DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Le Blanc 2022 ONOCT 108

Date: 2022-11-30

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 Pierre Le Blanc, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ROBERT PIERRE LE BLANC (REGISTRATION #262127)

PANEL: Rebecca Zaretsky, Chair

Brian Brophey

Maria Bueno-Marcial, OCT

HEARD: November 25, 2022

Linette King, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Darcel Bullen, for Robert Pierre Le Blanc

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 November 25, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Robert Pierre Le Blanc (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 January 11, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Robert Pierre Le Blanc 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 failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32¹ of 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).

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Robert Pierre Le Blanc 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.

2. From September 2006 to August 2013, the Member was employed by the Durham Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. From September 2013 to the present, the Member was employed by the Board as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School in [XXX], Ontario.

4. During the 2012-2013 academic year, Student 1 was a grade [XXX] student in the Member’s [XXX] class.

Use of inappropriate teaching materials

5. During the 2012-2013 academic year, the Member distributed an “Examination of Conscience” (the “document”) to his grade [XXX] [XXX] class. The Examination of Conscience is used in the Catholic faith as a guide to self-reflection during Advent and Lent. The Examination of Conscience is not a universal document and many versions of it exist.

6. The Member used a version of the document [sic] was not part of the Board curriculum, but was taken from the Member’s own church parish. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is an excerpt from the Examination of Conscience used by the Member in class.

7. The document contained the question, “have I sinned with others of the same sex”, and other questions inappropriate for the age-group of the class including: “have I denied my spouse his or her marriage rights?” and “have I abused my marriage rights in any other way”.

8. The Member’s use of this document had a negative impact on Student 1. She felt “unsafe in his classroom” and realized that the Member, whom she previously respected, would not respect her if he knew about her sexuality.

Homophobic Blog Post

9. On January 18, 2013, the Member wrote a post titled “On the Catholic Church and Homosexuality” on his public online blog, The Fisherman’s Shoes. He expressed several homophobic views writing that:

(a) “what the Catholic Church cannot be tolerant of (and nor should the rest of society) is the acceptance of homosexual activity as a societal norm”;

(b) “there is a reason why lying with a male as with a woman is an abomination, not only is it unnatural in that it does not lead to the procreation of humanity, it is also medically detrimental to those who partake in such homosexual activities”.

10. The Member identifies himself as an educator on his blog and referenced himself “attending an education workshop” outside of his school. He writes that “in one of the rooms where these workshops are held there’s a poster of a cute baby with the slogan Homosexuality is not a choice. Each time I’m in the room I’m sorely tempted to add a post-it note stating: No, but homosexual acts are! [Emphasis in original]”.

11. The Member defended his use of language, and the Church’s views in his blog post stating that “the Church isn’t trying to attack individuals personally, but rather actions that are detrimental to the common good of humanity”.

12. In the blog, the Member cited religious and educational sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church, Bible verses, and Respecting Difference, a document produced by the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association.

13. The Member also cited controversial sources in his blog. He included a link to a study published in 2012 which concluded that children of gay parents fared worse than children raised by married opposite-sex parents to support his position that “the true notion of family [is] one man and one woman to the exclusion of homosexual activity”. Prior and subsequent studies concluded that sexual orientation of parents does not make a difference to children’s well-being.

14. The Member included a link to a resource published by the NC Family Policy Council, the North Carolina division of the Family Policy Council. The Family Policy Council is an organization active in the United States which opposes same-sex marriage, LBGT [sic] adoption, and LGBT workplace protections while supporting abstinence-only sex education, increased legal restrictions on abortion, and traditional Christian gender roles.

15. The Member used the Family Policy Council resource to support his position that “certain body parts were not created to receive other body parts” and that “the physically damaging effects of homosexual activity” are well documented in the medical community. This resource has since been removed from the Family Policy Council website.

Homophobic and Transphobic Tweets

16. On several occasions from August 2012, to July 2016, the Member authored homophobic and transphobic posts on his public Twitter account. Among other homophobic and transphobic posts, the Member wrote:

(a) “Please pray for Catholic education in Ontario as Catholic teachers march in Pride parade. #Shameful.”;

(b) “Opposing gay ‘marriage’ is ‘truth in love’ not homophobia #Catholic.”;

(c) “Real shame is that the “Catholic” Teachers [sic] Association supported this bill. #onpoli #oecta #bill13”;

(d) “The French continue to fight the good fight. #1man1woman #1homme1femme”;

(e) “Correct. The CCC also states the homosexual act is disordered to nature. You are confusing action and person.”;

(f) “Please read Genesis 1:27 to answer your own question. God did not create homosexual couples”;

(g) “Homosexuality a choice … so says ex-homosexual … homosexual actions are a definite choice with consequences.”;

(h) “Please pray for teachers who try to witness true Catholicism in Ontario schools – OECTA doesn’t make it easy”;

(i) “Catholic schools become first in Canada with “transgender policy”… pls [sic] pray for Catholic Ed”;

(j) “Also amazing how many leftist parents complain about my indoctrination of their children with the Truth”;

(k) “The battle is made harder when Catholic Teacher’s unions march in the pride parade. #OECTA”.

(l) “Will make for interesting back to school as our student council prez [sic] ran on bringing this to our school - @archtoronto is aware” in response to a tweet about the Ontario Catholic school board allowing Gay-Straight Alliance groups (GSAs).

17. The Member’s posts in paragraph 16 above were authored by the Member and not re-posted from another source. Some of the posts contained links to source material that the Member tweeted in response or in reference to.

