DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Knight 2022 ONOCT 38

Date: 2022-04-14

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

David William Knight, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

DAVID WILLIAM KNIGHT (REGISTRATION #441886)

PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair Scott Barker, OCT Emma Rhodes

HEARD: April 7, 2022

Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers Amin Nur, for David William Knight Ahmad Mozaffari, 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 April 7, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2David William Knight (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 November 17, 2021 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that David William Knight is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) he abused a student or students, 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 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);¹

(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. David William Knight is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times the Member was employed by the Upper Grand District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. At all material times, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old female student at the School, Student 2 was a male student at the School, Student 3 was a Grade [XXX] female student who was in one of the Member’s [XXX] classes at the School, and Student 4 was a female student who was also in one of the Member’s [XXX] classes at the School.

4. At all material times, Person A was another teacher at the School.

5. In or around October 2016, the Member:

(a) asked Student 1 to join his personal band, indicating that he needed a girl for back-up vocals, despite the fact that Student 1 was a [XXX] and not a singer;

(b) persisted in his attempt to persuade Student 1 to come for a “try-out”, telling her he could work around her schedule, despite Student 1 advising the Member that she did not sing and that she did not want to be part of his band; and

(c) told Student 1 that Student 2 was in the band, although Student 2 was not in the band.

6. The Member did not ask any other female students, including any of the female students in the School choir, to be in his band. Student 1 felt that this was strange and indicated that the Member’s conduct made her feel uncomfortable.

7. There was a report made to the Family and Children Services (“FACS”) regarding the Member’s conduct toward Student 1. FACS did not confirm the report. However, it did find that the Member’s behaviour was “not appropriate given [his] position as a teacher”. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the letter dated January 16, 2017.

8. On or about October 31, 2016, the Member used his personal cell phone camera to surreptitiously take pictures of students and Person A at the School without their consent, contrary to Board policy.

9. In her statement to the Board, Person A indicated that she was “completely rattled” by the way the Member slyly tried to take a picture of her. She asked the Member to delete the picture he took of her and told him that he needed permission before taking people’s pictures on his personal device. The Member did not confirm to Person A that he would delete the picture when requested, but he states that he did delete it at a later time.

10. During the 2016/2017 academic year, the Member also made numerous inappropriate and unprofessional comments to female students in his classes, including but not limited to, asking Student 3, “are you a good student?” or something to that effect, when she asked if she could go to the washroom, and only allowing her to go to the washroom after she replied, “yes”. Student 3 indicated that she was “weirded out” by the Member’s conduct.

11. On or about November 3, 2016, the Board placed the Member on a Board-directed leave during its investigation into these incidents. Following the completion of the Board’s investigation, the Member went on a medical leave due to chronic medical issues, which impacted the Member’s ability to do his job.

12. The Member resigned (retired) from the Board effective January 31, 2020. The Member has no intention of returning to teaching.

GUILTY PLEA

13. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-12 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

14. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 5-10 of the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).

15. By this document the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

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

(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

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

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

16. In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on April 7, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 12 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 paragraphs 5-10 of the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that, on multiple occasions, the Member engaged in inappropriate conduct, which included surreptitiously taking pictures of students and a colleague, without their consent.

8The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In particular, the Member breached the ethical standards of “Care”, “Integrity” and “Trust”. Members are required to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment, and empathy in practice. They are also required to conduct themselves with “honesty, reliability and moral action”. Moreover, members’ professional relationships with students and colleagues are based on trust.

9The Member persistently tried to persuade Student 1 to join his personal band, despite Student 1 advising him that she did not want to and that she could not sing. The Member did not ask any other female students, including those from the School choir, to be in his band. Student 1 felt that this was strange and indicated that the Member’s conduct made her feel uncomfortable. Furthermore, the Member only allowed Student 3 to go to the washroom after she replied to the Member’s question (“are you a good student?”) in the affirmative. Student 3 was “weirded out” by the Member’s conduct. The Panel finds that by engaging in such inappropriate conduct, the Member demonstrated a lack of commitment to students’ well-being. Additionally, the Member lied to Student 1 by telling her that Student 2 was in the band when he was not. Moreover, the Member surreptitiously took pictures of students and Person A on his personal cellphone, without their consent. Person A felt “rattled” by the Member’s conduct. The Panel finds that by engaging in dishonest and surreptitious behaviour, the Member demonstrated a lack of integrity and breached the trust which students and his colleague had placed in him. The Member’s conduct therefore fell below the ethical standards of the profession.

