Ontario College of Teachers v. Scott, 2022 ONOCT 21

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Scott 2022 ONOCT 21

Date: 2022-03-09

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

Carl Sanford Scott, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

CARL SANFORD SCOTT (REGISTRATION #187478)

PANEL: Kimberley Westfall-Connor, Chair Stefano Fornazzari, OCT Andrew Glenny

HEARD: March 1, 2022

Linette King and Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Michelle Sun, for Carl Sanford Scott Rebecca Durcan, 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 March 1, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Carl Sanford Scott (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 22, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Carl Sanford Scott is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to comply with the Act, or the regulations or the by-laws, and specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(b) 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);

(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:

1. Carl Sanford Scott 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. At all material times, the Member was employed by the District School Board of Niagara (the “Board”) as a Principal at [XXX] School (the “School”) and was the direct superior of Colleague 1.

3. At all material times, Colleague 1 was a female teacher at the School.

4. The Member joined the School as the Principal in September 2002. Colleague 1 had already been teaching at the School for several years.

5. In October 2002, while Colleague 1 was standing in an open area of the School, the Member initiated a discussion with her about the loss of her [XXX] and the loss of his own [XXX]. Colleague 1 had not told the Member about the death of her [XXX]. She was surprised and upset that the Member knew about her loss and raised it in a public area where someone else could overhear. The Member disregarded Colleague 1’s privacy by engaging in this highly personal discussion with her in an open area of the School where they might have been overheard.

6. The Member pursued a personal and romantic relationship with Colleague 1. The Member would regularly visit Colleague 1’s classroom even when there was no professional reason for doing so. The Member also started to call Colleague 1 to his office to talk after school. These discussions were personal rather than professional in nature. Colleague 1 felt obligated to engage in these personal discussions with the Member.

7. In December 2002 during a staff Christmas party at the Member’s home, the Member came up behind Colleague 1 and held her hands behind her back. Other staff members and the Member’s wife were present at the party. Colleague 1 was very uncomfortable with the Member’s behaviour.

8. In January 2003 the Member called Colleague 1 into his office and apologized for holding her hands at the Christmas party. Colleague 1 asked the Member not to do it again and accepted his apology.

9. In January or February 2003, the Member called Colleague 1 into his office to talk after school. While in his office, he put his arm around Colleague 1’s shoulder and then kissed her.

10. After this incident, the Member and Colleague 1 engaged in a personal and sexual relationship until the spring of 2004. This included multiple instances of kissing and sexual touching on School property, including in the Member’s office at the School.

11. In approximately March 2004, Colleague 1 ended the relationship with the Member. The Member continued to try to talk to her at School and tried to restart the relationship.

12. The Member retaliated against Colleague 1 for ending the relationship by orchestrating her transfer to another school against her wishes. Colleague 1 did not want to be transferred to the other school as it was a significant distance from her home and she had taught at the School for years.

13. Colleague 1’s interactions with the Member have had a significant emotional and psychological impact on her.

Board Investigation

14. In January 2018, Colleague 1, through legal counsel, wrote a letter to the Board regarding her relationship with the Member and raised allegations of misconduct by the Member.

15. The Board hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into Colleague 1’s allegations about the Member. The Member, Colleague 1, and other witnesses were interviewed as part of the investigation. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the June 13, 2018 Investigation Report.

16. The investigation concluded that, “the environment of the school for the Complainant [Colleague 1], staff and therefore students who are taught by those staff, was poisoned by the behaviour of the Respondent [the Member] by choosing to engage in sexual relations on school property, leading to gossip, and ultimately impacting the profession of teaching.”

17. The investigation concluded that the Member and Colleague 1:

“…engaged in a highly emotional and personal conversation in an open concept school where others might have overheard their discussion. Such a discussion should not have taken place where another party could have overheard the substance of what was being discussed and as a principal the Respondent [the Member] should have been more cognizant of maintaining the privacy of his staff member”.

18. The investigation also concluded that Colleague 1’s “move to a different school out of her neighbourhood to her detriment was a form of reprisal resulting from the relationship with the Respondent [the Member].”