18. Student 1 recalls that “homophobic and transphobic comments were really normalized” at the School and “common to hear, especially in [XXX]class”.

19. Student 1 saw the Member’s posts on Twitter after she had graduated. She recalls the posts being similar to beliefs that the Member expressed in the classroom and being hurt by the Member’s expression of those beliefs while she was in his class.

20. Student 1 views the Member’s twitter posts as showing a “lack of support for [his] marginalized students”. She believes that “students deserve advocates who understand the importance of these clubs, of pride parades, and of inclusive policies” and believes that the Member’s tweets “[do] not show an understanding of this”.

GUILTY PLEA

21. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

22. The Member hereby acknowledges that 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(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).

23. 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 otherwise 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 does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

24. In light of the Admitted Facts and the 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

6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 25, 2022, 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(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 20 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 heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member used inappropriate teaching materials in class, wrote several homophobic and transphobic posts online, and expressed similar beliefs in class.

8The Panel finds that the Member abused a student verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario regulation 437/97. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member authored homophobic and transphobic posts on his public Twitter account. Student 1 recalled that the Member expressed similar beliefs in the classroom and was hurt by his conduct while she was in his class. Teachers are expected to be inclusive and respectful towards students. Expressing homophobic and transphobic beliefs in class is discriminatory and offensive, particularly towards homosexual and transgender students. The Member’s conduct therefore amounts to verbal abuse of a student.

9The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In addition to the homophobic and transphobic beliefs which the Member expressed in class, the Member also used a version of the Examination of Conscience document that was not part of the Board curriculum. This document contained age-inappropriate and homophobic questions such as “have I sinned with others of the same sex”. Given the position of trust and authority which teachers hold, the Panel finds that such conduct would reasonably have a negative psychological or emotional impact on students, particularly those who are homosexual and those who are transgender. Indeed, in this case, the Panel has received evidence that the Member’s conduct made Student 1 feel hurt and unsafe in the Member’s classroom. Student 1 realized that the Member, whom she previously respected, would not respect her if he knew about her sexuality. The Member’s conduct was therefore psychologically or emotionally abusive.

10The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws, which set out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the practice standards of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” and “Leadership in Learning Communities” and the ethical standard of “Respect”. Members are required to demonstrate their care and commitment to students. They must treat students equitably and with respect and be sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning (“Commitment to Students and Student Learning”). Members must also promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities (“Leadership in Learning Communities”). Moreover, members are required to honour human dignity, emotional wellness, and cognitive development (“Respect”). The Member’s conduct was in stark contradiction to these principles.

11By engaging in homophobic and transphobic conduct in class and via social media as described above, the Member failed to maintain the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. His comments made Student 1 feel hurt, unsafe and disrespected. By engaging in such discriminatory conduct, the Member also fostered an unsupportive and unsafe environment for Student 1 and others who are marginalized because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. The Member’s conduct therefore fell below the professional and ethical standards of the profession.

12The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Subsection 264(1)(b) provides that teachers must encourage students in the pursuit of learning, and subsection 264(1)(c) essentially provides that teachers must exemplify moral virtues and serve as positive role models. By engaging in homophobic and transphobic behaviour in the classroom, the Member taught students that such conduct was acceptable. Furthermore, the Member identified himself as an educator and expressed several homophobic views in his public online blog. Among other things, the Member referred to homosexual activities as being an “abomination” and as being “medically detrimental” to those who partake in them. The Member expressed similar views on his Twitter account and publicly expressed his opposition to the inclusive policies of the Catholic schools and the Catholic Teacher’s unions (e.g., OECTA). The Panel finds that by doing so, the Member perpetuated negative stereotypes about homosexuality and gender identity. His conduct was therefore contrary to his duties as a teacher to encourage all students, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, in the pursuit of learning.

13The Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to be inclusive in their professional practice and to demonstrate sound professional judgment when using social media. The Member did the opposite by his repeated homophobic and transphobic conduct in class and on social media. Such behaviour demonstrates significant moral and professional failing by the Member. There is no place for the promotion of intolerance by members of Ontario’s teaching profession.

14The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By expressing numerous homophobic and transphobic views online and in the classroom, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and breached the trust that the public places in the profession.

F. PENALTY DECISION

15The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on November 25, 2022, 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 by videoconference and the fact of the reprimand shall 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 one (1) month commencing on the 15^th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.

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

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding appropriate use of social media and anti-discrimination and inclusion, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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 (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 practitioner 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 thirty (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:

(i) 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

16The 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 interest². The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. MacDonald, 2019 ONOCT 104, Ontario College of Teachers v. Flitton, 2021 ONOCT 25, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Teal, 2022 ONOCT 33.

17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. Firstly, the Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment. He expressed homophobic and transphobic views over several years. Secondly, the Member’s intolerant beliefs were expressed on public online platforms and would have reasonably been viewed by a large audience. Thirdly, the Member’s conduct made Student 1 feel unsafe and hurt. Finally, the Member perpetuated harmful stereotypes regarding homosexuality and gender identity. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not previously been the subject of discipline proceedings in his long teaching career. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

18The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated homophobic and transphobic conduct in the classroom and online warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to be inclusive in their professional practice and demonstrate professional judgment when using social media. The Member did the opposite. 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.

19Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a one-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 December 10, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding appropriate use of social media and anti-discrimination and inclusion 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 any future interactions with students. It will also assist him in using social media appropriately.

21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1As of January 20, 2022, section 32 of the bylaws has been renumbered to section 26.
2. 2See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.