Ontario College of Teachers v Dinglasan, 2022 ONOCT 43

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Dinglasan 2022 ONOCT 43

Date: 2022-05-01

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

Allan Jay Dinglasan, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ALLAN JAY DINGLASAN (REGISTRATION #442970)

PANEL: Alain Martel, OCT, Chair Anthony Jeethan, OCT Rebecca Zaretsky

HEARD: April 28, 2022

Linette King, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jerry Raso, for Allan Jay Dinglasan 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 April 28, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Allan Jay Dinglasan (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 October 17, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Allan Jay Dinglasan 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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(e) 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);

(f) 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);

(g) 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);

(h) 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. Allan Jay Dinglasan 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 York Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).

3. At all material times, Student 1 was a male student at the School. Student 1 turned [XXX] years old in October 2016. He was in Grade [XXX] and in the Member’s class during the 2016-2017 school year, and was in Grade [XXX] during the 2017-2018 school year.

4. At all material times, Student 2 was a [XXX] year-old Grade [XXX] male student at the school and in the Member’s class.

Inappropriate interaction with Student 1

5. Student 1 was in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class during the 2015-2016 school year. Based on his assessment of Student 1’s performance, the Member encouraged Student 1 to take [XXX] courses during the 2016-2017 school year.

6. Between September 2016 and October 2017, the Member saw himself as Student 1’s mentor. During this time, the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1.

7. Between September 2016 and October 2017, the Member sent Student 1 numerous electronic (text) messages, including outside of school hours, in the evenings, on weekends, and over the summer months of 2017 while out of the country on vacation.

8. Some of the Member’s messages to Student 1 were personal in nature, including when he:

(a) shared personal information about himself and his family;

(b) asked Student 1 questions about his personal life and his family;

(c) messaged Student 1 “Ti Amo”, meaning “I love you” in Italian, and referred to “that Italian phrase” in some of his messages to Student 1.

9. Some of the Member’s messages to Student 1 included references to other students, including when he:

(a) occasionally disclosed the marks of one or more students to Student 1;

(b) expressed his concerns about another student to Student 1;

(c) referred to Student 1’s girlfriend, also a student in the Member’s class, as a “covalent bond” in his messages to Student 1;

(d) disclosed to Student 1 that he changed the seating arrangement in class because he did not want Student 1 seated next to a student who talked too much and did not do well academically.

10. Some of the Member’s messages to Student 1 included content that was controlling, manipulative, and critical of Student 1, including when he:

(a) pressured Student 1 to respond to his messages;

(b) reproached Student 1 for what he perceived to be Student 1’s lack of dedication to school work and lack of concern regarding his (Student 1’s) reputation;

(c) discouraged Student 1’s relationship with his girlfriend;

(d) repeatedly criticized the way Student 1 communicated by text;

(e) threatened to withdraw his support of Student 1 when he perceived that Student 1 was not following his advice;

(f) told Student 1, “You, like most people I’ve helped, treat me like I’m useless, irrelevant and not worth the time of day, simply because you’ve already gotten what you need. It’s in your words and actions and maybe thoughts. Like I said, it probably not something you can control because it’s deeply inherent in you...”

11. On one occasion when they were alone and talking in the Member’s classroom, the Member attempted to “hug it out” with Student 1 as a gesture of support. Student 1 suggested a fist pump instead, then acquiesced to the hug.

12. In September 2017, the Member’s messages to Student 1 included vague warnings about unexpected negative events to come in the future, causing Student 1 anxiety. When Student 1 inquired about the Member’s comments, the Member provided elusive responses and criticized Student 1’s communication skills, causing Student 1 a considerable amount of distress. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is an excerpt of messages exchanged between the Member and Student 1 in September 2017.

13. The Member’s messages made Student 1 uncomfortable and caused him considerable stress and anxiety, especially when the Member was critical of him, to the point that Student 1 decided to alter his timetable to avoid having the Member as a teacher during the 2017-2018 school year.

Inappropriate interaction with Student 2

14. In October 2017, the Member drove Student 2, alone, in his personal vehicle, to a University open house for a tour of the University of Toronto.

Board Investigation

15. During an interview with the Board on October 31, 2017, the Member acknowledged that he was familiar with and failed to uphold the Board’s policy regarding acceptable use of technology, and that he failed to meet the standard regarding professional boundaries. He acknowledged that he knew he should not have communicated via text messages for over one year with Student 1.

16. The Member remains employed by the Board on a paid leave of absence, effective October 31, 2017.

GUILTY PLEA

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

18. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

19. 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.

20. 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 allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) 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. The Panel granted the request.

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on April 28, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 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 16 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 repeatedly failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students, including by engaging in inappropriately personal communications with Student 1 for more than one year.

9The Member abused a student verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by sending numerous inappropriate messages to Student 1 over a period of about a year. The Member’s messages included content that was controlling, manipulative and critical of Student 1. For instance, the Member pressured Student 1 to respond to his messages, threatened to withdraw his support of Student 1 when he perceived that Student 1 was not following his advice and repeatedly criticized the way Student 1 communicated by text. The Member’s messages also included vague warnings about unexpected negative events to Student 1, which caused Student 1 anxiety. Teachers must communicate appropriately with students. Given the nature and frequency of the Member’s inappropriate communications with Student 1, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct in this case was verbally abusive.

