DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Kissner 2022 ONOCT 10

Date: 2022-01-10

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

Robert Bruce Kissner, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ROBERT BRUCE KISSNER (REGISTRATION #390830)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair

Lois Figg

Pauline Smart

HEARD: December 15, 2021

Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Kenneth Marley, for Robert Bruce Kissner

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 sexual misconduct, a prohibited act involving child pornography, or a prescribed sexual act.

By order of Justice Hebner of the Superior Court of Justice, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify the victim or a witness in this matter, pursuant to subsection 486.4 of the Criminal Code (Canada).

This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on December 15, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

Robert Bruce Kissner (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

The 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.

Additionally, 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, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, and Student 5, who were allegedly sexually abused. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identities of, or any information that could disclose the identities of Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, and Student 5.

The Panel also received a certified copy of the transcript of the Reasons for Judgment from the Member’s criminal proceeding before Justice Hebner dated April 16, 2019 (Exhibit 2 at Appendix C). In these proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice, an order restricting publication was made pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code (Canada). The Panel is required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, any information that could identify the victim or a witness involved in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated May 22, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Robert Bruce Kissner 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);

(b) he abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act;¹

(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(e) 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;

(f) 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);

(g) 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);

(h) he contravened a law, the contravention of which has caused or may cause a student who is under the member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);

(i) 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);

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

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Robert Bruce Kissner 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.

2. The Member has no previous disciplinary history with the College.

3. From 1984 to 1995, the Member worked as a full-time teacher at the [XXX] (the “School”), a private school in [XXX], Ontario.

4. The Member also served as a [XXX] with the [XXX], starting in 1975. The Member continued to serve with the [XXX] in various volunteer roles until January 1995, when he left his employment at the School and was hired as [XXX].

5. The Member served as [XXX] until December 2016, when he was arrested and subsequently placed on leave. He retired from his role as [XXX] in March 2017.

6. At all material times Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old male Grade [XXX] student doing a co-op placement with the [XXX]. In or around December 2016, Student 1 alleged that the Member had touched him in an inappropriate and sexual fashion. During the subsequent police investigation, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, Student 5 and Person 1, Person 2, and Person 3 brough [sic] forward allegations of a similar nature against the Member.

7. At all material times, Student 2 was a [XXX]-year-old male co-op student with the [XXX], performed community service with the [XXX] and/or participated in the [XXX] program.

8. At all material times, Student 3 was a [XXX]-year-old male co-op student with the [XXX] and/or performed community service with the [XXX].

9. At all material times, Student 4 was a [XXX]-year-old male student at the School in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class.

10. At all material times, Student 5 was a [XXX]-year-old male co-op student with the [XXX], performed community service with the [XXX] and/or was a summer student with the [XXX].

11. At all material times Person 1, Person 2 and Person 3 were male adult volunteer [XXX] with the [XXX] or adult employees of the [XXX].

12. On or about December 15, 2017, the Member was charged with:

(a) Sexual exploitation of Student 1 (2 counts), Student 2, Student 3 and Student 5, contrary to s. 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(b) Sexual interference of Student 4, contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code (Canada); and

(c) Sexual assault of Student 1 (2 counts), Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, Student 5, Person 1, Person 2 (2 counts) and Person 3 (2 counts), contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code (Canada).

Findings at Trial

13. At trial, the Honourable Madam Justice Hebner of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that:

(a) On or about December 6, 2016, while at the [XXX], the Member touched and/or rubbed Student 1’s thigh and genitals while they watched a YouTube video.

(b) On or about December 8, 2016, the Member brought Student 1 to his residence. The Member gave a partially undressed Student 1 a massage that involved contact with Student 1’s shoulders, back, buttocks, chest and genitals. The Member then provided swim trunks to Student 1 and the two went into the Member’s hot tub. There, the Member rubbed Student 1’s feet and touched Student 1’s thigh and genitals over his swim trunks. After Student 1 and the Member left the hot tub and got changed, the Member grabbed Student 1’s buttocks over his clothes.

