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
Mark Stanfield Irven, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MARK STANFIELD IRVEN (REGISTRATION #273099)
PANEL: Wanda Percival, OCT, Chair Kiran Qureshi Lisa Tucker
HEARD: February 9, 2022
Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers Naomi Greckol-Herlich, for Mark Stanfield Irven 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 February 9, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Mark Stanfield Irven (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 May 4, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Mark Stanfield Irven 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 verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(e) he practised or purported to practise the profession while under the influence of any substance or while adversely affected by any dysfunction,
(i) which the member knew or ought to have known impaired the member’s ability to practise, and
(ii) in respect of which treatment has previously been recommended, ordered or prescribed but the member has failed to follow the treatment,
contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(8);
(f) he failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);2
(g) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(h) 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);
(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. 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:
Mark Stanfield Irven 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Upper Canada District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, the Member taught a Grade [XXX] Class that included both Grade [XXX] and Grade [XXX] students.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 1 was a female student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] Class.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 2 was a male student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] Class.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 3 was a female student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] Class.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 4 was a male student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] Class.
Inappropriate Conduct During the 2015-2016 Academic Year:
In November 2015, two students noted that the Member smelled of [XXX]. The students reported their observations to another teacher.
The Member had been previously treated for [XXX] in [XXX], Ontario in May and June of 2015 where he was prescribed ongoing treatment including therapy, medication and abstaining from the use of [XXX]. The member does not contest that he attended school while failing to follow the prescribed treatment.
The Board conducted an investigation which determined that students and staff had observed that the Member smelled of [XXX] at the school on multiple occasions. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated March 23, 2016.
Inappropriate Conduct During the 2016-2017 Academic Year:
During the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member also taught a [XXX] school [XXX] class.
During September and October of 2016, there were multiple instances of the Member making inappropriate comments and gestures to students.
During a discussion in the Member’s [XXX] class, the Member lifted up his shirt and exposed his belly and bare stomach to the class. Students reported that this happened on at least two occasions. At least one student left the classroom because they felt uncomfortable.
During the Member’s Grade [XXX] class, the Member asked Student 1, a female student in the class, whether or not she dyed her hair blonde or if it was her natural hair colour. When Student 1 stated that she did not understand, the Member asked another student in the class to explain it to her. This student stated that the Member was calling Student 1 stupid. The Member did not correct this response. The Member’s comments made Student 1 very upset. Student 1 left the Member’s class on several occasions during this first semester at the School.
During the Member’s [XXX] class, the Member brought up the three levels of government, holding up three fingers. The Member then he held up his middle finger to the class.
In September of 2016, some students were in the hallway discussing what they would do if they had erections or “boners” in class. During this discussion, they asked the Member what he would do. The Member stated something to the effect of “Hey, I’ve got an office.”
The Board conducted an investigation and the Member received a letter of discipline from the Board reminding him to abide by the Ethical Standards of the Teaching Profession. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated November 17, 2016.
The absence reporting protocol at the School was to contact the Board prior to 7:00 a.m. and to forward class assignments for the day. Between September and November 2016, on several occasions, the Member also failed to attend work without giving adequate notice to the Board:
(a) On October 3, 2016, the Member did not notify the Board of his absence until approximately 7:30 a.m. The Member noted that his absence was due to missing his ride to work. The Member was to attend a seminar at the University of Ottawa the next day and advised that he would let the Principal know if he was not able to attend.
(b) On October 4, 2016, the Member was to attend this seminar at the University of Ottawa. The Member called the Principal after 11:00 a.m. to advise that he was sick and that he would not be in attendance.
(c) On October 5, 2016, the Member again called in sick for the remainder of the week from October 5-7, 2016.
(d) The Member was further absent from work from October 17-19, 2016 and failed to call in to the School to provide adequate notice. The Member met with the Principal about these absences on October 24, 2016. The Board’s expectations were reiterated to the Member at this meeting.
(e) On October 31, 2016, the Member again failed to show up for work and did not call to submit his daily lesson plans. The Principal of the School called the Member at approximately 8:00 a.m. but could not get through. Later that morning, the Member called in to leave his lesson plan.
(f) On November 1, 2016, the Member again advised that he was sick past the 7:00 a.m. deadline, noting that his phone was dead.
- The Member received a letter of discipline from the Board reminding him of the School’s absence protocol for not correctly reporting his absences on October 31 and November 1, 2016. The letter noted that the Member received an email on February 25, 2015 from the Principal advising of his expectations for the Member to follow the absence reporting protocol. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Board’s additional letter to the Member dated November 17, 2016.
Inappropriate Conduct During the 2017-2018 Academic Year:
Between September and November 2017, the Member made numerous inappropriate comments and gestures to students.
Early in the year in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class, the Member was injured and wore a finger cast. He would ask students in the class to smell his finger. Students in the class perceived this to be disgusting.