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

19. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-18 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

20. 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(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

21. 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 with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

22. 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.

23. 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

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 March 1, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 18 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, on multiple occasions, the Member engaged in inappropriate conduct towards his direct report, which included having a personal and sexual relationship with her.

8The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws¹, which set out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities” and the ethical standards of “Respect” and “Trust”. Members are required to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. They are also required to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development as well as model respect for confidentiality. Additionally, members’ professional relationships with colleagues are based on trust. The Member’s conduct fell below the professional and ethical standards as set out below.

9The Member exploited his position of power by pursuing a personal and sexual relationship with his direct report. The Member’s conduct included having personal discussions with Colleague 1, which the latter felt obligated to do; making unwanted physical contact with Colleague 1 in front of other staff and his wife at a Christmas party in his home; and engaging in multiple instances of kissing, sexual touching, and sexual relations with Colleague 1 on School property. Furthermore, when Colleague 1 ended the relationship, the Member again abused his position of power by orchestrating her transfer to another school against her wishes. The Member’s actions made Colleague 1 feel uncomfortable and had a significant emotional and psychological impact on her. Moreover, the Member disregarded Colleague 1’s privacy by engaging in a highly personal discussion with her in an open area of the School where they might have been overheard. Colleague 1 was surprised and upset by the Member’s conduct. The Panel finds that by engaging in such inappropriate behaviour as described above, the Member created a poisoned, unsafe and unsupportive working environment for his direct report and the entire school community.

10The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Subsection 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that members of the teaching profession must act as positive role models. As a principal, the Member held an important leadership position. He was expected to set a positive example for teachers, students, and other members of his school community. By engaging in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with his direct report as described in paragraph 9 of this decision, the Member acted as a poor role model. Subsection 264(1)(d) requires members of the teaching profession to assist in developing cooperation and coordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school. The Member’s conduct was in stark contradiction to these principles. Instead of collaborating with Colleague 1 when the latter ended the inappropriate relationship, the Member retaliated by orchestrating Colleague 1’s transfer to another school against her wishes. This form of reprisal was incompatible with developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among staff. Evidently, the Member failed to fulfil his duties as a member of the teaching profession.

11The Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. It is unacceptable for principals, who are expected to be upstanding members of the community and maintain appropriate professional boundaries with staff, to have a sexual relationship with their direct reports. Such conduct demonstrates significant professional and moral failings by the Member and cast doubt on the Member’s ability to practise the profession. Moreover, the Member demonstrated poor professional judgment by raising a highly personal topic with Colleague 1 in a public area, where they could have been overheard. The Member should have maintained the privacy of his direct report. The Member’s conduct can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

12The 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, especially administrators, who engage in a personal and sexual relationship with their direct reports, 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

13The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on March 1, 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 five months commencing on the 15th 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) prior to resuming or commencing a position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, 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 professional ethics, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a 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 (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

14The 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. Fazl, 2019 ONOCT 2, Ontario College of Teachers v. Béarez, 2019 ONOCT 17, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Grant, 2021 ONOCT 14.

15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: (1) the fact that he was a principal and in a leadership role and hence was held to higher expectations; (2) the inherent power imbalance that was present between him and Colleague 1; (3) that he exploited his position of power to engage in a sexual relationship with his direct report; and (4) the exploitation culminated in the reprisal against Colleague 1. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member: (1) participated in the disciplinary process leading to the agreement between the parties; (2) did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing; and (3) 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.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct towards his direct report warrants a reprimand. Members, especially administrators, are expected to provide a safe and supportive working environment for staff and to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with them. The Member failed to do so by having a personal and sexual relationship with his direct report. 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.

17Given 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 March 16, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations and professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a member of the teaching profession and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with colleagues and direct reports. The coursework should provide the Member with a clear understanding of how to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with staff and how to behave ethically in the workplace.

19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1The Panel notes that the Notice of Hearing alleges a breach of section 32 of the College By-Laws. On January 20, 2022, the By-Laws were amended, and the numbering of certain provisions has changed. Section 26 of the By-Laws now sets out the standards of the profession; however, the substance of this provision remains identical to section 32 of the previous version of the By-Laws.