(c) Between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2003, on approximately eight occasions at the Member’s home, the Member massaged Student 3’s shoulders, back, buttocks and chest, culminating in the Member masturbating Student 3;

(d) Between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2003, on one occasion after giving Student 3 a massage, the Member was naked and asked Student 3 for reciprocation. Student 3 gave the Member a back massage and grazed the Member’s penis;

(e) Between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2003, on one occasion when Student 3 was staying at the Member’s home overnight, Student 3 awoke to find the Member’s hand rubbing Student 3’s penis;

(f) Between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2003, on one occasion, the Member gave Student 3 an empty film container and told him to try to fill it with ejaculate;

(g) Between January 1, 2014 and September 10, 2015, the Member groped Person 2’s genitals on many occasions, either while in a work vehicle or in Person 2’s office at the [XXX];

(h) On approximately a dozen occasions between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016, the Member gave massages to Student 5 while the latter was in various stages of undress at the Member’s home, making contact with Student 5’s back, legs, shoulders, arms and genitals over the top of and underneath Student 5’s shorts;

(i) On one occasion between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016, while Student 5 was driving a [XXX] vehicle, the Member put his hand on Student 5’s lap and touched Student 5’s penis over the top of his pants.

14. On April 16, 2019, the Member was found guilty of:

(a) Two counts of sexual assault of Student 1, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code (Canada), and two counts of sexual exploitation of Student 1, contrary to s. 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(b) One count of sexual exploitation of Student 3, contrary to s. 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada);

(c) Two counts of sexual assault of Person 2, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code (Canada); and

(d) One count of sexual assault of Student 5, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code (Canada), and one count of sexual exploitation of Student 5, contrary to s. 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Canada).

15. The Member was found not guilty of the other charges against him.

16. On August 22, 2019, the Member was sentenced to a five-year custodial sentence and was made subject to several ancillary orders.

17. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” are certified true copies of court documents pertaining to this matter, namely the indictment and endorsement setting out the Member’s convictions.

18. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a certified of transcript of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Hebner of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated April 16, 2019.

19. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a certified transcript of the Reasons for Sentence of the Honourable Madam Justice Hebner of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated August 22, 2019.

Appeal

20. The Member filed an appeal of his convictions and sentence with the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

21. On October 23, 2020, the Member’s appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Member abandoned his conviction appeal and sought leave to appeal his sentence. The Court granted the Member leave to appeal his sentence but ultimately dismissed the appeal.

22. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” is a copy of the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision dismissing the Member’s appeal, dated October 27, 2020.

23. The Member acknowledges that his conduct fell below the standards of the teaching profession. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “F” is a copy of the College’s Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession.

GUILTY PLEA

24. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-23 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

25. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 6 to 14 and 16 to 19 of the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7) (pre-2008)², 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member further acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is sexual abuse of a student as defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.

26. 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) 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;

(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or the opportunity to have obtained legal advice.

27. In light of the Admitted Facts and 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

Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision December 15, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7) (as worded prior to May 5, 2008), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 23 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He 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 on numerous occasions, the Member touched Student 1, Student 3, Student 5, and Person 2 in a sexual manner. He was ultimately criminally convicted on April 16, 2019 of several counts of sexual assault and/or sexual exploitation against these persons. The Member filed an appeal of his convictions and sentence but ultimately abandoned the appeal of his convictions. The Ontario Court of Appeal heard and dismissed the Member’s appeal of his sentence.

(1) Paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing – Subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Panel finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member sexually abused Student 1, Student 3, and Student 5. The Member also sexually assaulted Person 2. Sexual offenses, and especially those committed against students, are reprehensible. Misconduct of this nature is so notorious that expert evidence of the standard is not required to prove the breach of professional standards.³

College Counsel stated the Member’s misconduct breached the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession outlined in section 32.02 of the College’s by-laws, and that the Member acknowledged his conduct fell below the standards of the teaching profession.

The Panel wholly agrees that the Member’s sexual assault of Student 1, Student 5, and Person 2, and sexual exploitation of Student 1, Student 3, and Student 5 are acts that are so egregious and offside what is acceptable for Member’s of the profession, that it is apparent that the Member breached the standards of the profession, including all of the ethical standards (Care, Respect, Trust and Integrity) set out in the Colleges’ by-laws.

(2) Paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing – Subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

Paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing contains allegations of professional misconduct in accordance with provisions of the Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97 that are now repealed. Specifically, it refers to section 40(1.1) of the Act and a previous version of subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, neither of which are in effect today.

