Teachers v. Béarez, 2019 ONOCT 17, and Ontario College of Teachers v. MacDonald, 2019 ONOCT 104.
14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: (1) the repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct; (2) the Member engaged in similar misconduct towards a student and a colleague; and (3) the Member’s misconduct towards Person A spanned over approximately 5 months. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
15The Panel finds that the Member’s boundary violations with Student 1 and his unwelcome conduct towards Person A warrant a reprimand. Teachers must always maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and behave professionally with their colleagues. 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.
16Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a five-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 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 September 24, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
17The 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 his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in his professional practice.
18The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: September 10, 2021
Irene Dembek, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Emile Ramlochan Member, Discipline Panel
Jessica Saffran Reimers, OCT Member, Discipline Panel