Ontario College of Teachers v. Primi, 2022 ONOCT 56

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Primi 2022 ONOCT 56 Date: 2022-05-28

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 Edward Clarence Primi, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

Between: Ontario College of Teachers – and – Edward Clarence Primi (Registration #464904)

Panel: Jessica Saffran Reimers, OCT, Chair Brian Brophey Terrence Singh, OCT

Heard: May 25, 2022

Counsel: Jordan Glick and Aly Háji, for the Ontario College of Teachers Christopher Perri, for Edward Clarence Primi 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 May 25, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Edward Clarence Primi (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.

B. The Allegations

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated July 19, 2021 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Edward Clarence Primi is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

(c) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act; ¹

(d) he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(e) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32² of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(f) he committed acts or omissions 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);

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

C. Statement of Uncontested Facts

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Edward Clarence Primi is, and was at all material times, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the College’s Registered Member Information.

2. From September 2010 to November 2019, the Member was employed by the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) located in Mississauga, Ontario.

3. During the 2019-2020 school year, the Board received allegations from former students, current students, and parents regarding the Member’s conduct during the 2015 to 2019 school years. The complainants alleged that the Member engaged in inappropriate dialogue and interactions with current and graduated students, both at school and through various social media platforms.

4. The Board undertook an extensive investigation during which numerous former and current students at the School were interviewed. The investigation found that the Member engaged in inappropriate behaviour toward students which was of a sexual nature at times. The Member does not contest the allegations that he engaged in the following inappropriate behaviour:

Inappropriate Comments in School

5. From September 2015 to June 2019, the Member shared personal information with students during class instructional time and used class instructional time for inappropriate, non-curriculum related activities, including:

(a) discussing his [XXX] illness;

(b) discussing his use of, and [XXX] to, medications including [XXX];

(c) discussing his use of, and [XXX] to, [XXX] including that he was an [XXX[, that he drank a lot, and that it was because of his [XXX] that he was fat;

(d) telling students that his wife hated him and that she was “his roommate, not his wife”;

(e) telling students that his ex-girlfriend was the love of his life;

(f) telling students that he kept medication in his desk drawer and that he would sell it to them “for five bucks”;

(g) telling students that he had gone through [XXX] and that he had experienced [XXX] symptoms from [XXX],;

(h) telling a female student: “I always knew you would be good on your knees,” while she was kneeling at a friend’s desk;

(i) Telling a second female student: “can you tell my new meds are making me fat?”;

(j) Commenting to a teacher in front of a class of students: “Hey [teacher], did you know [student referred to in 5(i)] always calls me fat? She is mean to me”; and

(k) Telling a female student (“Student 1”) and a group of other students that “all of the other male teachers were jealous” of him at parent teacher night because he was talking to the student’s mother and he “forgot how hot she was”.

Inappropriate Use of Class Time

6. Within the years 2015-2019, the Member used instructional time to inappropriately show students videos about serial killers that were unrelated to the course curriculum that he was teaching.

Inappropriate Electronic Communications

7. Between May 2019 and June 2019, the Member sent inappropriate text and social media messages to Student 1 including:

(a) sending a social media message saying: “I will be friend [sic] you when I move from this school”;

(b) sending a social media message to Student 1 saying: “Eagerly waiting till June [wink emoji]” and, immediately after, “oh sorry, that was meant for [Former Student 3]”;

(c) sending a social media message to Student 1 referring to a former teacher at the School, and asking: “if you see [her] tell her I say hi. Is she still really hot?”

8. In June 2019, the Member sent inappropriate text messages and social media messages to a former student including:

(a) sending a text message saying: “bang like bunnies”; and

(b) sending a social media message in response to a photograph of her wearing tights saying: “Hot. Yes you….. (sic)” and, when he did not receive a reply from Former Student 3, subsequently messaging: “Tights. Hot tights.”

9. Subsequent to the Board’s investigation, the Member was issued a 5-day unpaid disciplinary suspension, was transferred to a different school, and was directed to participate in professional development and training in the area of professional boundaries.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

10. By this document, the Member pleads no contest to the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-9 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

11. The Member hereby acknowledges that the conduct outlined in paragraphs 3-8 of the Uncontested Facts constitutes conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

(a) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

(c) he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(d) 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);

(e) he committed acts or omissions 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);

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

12. By this document the Member states that:

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

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

(c) he understands that, by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the 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 with respect to the penalty proposed 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 having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.

13. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, 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 paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and that he engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. College Counsel submitted that, although some of the Member’s remarks were sexual in nature, they did not rise to the level of “sexual abuse” and were better characterized as “sexual misconduct” (the definition of “sexual misconduct” means “inappropriate behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member that is not sexual abuse of a student”). In light of the unopposed submissions made by College Counsel and the Member’s plea of no contest to the allegation of “sexual misconduct”, the Panel granted the request to withdraw the “sexual abuse” allegation.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on May 25, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act.

E. Reasons for Decision

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts outlined at paragraphs 3-8 of Exhibit 2 constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that, during the 2015 to 2019 school years, the Member engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conduct which included making several inappropriate comments to students, exposing students to behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature and making inappropriate use of class time.