From the time Ontario Regulation 437/97 was enacted, until May 5, 2008, subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 referred to any or all of the following forms of abuse committed by a member against a student: verbal, physical, psychological or emotional, and sexual. These are now distinct heads of professional misconduct in Ontario Regulation 437/97, as set out in subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), and 1(7.3) respectively. The Panel can make findings of professional misconduct, contrary to (then) subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as alleged in paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing, for acts of abuse that occurred before May 5, 2008. In other words, the allegation set out in paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing only applies to the Member’s conduct with respect to Student 3, which occurred between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2003.

The Member sexually abused Student 3 between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2003, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and as defined in sections 1 and 40(1.1) of the Act as they were enacted at the material time. During that time, the Member invited Student 3 to his home and inappropriately touched Student 3 on numerous occasions. The Member massaged Student 3 on various parts of the body, including his shoulders, back, buttocks, chest, and masturbated Student 3. On one occasion after giving Student 3 a massage, the Member was naked and asked Student 3 to reciprocate. On another occasion, the Member rubbed Student 3’s penis while he was sleeping at the Member’s home. On another occasion, the Member asked Student 3 to fill an empty film container with ejaculate. This conduct of a sexual nature clearly amounts to sexual abuse as defined in the Act at the material time.

The Member also physically abused Student 3, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as enacted before May 2008. The Member’s massages and sexual touching of Student 3 violated physical boundaries that should never be crossed with students.

The Member’s sexual abuse of Student 3 also constitutes psychological or emotional abuse, contrary to section 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as enacted before May 2008. During the Member’s prior criminal proceedings, Student 3 testified that the Member’s touching made him feel uncomfortable (Exhibit 2 at Appendix C). The Reasons for Sentence (Exhibit 2 at Appendix D) also indicated that the student victims felt helplessness at the time of the incidents, suffered losses to their confidence and self-esteem, and suffered heightened stress as a result of the Member’s actions. The trial judge found that the Member’s conduct led Student 3 to suffer “serious psychological harm”. The Panel therefore finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused Student 3.

(3) Paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing – Subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Member physically abused Student 1 and Student 5, contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 as alleged in paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing. The Member was responsible for the safety and physical well-being of Student 1 and Student 5. However, the Member’s massages and sexual touching of Student 1 and Student 5 violated their bodily integrity and crossed physical boundaries that should never be crossed with students.

(4) Paragraph (d) of the Notice of Hearing – Subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Member’s psychologically and emotionally abused Student 1 and Student 5, contrary to section 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as alleged in paragraph (d) of the Notice of Hearing. The Member’s heinous acts against Student 1 and Student 5 negatively impacted their cognitive, emotional, psychological or social development. At the Member’s prior criminal proceedings, Student 1 and Student 5 testified that the Member’s touching made them feel uncomfortable (Exhibit 2 at Appendix C). Student 1 was said to have felt disgusted, emotional, speechless, and afraid to tell his parents what happened. He also sought help for [XXX]. The Reasons for Sentence (Exhibit 2 at Appendix D) indicate that Student 5 experienced shame, embarrassment, and extreme discomfort by the Member’s touching. The Reasons for Sentence also indicated that the student victims felt helplessness at the time of the incidents. They suffered heightened stress, as well as loss of confidence and self-esteem. They withdrew from their relationships with friends and families and missed school.

(5) Paragraph (e) of the Notice of Hearing – Subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Panel finds that the Member sexually abused Student 1 and Student 5, contrary to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and as defined in section 1 of the Act, as alleged in paragraph (e) of the Notice of Hearing. In his prior criminal proceedings, the Member was found to have given over a dozen massages to Student 5, between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016, while Student 5 was in various stages of undress. The Member touched Student 5’s back, legs, shoulders, arms, and genitals during these massages. On one occasion, the Member also touched Student 5’s penis, over the top of his pants, while Student 5 was driving a [XXX] vehicle. In December 2016, the Member touched and/or rubbed Student 1’s thighs and genitals while watching a YouTube video together at the [XXX]. The Member also invited Student 1 to his home and massaged Student 1 while Student 1 was partially undressed, touching his shoulders, back, buttocks, chest, and genitals. The Member touched Student 1’s thighs and genitals, over his swim trunks, while they were in a hot tub together and grabbed Student 1’s buttocks, over his clothes, after they left the hot tub and got changed. This repeated conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual abuse as defined in section 1 of the Act and as contemplated in subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

