DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Forndran 2022 ONOCT 31

Date: 2022-03-25

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

John Leslie Forndran, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JOHN LESLIE FORNDRAN (REGISTRATION #504036)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair Pascale Evans-Paulen, OCT Emma Rhodes

HEARD: March 23, 2022

Eli Mogil, for the Ontario College of Teachers John Leslie Forndran, self-represented Erica Richler, 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 23, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2John Leslie Forndran (the “Member”) attended the hearing and did not have 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

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 February 3, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that John Leslie Forndran 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, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);¹

(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);²

(c) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

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

C. 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. John Leslie Forndran 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 Waterloo Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Kitchener, Ontario.

3. At all material times, Person A was a female colleague of the Member.

4. Before the December 2018 Christmas holidays, the Member and Person A discussed their holiday plans. The Member told Person A that he was going to drive to Florida to spend the holidays. Person A replied that he was crazy for driving to Florida in a van with 370,000km on it and said something to the effect to “hopefully you will meet someone while you are down there.” Person A told the Member that she was going to [XXX]. The Member told Person A that he was going to make a sign similar to those on online dating websites and that he was going to a clothing-optional beach. Person A responded by questioning whether the Member would actually take the steps described and the Member and Person A made a friendly bet of $5 to which Person A said to send her a picture and that she would send him a picture of her having fun on her vacation as well.

5. On December 21, 2018, after discussing the wording on the sign with Person A, the Member sent a picture of the sign via text message to Person A before leaving for Florida. It read as follows:

SWM LOOKING TO MEET FEMALE COMPANION FOR NEW YEARS EVE. (OR THE REST OF MY LIFE) I’M 58 YEARS OF AGE, A TEACHER, LIKE TO KEEP IN SHAPE, FRIENDLY (PEOPLE SAY I’M FUNNY), WANT TO HAVE FUN AND ALWAYS POSITIVE, I’M FROM TORONTO, CANADA IF INTERESTED PLEASE SAY HI, MY NAME IS JOHN.

Person A did not reply to the Member’s text message.

6. On December 24, 2018, the Member sent a full nude picture of himself to Person A with a text message that read as follows:

Hope your trip is going well. I thought I should sent you this before you spend my money. I should have waited for better picture – but honestly it’s all about the money. Please send a picture back. P.S. I got 2 numbers today (one I might call) and lots of people wanted to take a picture of the sign.

Person A replied: Wow. You really crossed the line. That’s wildly inappropriate.

7. The photograph the Member sent was a nude photo of himself. As soon as the Member read Person A’s text about the inappropriateness of the photo he was extremely remorseful and apologetic. On December 25, 2018, the Member texted Person A twice with his apologies with respect to sending the nude picture to her. On December 29, 2018, the Member also left a voicemail for Person A apologizing for his actions.

8. On January 7, 2019, the Member left a card for Person A with an LCBO gift card again apologizing for his actions. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the card.

9. Later on January 7, 2019, Person A reported the nude picture sent to her by the Member to the Principal of the School which then led to an investigation.

10. Ultimately, the Member’s employment was suspended by the Board for a period of three days. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Employee Work Incident Report dated January 11, 2019.

Current Status

11. The Member is currently teaching at the School.

GUILTY PLEA

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

13. 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(18) and 1(19).

14. 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.

15. 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

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(14) and 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegations was being sought as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. The Panel granted these requests.

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on March 23, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 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 the Member engaged in inappropriate communications by sending a nude photograph of himself to a colleague, Person A.

9The Member admits and the Panel finds that his conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). By sending a nude photograph of himself to his colleague, Person A, the Member showed very poor professional judgment, which casts doubt on his ability to uphold his professional obligations. Teachers are expected to maintain professionalism in their interactions with others, including colleagues, at all times. This expectation extends to their conduct outside of the classroom, given the unique position of trust and authority that teachers hold in their communities. Person A would have expected to be treated with dignity and not to be subjected to inappropriate text communications from her colleague. Because the Member’s shameful conduct demonstrated significant professional and moral failings, the Panel finds that it is properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

10The Member’s actions were also unbecoming a member contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19) because they diminished the reputation of the teaching profession as a whole. The public trusts members of the profession to demonstrate sound judgment, given that teachers serve as important role models for students. The Member’s regrettable conduct in this case has undermined that trust.

F. PENALTY DECISION

11The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on March 23, 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 via videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to 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 two (2) 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) 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 maintaining boundaries in a professional context, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to the 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, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) following 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 practitioners 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 which:

(i) confirms that the Member has successfully completed the course and reports on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

12The 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.³ 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. Bergin, 2018 ONOCT 29; Ontario College of Teachers v. Bradley, 2019 ONOCT 73; Timothy Edward Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303; Ontario College of Teachers v. Elken, 2021 ONOCT 120; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Fazl, 2019 ONOCT 2.

13The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The Panel did not find any aggravating factors in the Member’s case. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and sparing witnesses from having to testify at a contested hearing. The Member’s misconduct was an isolated event for which he has taken responsibility and expressed remorse. In addition, the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

14The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Teachers must be professional in their interactions with their colleagues both in and out of the classroom. The Member did not maintain appropriate boundaries with Person A when he sent her a nude photo of himself. 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.

15Given 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 April 7, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

16The Panel finds that requiring the Member to successfully complete a pre-approved course of instruction regarding maintaining boundaries in a professional context will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a professional and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with his colleagues.

17The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
3. 3See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Timothy Edward Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.