DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Stanford 2022 ONOCT 50

Date: 2022-05-12

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 Ronald Stanford, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

DAVID RONALD STANFORD (REGISTRATION #100491)

PANEL: Lois Figg, Chair Damienne Lebrun-Reid Brian Serafini, OCT

HEARD: May 4, 2022

Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers Sarah Strban, for David Ronald Stanford Julie Maciura, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(3) and 32.1(4) 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, or the person who was allegedly sexually abused, or the subject of sexual misconduct, a prohibited act involving child pornography, or a prescribed sexual act.

By order of Justice D. Moore of the Ontario Court of Justice, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify the victim or a witness in this matter, pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on May 4, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2David Ronald Stanford (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had 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.

4Additionally, College Counsel requested that the Panel order a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act on behalf of Student 1, given that the subject matter of this case relates to activities that meet the definition of “sexual abuse” under subsection 1(1) of the Act. Having heard College Counsel’s submissions and given that Counsel for the Member had no objections, the Panel granted the request. The Panel notes that the allegation of “sexual abuse”, which is a legislatively defined term in the current version of the Act, was not alleged in the Notice of Hearing dated February 10, 2022, nor was the term used in the Agreement Statement of Factsand Guilty Plea, given that the Member’s misconduct occurred before the Act came into operation. However, because the Member’s misconduct included engaging in sexual touching and physical sexual relations with Student 1, and because such conduct would meet the definition of “sexual abuse” under subsection 1(1) of the Act, the Panel finds that ordering a publication ban under this subsection is appropriate in the circumstances. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1.

5The Panel also received a certified copy of the Court Information sworn on August 25, 2020 from the Member’s criminal proceeding before Justice D. Moore (Exhibit 2 at Appendix B). In these proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, an order restricting publication was made pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Panel is required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, any information that could identify the victim or a witness involved in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 10, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the David Ronald Stanford is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that he:

(a) failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section 13 of Ontario Regulation 63/55 under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 456, and any amendments thereto, and under the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 495, and any amendments thereto (the "TPA Regulation");

(b) failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, contrary to section 14(d) of the TPA Regulation;

(c) failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to section 14(f) of the TPA Regulation;

(d) failed to comply with subsection 229(1)(c) of the Education Act, S.O. 1974, c. 109, and any amendments thereto, and with subsection 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, S.O. 1980, c. 129, and any amendments thereto;

(e) contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member's suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);

(f) contravened a law, the contravention of which has caused or may cause a student who is under the member's professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);

(g) 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

7College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. David Ronald Stanford is an inactive/non-practising 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. The Member obtained an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate on June 23, 1972 and a Certificate of Qualification and Registration from the College on May 20, 1997.

3. The Member has held either an Ontario Teacher's Certificate or a Certificate of Qualification and Registration continuously since June 23, 1972.

4. From in or around September 1975 to in or around August 1988, the Member was employed as a teacher with the Toronto Board of Education, now part of the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”).

5. At all material times, the Member taught at [XXX] Public School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.

6. During the 1975-1976 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student at the School, who was approximately [XXX] to [XXX] years old.

7. Sometime during the 1975-1976 academic year, Student 1 began to help the Member with various tasks in his classroom after school.

8. The Member and Student 1 became close, and the Member began to occupy an older brother role in Student 1’s life as Student 1’s [XXX] when Student 1 was [XXX] years old. The Member got to know Student 1’s family and they began doing weekend activities together like hiking and sports.

9. After Student 1 graduated from the School in or around June [XXX], the Member and Student 1 continued to spend time together after school and on weekends.

10. Eventually, the Member’s relationship with Student 1 became sexualized. The sexual activity progressed over time, beginning with kissing and eventually progressing to other sexual activities, including but not limited to:

(a) the Member sexually rubbing himself against Student 1 until the Member ejaculated. This conduct occurred on a regular basis starting before Student 1 turned [XXX] years old; and

(b) the Member performing oral sex on Student 1.

11. All of these sexual activities were initiated by the Member.

12. The Member also supplied Student 1 with cigarettes and alcohol and taught Student 1 how to smoke. This conduct occurred on an occasional basis starting before Student 1 turned [XXX] years old.

13. The Member’s relationship with Student 1 continued after Student 1 turned [XXX] years old and continued to involve the above-noted acts. The Member and Student 1 last saw each other around the year of 1992.

14. On or about August 25, 2020, the Member was criminally charged with the following offences:

(a) Between June 1, 1973 and June 1, 1983, being a male person did indecently assault Student 1, a male person, contrary to section 156 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (the “Code”);

(b) Between June 1, 1973 and June 1, 1983, did commit an act of gross indecency with Student 1, contrary to section 157 of the Code; and

(c) Between June 1, 1973, and June 1, 1983, did commit buggery with another person, namely Student 1, contrary to section 155 of the Code.

15. On or about March 30, 2021, the charge of buggery was withdrawn by the Crown.

16. On or about May 13, 2021, the Member was found guilty of indecent assault contrary to section 156 of the Code. At the same time, the charge of gross indecency was withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

17. The Member was sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day and two years’ probation. He was also made subject to a number of ancillary orders.

18. The Member did not appeal his conviction or sentence.

19. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” are certified copies of the Court Information sworn on August 25, 2020, the appearances/adjournments, and the disposition in the criminal matter.

20. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” are copies of the Conditional Sentence Order and Adult Probation Order, dated May 13, 2021.

21. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a certified transcript of the Guilty Plea and Reasons for Sentence before the Honourable Justice D. Moore dated June 13, 2021.

GUILTY PLEA

22. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-21 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

23. The Member hereby acknowledges that the conduct set out at paragraphs 7-21 of the Admitted Facts constitutes professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of:

(a) section 13 of the TPA Regulation;

(b) subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation;

(c) subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation;

(d) subsection 229(1)(c) of the Education Act, S.O. 1974, c. 109 and any amendments thereto, and subsection 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, S.O. 1980, c. 129 and any amendments thereto; and

(e) subsections 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

24. 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.

25. 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

8Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on May 4, 2022 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to section 13 and subsections 14(d) and 14(f) of the TPA Regulation; subsection 229(1)(c) of the Education Act, S.O. 1974, c. 109 and any amendments thereto, and subsection 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, S.O. 1980, c. 129 and any amendments thereto; and subsections 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

9The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 21 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 conduct set out at paragraphs 7 to 21 of the Admitted Facts constitutes professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member repeatedly initiated and engaged in sexual acts with Student 1 before he turned [XXX] years old. The Member was subsequently found guilty of indecent assault contrary to section 156 of the Criminal Code in relation to these acts. Further, he supplied Student 1 with cigarettes and alcohol, and taught Student 1 how to smoke, which began before Student 1 was [XXX] years old.

(1) Findings under the TPA Regulation

10The Panel finds that the Member failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section 13 of the TPA Regulation. The Member also failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, and failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to subsections 14(d) and 14(f) of the TPA Regulation. The Member clearly breached these provisions by engaging in sexual activities with Student 1 as described in the Admitted Facts, and by exposing Student 1 to cigarettes and alcohol while he was a minor. This conduct was entirely at odds with the Member’s professional, moral and ethical responsibilities, and it demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the well-being of Student 1. Student 1 was particularly vulnerable in this case, not only by virtue of the power imbalance that exists between all teachers and students, but also because the Member began to occupy an “older brother role” in Student 1’s life as the student’s [XXX] when he was [XXX] years old. The Member’s abuse of his trusted position was abhorrent and had a “very very significant impact” on Student 1 (Exhibit 2 at Appendix D).

(2) Findings under Previous Versions of the Education Act

11The Panel finds that the Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with subsection 229(1)(c) of the Education Act, S.O. 1974, c. 109, and any amendments thereto, and with subsection 235(1)(c) of the Education Act, S.O. 1980, c. 129, and any amendments thereto. These provisions, which are substantively the same, state that it is a duty of a teacher to demonstrate the “highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance, and all other virtues.” Simply put, members are required to serve as positive role models for students and to behave morally. The Member’s sexual relations and touching of Student 1 clearly run counter to the virtues set out above. Additionally, the Member failed to act as positive role model for Student 1 when he gave the student alcohol and cigarettes and taught Student 1 how to smoke, while he was still a minor.

(3) Findings under Ontario Regulation 437/97

12Having considered the Member’s criminal finding of guilt in 2021, the Panel finds that the Member has breached both subsections 1(16) and 1(17) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member was found guilty of indecent assault of Student 1, arising from the same conduct at issue in this discipline hearing. The guilty finding demonstrates that the Member contravened a law and engaged in conduct which is relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration as he caused a student to be put at risk. Members of the teaching profession are responsible for the safety and well being of students. Those who abuse this trusted position by engaging in criminal behaviour of a sexual nature with students cannot be trusted to continue working in a position that would allow them to have regular contact with students.

13The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and would reasonably be regarded as such by members of the profession. Sexual offences involving students are morally repugnant and clearly contrary to a member’s professional duties to protect the well-being and safety of students.

14Finally, the Panel finds that the Member’s actions were unbecoming a member of the College, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust and confidence in the teaching profession as a whole is eroded when members engage in criminal behaviour of a sexual nature with students.

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 May 4, 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 is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (‘the Register”); and

2. The Registrar is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

16The 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.¹ 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. Huck, 2021 ONOCT 47; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Vincer, 2020 ONOCT 116.

17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. In considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Panel was bound by the Admitted Facts. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: (i) the deplorable nature of the Member’s misconduct; (ii) the vulnerability of Student 1 at the time of the Member’s misconduct (the Member was not only a former teacher but had assumed a “big brother” role in Student 1’s life given the [XXX] of Student 1’s [XXX]); (iii) the fact that the Member’s misconduct occurred repeatedly over a prolonged period of time; and (iv) that his misconduct had a significant, long-lasting negative impact on Student 1 who suffered greatly. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member has expressed remorse for his actions and admitted his misconduct, therefore saving the time and resources of a contested hearing, which would have otherwise involved witness testimony. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable and in the public interest.

18The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated abhorrent conduct warrants a reprimand. The Member abused his position of trust and authority over Student 1 by repeatedly engaging in sexual activities with Student 1. Moreover, as a teacher and a “big brother” figure, he exposed Student 1 to alcohol and cigarettes, beginning when Student 1 was not even [XXX] years old. 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.

19The Panel finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is appropriate and in the public interest in this case. The Member’s actions warrant an order of the Panel’s most severe penalty available: revocation. The Member’s conduct towards Student 1 was reprehensible and cannot be tolerated by this profession. The Member’s actions have jeopardized the public’s trust in teachers. Accordingly, the Member has forfeited the privilege of being a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.

20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.