9The Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by making several inappropriate comments to students at school and electronically. Among other things, the Member discussed his [XXX] illness and use of, [XXX] to, as well as [XXX]. Furthermore, the Member told a female student, “can you tell my new meds are making me fat?”. Teachers must not burden students with their personal issues, especially relating to mature topics such as [XXX] abuse. As role models, teachers are expected to set a positive example for students and to always maintain appropriate professional boundaries. They must also not invite students to comment on their physical appearance, as such discussions can be upsetting and unhealthy for students who might themselves struggle with body image issues. By repeatedly making inappropriate comments to students of a nature described above, the Member’s conduct amounted to verbal abuse.

10The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s inappropriate conduct would reasonably have had a negative psychological or emotional impact on students. For instance, discussing his [XXX] illness, personal struggles with [XXX] as well as his personal relationship with students, would have put an unnecessary burden on them. Moreover, the Member’s sexual remarks such as telling a female student “I always knew you would be good on your knees” while she was kneeling at a friend’s desk, would have been distressing to that student, particularly given the position of trust and authority that the Member held in relation to his students. Additionally, the Panel places significant weight on the fact that the Member has pleaded no contest to the allegation of psychological or emotional abuse.

11The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct constitutes sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act. “Sexual misconduct” is defined in the Act as:

inappropriate behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member that is not sexual abuse of a student, where,

(a) one or more students are exposed to the behaviour or remarks, or the member knows or ought to know that one or more students are likely to be exposed to the behaviour or remarks, and

(b) a reasonable person would expect the behaviour or remarks to have the effect of,

(i) causing distress to a student exposed to the behaviour or remarks,

(ii) being detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of a student, or

(iii) creating a negative environment at a school for a student exposed to the behaviour or remarks.

The Member exposed students to behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature. The Member’s remarks included: telling a female student “I always knew you would be good on your knees,” while she was kneeling at a friend’s desk; telling Student 1 and a group of other students that he forgot how “hot” the student’s mother was; and sending a social media message to Student 1 and asking her if a former teacher was “still really hot?”. A reasonable person would expect that when an adult teacher, who holds a position of trust and authority, exposes students to these types of sexual remarks, it could have a distressing or detrimental effect on students. The Panel also accepts College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s conduct does not rise to the level of sexual abuse in this case. Accordingly, the Member’s conduct in this case meets the definition of sexual misconduct at section 1 of the Act.

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 “Professional Practice”, which requires members to apply professional knowledge and experience to promote student learning and to use appropriate pedagogy and resources in their teaching. The Member used instructional time to inappropriately show students videos about serial killers that were unrelated to the course curriculum that he was teaching. By doing so, the Member used inappropriate resources in his teaching and engaged in conduct that did not have any educational merit and therefore detracted from student learning.

13The Member also breached the ethical standards of “Care”, “Respect” and “Trust”. Members are required to demonstrate a commitment to students’ well-being (“Care”) and to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development (“Respect”). Members’ relationships with students and parents are also based on trust (“Trust”). The Member made several inappropriate comments, which included telling students that he kept medication in his desk drawer and that he would sell it to them “for five bucks”. Moreover, the Member exposed students to sexual remarks which would reasonably have been distressing to them. The Panel finds that by doing so, the Member demonstrated a lack of commitment to students’ safety and well-being and was disrespectful to them. By engaging in such inappropriate conduct, the Member also breached the trust which his students and their parents had placed in him. The Member’s conduct therefore fell below the professional and ethical standards of the teaching profession.

14The 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 making numerous inappropriate comments to students, both at school and electronically, sharing his personal information with students and exposing students to sexualized comments, the Member repeatedly violated professional boundaries. Furthermore, the Member demonstrated poor professional judgment by inappropriately using instructional time to show students videos about serial killers and by sending text and social media messages of a sexual nature to a former student. The Member’s repeated behaviour demonstrated significant moral and professional failings and can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

15Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By making numerous inappropriate comments to students, exposing students to sexual remarks and making inappropriate use of instructional time, the Member has undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and eroded the trust and confidence that students, parents and the public place in teachers.

F. Penalty Decision

16The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on May 25, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to receive an oral reprimand, 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 5 months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, on maintaining appropriate boundaries and appropriate communications, with a particular emphasis on student interactions, both in person and through electronic means including social media, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner, approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the 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; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course practitioner:

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

G. Reasons for Penalty Decision

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. Will, 2021 ONOCT 1, Ontario College of Teachers v. Demopoulos, 2021 ONOCT 87, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Burke, 2021 ONOCT 76.

18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case: (1) the repeated nature of the Member’s inappropriate comments, (2) the prolonged duration of the Member’s misconduct which occurred from 2015 to 2019; and (3) several students were subjected to the Member’s misconduct. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and he 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 pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Teachers must communicate appropriately and maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students. The Member repeatedly failed to do so by making several inappropriate comments to students, at school and electronically, and by exposing students to remarks of a sexual nature. 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 five-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on June 9, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

21The Panel finds that the course of instruction on maintaining appropriate boundaries and appropriate communications, with a particular emphasis on student interactions, both in person and through electronic means including social media, 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 communicate appropriately with students, both electronically and in person.

22The 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. 2As of January 20, 2022, section 32 of the by-laws has been renumbered as section 26.
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.