In the Member’s Grade [XXX] class, students were designing CO2 powered wooden model cars. While in class, the Member held the wooden shaft of a model car near his genital area. Student 2 was seated at his desk and the Member was standing in front of him, holding the wooden shaft at the height of Student 2’s eyes. The Member then asked Student 2 to touch or feel the tip of the shaft multiple times. Each time, Student 2 stated “no thank you.” Student 2 and other students in the class perceived these actions to be an inappropriate sexual gesture or joke. Student 2 was so upset by this incident that he told the vice-principal that he was not comfortable being alone in the Member’s class.
The Board contacted Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (“FCS”) on December 3, 2017 regarding the Member holding a wooden car near his genital area and asking Student 2 to touch it. The FCS conducted an investigation, and by letter dated December 20, 2017, advised the Board that the allegations regarding sexually inappropriate actions and statements made by the Member were verified. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the FCS letter to the Board dated December 20, 2017.
The Member also made inappropriate sexist comments to female students in his Grade [XXX] class. On November 28, 2017, on returning from an absence, the Member told Student 3 that he had heard from another teacher that she had been “useless” and that she did “dick all” in class while the Member was away. Student 3 was very upset. Later on in that same class, The Member stated words to the effect of “I don’t say this very often, but Student 3 is right.”
On November 28, 2017, a student brought hot sauce to the class and several students tried it. The Member noted that he was surprised that the girls tried the hot sauce and stated words to the effect of “you cannot handle the hot sauce.” A student in the class told the Member that he was being sexist; the Member shrugged his shoulders.
During his Grade [XXX] class, Student 4 returned from the washroom. The Member asked Student 4 whether this had been a “stand up or a sit-down job.” This made Student 4 very uncomfortable.
A student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] Class asked the Member about an upcoming surgery that the Member had. The Member replied to the effect that the surgery was “private” and made an indirect reference to his genital area. This made at least two female students in the Member’s class uncomfortable.
The Board conducted an investigation and the Member was disciplined by the Board. The Member received a two-day suspension and was required to take professional boundaries training. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated April 24, 2018.
UNCONTESTED FACTS
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct 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), 1(7.2), 1(8), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member further does not contest that the Uncontested Facts constitute sexual misconduct 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 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/herself [sic] 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.
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) and (f) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(11) 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 subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. College Counsel further stated that the permission to withdraw the subsection 1(11) allegation was being sought as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. The Panel granted these requests.
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 February 9, 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(8), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act.
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 28 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 a pattern of inappropriate conduct, which included making inappropriate comments to students and exposing students to behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature.
9The Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. On multiple occasions the Member made inappropriate comments to students which included: insinuating that Student 1 was stupid because her hair was blonde and asking Student 4 who had returned from the washroom, whether this was a “stand up or a sit-down job”. The Member also made sexist and disparaging comments to female students in class. For instance, he stated that girls cannot handle hot sauce, called Student 3 “useless” and stated that she did “dick all” in class while the Member was away. The Panel finds that the Member’s remarks that were made to several students were demeaning, disrespectful and offensive, and as such amount to verbal abuse by the Member.
10The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In addition to the inappropriate comments described above, the Member also made inappropriate gestures to students on multiple instances. The Member’s gestures included lifting his shirt and exposing his belly and bare stomach to the class, and asking students to smell his finger, which was injured and in a cast. Additionally, the Member exposed students to sexualized behaviour and remarks. The Member’s conduct made several students feel uncomfortable, upset and disgusted. Some students, including Student 1 and Student 2 for instance, were so emotionally affected that they left the Member’s class or did not feel comfortable being alone in the Member’s class. Teachers hold a unique position of trust and authority, and it is psychologically or emotionally abusive for them to repeatedly engage in behaviour that makes students feel uncomfortable, upset and disgusted at school. The Member’s conduct therefore amounts to psychological or emotional abuse of students.
11The Member engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act. “Sexual misconduct” is defined in the Act as:
1(1) inappropriate behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member that is not sexual abuse of a student, where,
(a) one or more students are exposed to the behaviour or remarks, or the member knows or ought to know that one or more students are likely to be exposed to the behaviour or remarks, and
(b) a reasonable person would expect the behaviour or remarks to have the effect of,
(i) causing distress to a student exposed to the behaviour or remarks,
(ii) being detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of a student, or
(iii) creating a negative environment at a school for a student exposed to the behaviour or remarks.
