DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Blain 2022 ONOCT 61

Date: 2022-06-07

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

Wendy Denyse Blain, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

WENDY DENYSE BLAIN (REGISTRATION #252643)

PANEL: Lois Figg, Chair Brian Serafini, OCT Lisa Tucker

HEARD: June 3, 2022

Jordan Glick, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Michelle Sun, for Wendy Denyse Blain

Julie Maciura, 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 June 3, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Wendy Denyse Blain (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation. The Member attended immediately after the hearing for the delivery of her 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 December 18, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Wendy Denyse Blain is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

(b) she failed to comply with the Education Act or the regulations made under that Act, and in particular, subsections 265(1)(a), (b) and/or (j), contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(c) she committed acts and 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).

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. At all material times, Wendy Denyse Blain was 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 Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as the Principal of [XXX] (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.

3. At all material times, Student 1 was a female student who attended the School.

4. In or around November 2018, the School Vice-Principal (the “VP”) was a vice-principal with three months experience.

5. On or about November 28, 2018, the Member received information from a teacher that the teacher overheard from students about an alleged video circulating at the School depicting Student 1, who was [XXX] years old at the time, having sex with males (“Incident 1”).

6. When she became aware of Incident 1, the Member directed the VP to further investigate. The Member did not take any immediate steps to respond to Incident 1 or to report it to the Board, or police. This led to the delayed reporting of Incident 1 to the Board and to the police.

7. The School Social Worker (the “Social Worker”), in conjunction with the VP, called police two days later without the Member’s direction or involvement. When police attended at the school, they chastised the Member, VP and social worker for the delay in reporting.

8. On April 8, 2019, the Board suspended the Member for 10-days and required the Member to participate in a professional learning program as a result of her conduct with respect to Incident 1 and another two incidents. The Board subsequently reduced the Member’s suspension to four days after receiving concerns raised by the Ontario Principals’ Council and the Toronto School Administrators’ Association on the Member’s behalf.

GUILTY PLEA

9. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-8 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

10. The Member hereby acknowledges that the information contained within paragraphs 5-7 of the Admitted Facts supports a finding of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly:

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

(b) she failed to comply with the Education Act or the regulations made under that Act, and in particular, subsections 265(1)(a), (b) and/or (j) contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(c) she committed an act or acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).

11. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

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

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

(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.

12. 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 June 3, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15) and 1(18) [unprofessional only].

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts set out at paragraphs 5 to 7 of Exhibit 2 constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. These Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to take immediate steps to respond to an incident about an alleged video circulating at the School depicting a student having sex with males and failed to report it to the Board or police.

8The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario regulation 437/97.¹ In particular, the Member breached the standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities” and the ethical standards of “Care” and “Trust”. Members are required to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities (“Leadership in Learning Communities”). They are also required to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning (“Care”). Moreover, members’ professional relationships with students, colleagues, parents, guardians and the public are based on trust (“Trust”). An alleged video circulating at the School depicting Student 1, a [XXX]-year-old student, having sex with males, was not only potential criminal activity occurring at the School but would reasonably be harmful to that student and the students who were aware of that video. By failing to take immediate steps to respond to Incident 1 and to report it to the Board or police, the Member failed to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for students and demonstrated a lack of commitment to students’ well-being. As the Principal and leader of the School, the Member was entrusted with student safety. Her delayed reporting of such a serious incident jeopardized student safety and undermined the trust that students, parents, school and Board staff, and the public placed in her.

9The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with subsections 265(1)(a), (b) and (j) of the Education Act. Subsection 265(1)(a) provides that it is the duty of a principal, in addition to the principal’s duties as a teacher, “to maintain proper order and discipline in the school”. The Member failed to do so when, upon becoming aware of Incident 1, she did not take immediate steps to address the potentially criminal activity involving Student 1. Section 265(1)(b) requires a principal “to develop co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of staff of the school”. When the Member failed to report Incident 1 to the Board and police, the Social Worker and the relatively new VP called the police themselves, two days later, without any guidance from the Member. They were subsequently chastised by the police for the delay in reporting. Through her inaction, not only did the Member fail to collaborate with her Board, but she also put her staff in a precarious situation. Such behaviour is incompatible with developing co-operation and coordination of effort among staff. Section 265(1)(j) requires a principal “to give assiduous attention to the health and comfort of the pupils […]”. It is a serious breach of a principal’s professional responsibilities to not report an alleged sex tape involving a student and other males to the appropriate authorities. The Member’s decision to direct an inexperienced VP to investigate this matter, without herself reporting the alleged incident to the Board or police put Student 1’s health and safety at further risk.

10The 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, especially principals, are expected to act promptly when student safety is at issue and when potential criminal activity involving students occurs. By failing to take immediate steps to respond to Incident 1 by reporting it to the Board and police, the Member demonstrated a concerning disregard for her professional obligations and a lack of professional judgment. The Panel accepts the parties’ joint submission that the subsection 1(18) finding should be limited to unprofessional conduct only. Although the Member’s conduct related to a student safety issue, it did not rise to the level of disgraceful or dishonourable as there was no element of moral failing or deceit in this case.

F. PENALTY DECISION

11The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on June 3, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered electronically via videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. The Registrar is directed to 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 her own expense, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding a course on professional ethics and responsibility with an emphasis on reporting obligations, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member shall provide the course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 2(a)(i) above, the course practitioner shall 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; and

(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in paragraph 2(a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report from the course practitioner 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

12The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.² The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Barwinski, 2019 ONOCT 58, Ontario College of Teachers v. Opare, 2021 ONOCT 20, Ontario College of Teachers v. Quaglia, 2018 ONOCT 17, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Valdez, 2020 ONOCT 177.

13The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is that by delaying the reporting of Incident 1, which was tantamount to an utter breakdown of communications among the Member, her staff, the students, the Board and the police, the Member exposed Student 1 to a risk of further harm. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her 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 would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

14The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are required to prioritize student safety. The Member failed to take immediate steps to respond to Incident 1 and to report it to the Board and police. 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.

15The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics and responsibility with an emphasis on reporting obligations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a member of the profession and will help her to make better decisions in her professional practice. The coursework should provide the Member with a clear understanding of her reporting obligations, especially with respect to issues involving student safety.

16The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1The standards of the profession are also set out at section 26 (previously section 32) of the College bylaws.
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.