10The Member abused a student physically, contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by making inappropriate physical contact with Student 1. When the Member was alone with Student 1 in the classroom, the Member attempted to “hug it out” with Student 1 as a gesture of support. Student 1 suggested a fist pump instead, but then gave in to the hug. The Panel finds that it was inappropriate and unnecessary for the Member to hug Student 1, even as a gesture of support, given the professional boundaries that teachers must maintain with students. Moreover, the circumstances of the hug (i.e., when the Member and the student were alone in the Member’s classroom) make this behaviour even more concerning, as the student was in a vulnerable position with nobody else around. Such conduct therefore amounts to physical abuse by the Member.

11The Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member’s numerous controlling and manipulative messages, and particularly those which were critical of Student 1, made the student feel uncomfortable and caused him considerable stress and anxiety. Furthermore, the Member’s vague warnings about unexpected negative events, his elusive responses as well as his criticism of Student 1’s communication skills, caused Student 1 a considerable amount of distress. Given the power imbalance that exists between teachers and students, it was psychologically or emotionally abusive for the Member to control, manipulate and criticize Student 1 in the way that he did.

12The Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws, which set out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities” and the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect”. Members are required to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. They are also required to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. Moreover, members are required to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development and model respect for confidentiality.

13By engaging in controlling, threatening and manipulative behaviour as well as repeatedly being critical of Student 1 as described above, the Panel finds that the Member fostered an unsafe and unsupportive learning environment for Student 1. Indeed, the Member’s actions caused Student 1 considerable stress and anxiety, to the point that Student 1 decided to alter his timetable so as to avoid having the Member as a teacher during the 2017-2018 school year. By doing so, the Member also demonstrated a lack of commitment to Student 1’s well-being and learning. Furthermore, by name-calling Student 1’s girlfriend (“covalent bond”) and by making inappropriate references to other students in his messages to Student 1, including disclosing their marks, the Member was disrespectful towards those students. As such, the Member’s conduct fell below the professional and 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) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. The Member’s numerous manipulative and controlling messages to Student 1 and particularly his criticism of Student 1, made Student 1 stressed and anxious to the point that he decided to alter his timetable to avoid having the Member as a teacher during the 2017-2018 school year. The Member therefore discouraged Student 1 in the pursuit of learning. 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. The Member’s conduct was contrary to these principles. By fostering an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1, sending him messages of a personal nature such as “Ti Amo” (which means “I love you” in Italian), and driving Student 2 alone in his personal vehicle, the Member failed to uphold and model appropriate professional boundaries. Moreover, by name-calling Student 1’s girlfriend and disclosing the marks of other students to Student 1, the Member failed to model respectful behaviour. The Member therefore failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.

15The Member committed acts which would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Teachers are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students. By having an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1, sending numerous controlling and manipulative texts messages to Student 1, hugging Student 1 and driving Student 2 alone in his personal vehicle, among other things, the Member repeatedly violated professional boundaries. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Member failed to demonstrate the good judgment and responsibility expected of a teacher. The Member’s behaviour demonstrates significant moral and professional failings, such that it calls into question the Member’s ability to practise the profession in the best interests of his students and in an ethical manner. The Member’s conduct can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

16Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s repeated failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students has undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and eroded the trust and confidence that students and the public place in teachers.

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 April 28, 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 four 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 120 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 or courses 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(s) approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner(s) will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course(s) which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner(s) 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(s) outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner(s):

(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.² 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. Grima, 2020 ONOCT 183, Ontario College of Teachers v. Mahmood, 2019 ONOCT 29, Ontario College of Teachers v. Brace, 2018 ONOCT 3, Ontario College of Teachers v. Porter, 2021 ONOCT 86, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Riley, 2019 ONOCT 61.

19The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. Firstly, the Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment. The Member sent numerous inappropriate messages to Student 1 over a period of one year, outside of school hours, in the evenings, on weekends and even while he was out of the country on vacation. Secondly, the Member’s conduct involved more than one student. Thirdly, the Member’s conduct caused significant psychological or emotional harm to Student 1, to the point that he had to alter his timetable to avoid having the Member as a teacher during the 2017-2018 school year. Finally, as an experienced teacher, the Member ought to have known that such conduct towards students was inappropriate. 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.

20The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Teachers are required to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and provide a safe and supportive learning environment. The Member failed to do so by having an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1, sending him numerous manipulative and controlling messages, making inappropriate and unwelcome physical contact with Student 1 and driving Student 2 alone in his personal vehicle. 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 four-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 May 13, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

22The Panel finds that the course or courses 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 teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. The coursework should provide the Member with a clear understanding of how to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students, particularly given the power imbalance that exists between teachers and students. It should also give the Member a clear understanding of how to behave in an ethical manner in his professional practice.

23The 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 College Counsel’s request.
2. 2See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.