The Member exposed several students to behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature. While in class, the Member held the wooden shaft of a model car near his genital area. He then asked Student 2 to touch or feel the tip of the shaft multiple times and each time Student 2 declined to do so. Student 2 and other students in the class perceived these actions to be an inappropriate sexual gesture or joke. Additionally, the Member made remarks with sexual overtones which included: stating “Hey, I’ve got an office” in reply to a question about what he would do if he had an erection; and making an indirect reference to his genital area when he was asked about his upcoming surgery. The Panel finds that a reasonable person would expect the behaviour or remarks of the Member to cause distress to students, to be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of students, or to create a negative environment at a school for students exposed to the behaviour or remarks. In this case, the Panel received evidence that the Member’s behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature did, in fact, cause his students distress. Student 2, for instance, was not comfortable being alone in the Member’s class after the incident involving the wooden car shaft. Certainly, a reasonable person would expect that when an adult teacher, who holds a position of trust and authority, exposes students to this type of sexualized behaviour, it could have a distressing or detrimental effect on students. Accordingly, the Member’s conduct in this case meets the definition of sexual misconduct at section 1 of the Act.
12The Member practised or purported to practise the profession while under the influence of any substance or while adversely affected by any dysfunction,
(a) which the member knew or ought to have known impaired the member’s ability to practise, and
(b) in respect of which treatment has previously been recommended, ordered or prescribed but the member has failed to follow the treatment,
contrary to subsection 1(8) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member had previously been treated for [XXX] and he was prescribed ongoing treatment, including therapy, medication and abstaining from the use of [XXX]. During the 2015-2016 academic year, students and staff observed that the Member smelled of [XXX] at the school on multiple occasions. The Member does not contest that he attended school while failing to follow the prescribed treatment. As such, the Member breached subsection 1(8) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
13The 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 ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect”. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. By engaging in inappropriate conduct towards students as described above, which made them feel upset and uncomfortable, the Member demonstrated a lack of commitment to students’ well-being and was disrespectful towards them. Disrespectful and upsetting behaviour has no place in a learning environment and as such, falls below the ethical standards of the teaching profession.
14The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Section 264(1)(b) requires teachers to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. Section 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that members of the teaching profession must act as positive role models. Section 264(1)(d) requires teachers to “assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school.” The Member’s conduct was contradictory to these principles. By engaging in disrespectful and offensive behaviour which made students feel uncomfortable, and in some instances, leave the class, the Member discouraged students from learning. Furthermore, by displaying such conduct in front of students and attending school under the influence of [XXX], the Member acted as a poor role model. Additionally, the Member demonstrated a lack of cooperation with his administrators by repeatedly being absent without giving adequate notice. In these ways the Member failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.
15The 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. It is unacceptable for teachers, who are expected to be upstanding members of the community and to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students, to engage in disrespectful and offensive conduct towards them and expose them to sexualized behaviour and remarks. The Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment since: (1) his disrespectful behaviour spanned two academic years and involved several students, and (2) he asked Student 2 to touch or feel the tip of a wooden shaft held near the Member’s genital area multiple times even though Student 2 kept declining. The Member also demonstrated poor professional judgment by repeatedly attending school under the influence of [XXX] and by failing to report his absences according to the School’s absence protocol. The Member knew or ought to have known that he needed to provide adequate notice for his absences since his principal had reiterated the Board’s expectations to him in that regard. The Member’s conduct involved significant moral and professional failings and can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
16The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct, as described above, is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members who engage in such a concerning pattern of inappropriate behaviour, as the Member did, undermine the reputation of the teaching profession and breach the trust that the public places in the profession.
F. PENALTY Decision
17The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 9, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
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”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two months commencing on the 15^th^ calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the decision and order is rendered between May 1 and August 1. [sic] The suspension will commence on September 1;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 boundary violations and appropriate communication with students, 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 [sic]4 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 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
18The 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. Chong Yen, 2019 ONOCT 28, Ontario College of Teachers v. Chauvin, 2020 ONOCT 208, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Buswa, 2020 ONOCT 192.
19The 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 behaviour which spanned two academic years, (2) the fact that it led to significant emotional harm for several students, and (3) the failure of the Member to correct his behaviour after having received letters of discipline from the Board. 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 College discipline in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
20The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct, despite prior warnings from the Board, warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and act as positive role models. The Member failed to so by making inappropriate remarks and gestures to students, by exposing them to sexualized behaviour and remarks, and by attending school under the influence of [XXX], among other things. 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.
21Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a two-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 February 24, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
22The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations and appropriate communication with students 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.
23The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: February 11, 2022
Wanda Percival, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Kiran Qureshi Member, Discipline Panel
Lisa Tucker Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
- Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
- The Panel has ordered the exact language jointly submitted by the parties, which it understands to mean that, only if “the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1.” Since this order was not rendered between May 1 and August 1, the Member’s suspension will begin on February 24, 2022, which is 15 calendar days after the Panel’s order.
- The Panel has ordered the exact language jointly submitted by the parties, and notes, based on the other exhibits presented in this case (i.e. Exhibit 2) that this provision should refer to the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and not to an Agreed Statement of Facts and Plea.