10The Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by making numerous inappropriate and unprofessional comments to students. The Member’s comments included asking Student 3 “are you a good student?” when she asked him if she could go to the washroom, and only allowing her to do so when the student answered “yes”. Teachers must always communicate in an appropriate and professional manner with students, which the Member repeatedly failed to do in this case. The Member’s conduct therefore amounts to verbal abuse. Additionally, the Panel places significant weight on the fact that the Member has pleaded guilty to the allegation of verbal abuse under this subsection.

11The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s persistent and manipulative attempts to persuade Student 1 to join his personal band and his manipulative conduct towards Student 3 when she wanted to go to the washroom, as described above, made the students feel uncomfortable and “weirded out” respectively. Given the power imbalance that exists between teachers and students, it was psychologically or emotionally abusive for the Member to put pressure on and manipulate students in the way that he did. The Member therefore breached this subsection.

12The 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)(c) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to “inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, humanity […] and all other virtues.” Simply put, teachers must exemplify these virtues and act as positive role models. By lying to Student 1 and surreptitiously taking pictures of students and Person A, the Member engaged in deceptive behaviour. Additionally, by allowing Student 3 to go to the washroom only after she answered the Member’s question in the affirmative, the Member demonstrated a lack of “humanity” and basic decency. Members of the profession should not abuse their position of authority by placing odd and unnecessary conditions on students who need to use the washroom. As such, the Member failed to fulfil his duties as a teacher.

13The Member’s conduct was unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Unprofessional conduct includes conduct that demonstrates a disregard for a member’s professional obligations and a failure to demonstrate sound professional judgment. Members are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and colleagues alike. By persistently attempting to persuade Student 1 to join his personal band, making numerous inappropriate comments towards students as well as surreptitiously taking pictures of students and Person A without their consent, the Member repeatedly demonstrated poor professional judgment. The Panel accepts the parties’ joint submission that the subsection 1(18) finding should be limited to unprofessional conduct only. The Member’s conduct in this case was not so serious as to rise to the level of disgraceful or dishonourable conduct.

14The 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 surreptitiously take pictures of students and colleagues as well as make inappropriate comments towards students, undermine the reputation of the teaching profession and violate the trust that students, colleagues and the public place in teachers.

F. PENALTY DECISION

15The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on April 7, 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 by teleconference, 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 three (3) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee in this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register. If the Oral Decision and Order is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1;

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

(a) within 90 days prior to returning to teaching or any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries 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 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; and

(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. UNDERTAKING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT

16On April 7, 2022, the Panel further recognized that the Member has entered into an Undertaking and Acknowledgment dated March 25, 2022, (Exhibit 4), which sets out that:

1. David William Knight understands that this Undertaking and Acknowledgement is being given in conjunction with the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the Joint Submission on Penalty in this matter.

2. The Member hereby undertakes that within 90 days prior to returning to teaching or to any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration (“CQR”) (a “Teaching Position”), he shall provide to the Registrar, in a form satisfactory to the Registrar, a written report from his treating [XXX] at [XXX] or a certified [XXX], pre-approved by the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers, if the Member is no longer a patient of [XXX] (the “Specialist”), stating:

(a) that the Specialist has received and reviewed a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea with attached appendices and the 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;

(b) that the Specialist has examined the Member within the 30 days prior to authoring the report and is of the opinion that the Member is fit to teach and able to return to work in a Teaching Position without the risk of adverse consequences to students, colleagues and/or the school community;

(c) setting out the opinion of the Specialist with respect to any monitoring or treatment required to be in place in order to permit the Member to successfully work in a Teaching Position and to ensure the public is protected;

(d) confirming that, in the opinion of the Specialist, the Member is presently taking all medically necessary medications prescribed for him by the Member’s treating health professionals and is presently complying with all other treatments recommended for him by his treating health professionals; and

(e) addressing any other questions or issues that the Registrar may have, at the Registrar’s discretion.