(6) Paragraph (f) of the Notice of Hearing – Subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Member failed to comply with the duties of a teacher set out in section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Education Act defines “teachers” as members of the College. Therefore, regardless of whether they are teaching in the classroom or not, members of the College are expected to comply with the duties set out in section 264(1) of the Education Act. Subsection 264(1)(c) requires members to, among other things, serve as positive role models and exemplify various moral virtues. Sexual assault and sexual exploitation of persons, and especially of students, is morally repugnant and clearly fails to model the values and virtues contemplated in the Education Act.

(7) Paragraphs (g) and (h) of the Notice of Hearing – Subsections 1(16) and 1(17) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Member contravened subsections 1(16) and 1(17) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 as he has been found guilty of criminal offences that are relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration and that have caused or may cause a student who is under the member’s professional supervision to be put at risk. The Member has admitted and pled guilty to both heads of professional misconduct. The Panel accepts the Member’s plea. Sexual assault and sexual exploitation of children are reprehensible and cast serious doubt on a member’s ability to ensure the safety and well-being of students, especially in this case as the Member has repeatedly used his position of trust and authority to abuse and harm several students over the course of many years.

(8) Paragraph (i) of the Notice of Hearing – Subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

It is self-evident that the Member’s misconduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and would obviously be regarded as such by members of the profession. The Member clearly disregarded his responsibilities and duties to protect the well-being and safety of students. Sexual offences, especially those committed against children, are abhorrent and show moral turpitude and depravity by the Member.

(9) Paragraph (j) of the Notice of Hearing – Subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Member’s actions were unbecoming a member of the College, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Teachers hold a unique position of trust and authority in the classroom and their communities. Students’, parents’, and the public’s confidence in the profession is eroded when members abuse their position of trust and authority and engage in sexual assault and sexual abuse, especially when students are involved.

F. PENALTY DECISION

The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on December 15, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to receive a reprimand, by videoconference immediately after the hearing,⁴ pursuant to section 30.2(1)(a) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers; and

2. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, pursuant to section 30.2(1)(c) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included the sexual abuse of students. Although the Member committed his misconduct between 2001-2016, when the subsection 30.2 mandatory penalty provisions that applied to the type of sexual abuse committed by the Member were not yet in force, the College is required to apply the mandatory penalty provisions by virtue of the transitional provisions in section 63.2 of the Act. Section 63.2 of the Act provides that the mandatory provisions at section 30.2 apply retrospectively in the case of professional misconduct that consists of or involves sexual abuse of a student that occurred before April 3, 2019 (the day that the relevant mandatory penalty provisions came into force) so long as the Committee has not made an order pursuant to subsection 30(4), in respect of the matter, before that date. These conditions are met in this case.

Section 30.2(1) of the Act provides that for findings of sexual abuse of students, 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 therefore makes both orders under the mandatory penalty provision in subsection 30.2(1) of the Act and notes that it has no discretion in this regard.

In relation to the form of the reprimand, the Panel finds that an oral reprimand delivered by videoconference is appropriate given the parties’ agreement.

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 cooperation during the discipline process, his guilty plea, and the parties’ joint submission on penalty, and particularly given the high threshold that must be met before rejecting a joint submission on penalty.

The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.

Date: January 10, 2022

Rebecca Forte, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

Lois Figg Member, Discipline Panel

Pauline Smart Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing refers to provisions of the Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97 as previously enacted. Subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 was amended to its current form on May 5, 2008. Section 40(1.1) of the Act was repealed on December 5, 2016. The College can make allegations under these provisions for acts occurring during the time these provisions were still in place.
2. 2Amended on consent by the parties, on the record, during the hearing.
3. 3Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 established that the College should generally present expert evidence on the standards of the profession, unless the conduct is so notorious and so manifestly contrary to the standards that expert evidence is not required.
4. 4Amended on consent by the parties, on the record, during the hearing.