3. The Member undertakes to sign any consent form required to enable the Specialist to examine the Member’s health records and/or to obtain any other information that they consider necessary to complete an adequate assessment and to provide the report described in paragraph 2 above.

4. The Member undertakes to notify the Registrar at least 30 days before commencing a Teaching Position, of the date on which he intends to return to work and the name of his employer.

5. The Member undertakes to comply with all monitoring and treatment recommendations made by the Specialist (pursuant to para. 2(c) above) at all times that he holds a Teaching Position.

6. The Member understands and acknowledges that his status with the Ontario College of Teachers will be “Suspended” (during the time that his suspension is in place) and “Good Standing with Terms, Conditions or Limitations” at all other times, until the terms, conditions and limitations in the Committee’s Order and this Undertaking and Acknowledgement are fulfilled.²

7. The Member understands and acknowledges that the following notation will be placed on the College’s Public Register following the hearing in this matter:

“On April 7, 2022, member found guilty of professional misconduct. Certificate of Qualification and Registration suspended for three months, effective April 22, 2022. Reprimand. Certificate of Qualification and Registration subject to terms, conditions or limitations. Publication in official College publication. On March 25, 2022, member entered into an Undertaking and Acknowledgment with the College to satisfy certain requirements before he can return to teaching.”

8. The Member further understands that the terms of this Undertaking shall be noted on the College’s internal Register, the Member’s CQR, and any Statement of Professional Standing issued by the College, until such time as these terms are fulfilled.

9. The Member understands that failure to comply with the terms of this Undertaking and Acknowledgement set out above may constitute professional misconduct and that in those circumstances, a complaint could be filed against him.

10. The Member agrees and understands that all expenses required to be incurred to fulfill the requirements specified by this document shall be borne solely by him.

11. The Member understands the scope, purpose and effect of this Undertaking and Acknowledgement, and acknowledges that he is executing this document voluntarily, unequivocally and with the advice of legal counsel.

H. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

17The 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. Toh, 2021 ONOCT 99, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Bonofiglio, 2020 ONOCT 163.

18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are (1) the multiple instances of the Member’s inappropriate conduct, (2) the Member’s misconduct was directed towards several students and a colleague, and (3) by surreptitiously taking pictures of students and Person A, without their consent, the Member invaded their privacy. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and 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.

19The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and colleagues alike. The Member failed to do so by persistently attempting to get Student 1 to join his personal band, by making inappropriate comments to students and by surreptitiously taking pictures of students and Person A on his cell phone. 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.

20Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a three-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 22, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

21The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional boundaries and appropriate communication with students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, prior to any return to a teaching position. 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 and colleagues. The coursework should provide the Member with a clear understanding of how to behave professionally with students and colleagues.

22The Panel further recognizes that the Member has entered into an Undertaking and Acknowledgment dated March 25, 2022, in which he undertook to meet a number of requirements that will serve to protect the public interest, should he return to a Teaching Position. The parties submitted that, following the completion of the Board’s investigation, the Member went on a medical leave due to chronic medical issues, which impacted his ability to do his job (see paragraph 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea). The parties further submitted that the terms set out in the Member’s Undertaking and Acknowledgment do not form part of the penalty proposed by the parties in the Joint Submission on Penalty but would serve to protect the public, should the Member return to a Teaching Position.⁴

23The Panel accepts these submissions and finds that the terms in the Undertaking and Acknowledgment of the Member, which relate to the Member’s medical condition, will protect the public interest by ensuring that the Member complies with any prescribed treatments, that his medical condition continues to be monitored and remains stable, and that it does not deteriorate to the point where he might endanger students, colleagues and/or members of the school community. Reports provided to the Registrar will help the College to monitor the Member’s medical condition.

24The Panel is satisfied that the penalty, in addition to the terms set out in the Member’s undertaking, are appropriate in the circumstances and meet the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation narrowed to unprofessional acts only.
2. 2This status signifies that the Member is registered with the College, has paid the annual membership fees, has been issued a valid certificate for that calendar year, and that his Certificate includes specific terms, conditions or limitations.
3. 3See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.
4. 4College Counsel provided the Panel with Ontario College of Teachers v. Emrich, 2018 ONOCT 35 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Aloise, 2022 ONOCT 9, as examples of recent decisions of the Discipline Committee in which similar orders were made in light of a member’s undertaking.