Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Handscomb 2022 ONOCT 63

Date: 2022-06-10

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

Ian Howard Alvin Handscomb, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

IAN HOWARD ALVIN HANDSCOMB (REGISTRATION #197572)

PANEL: Kimberley Westfall-Connor, Chair

Maria Lourdes Bueno-Marcial, OCT

Adam Dharsee, OCT

HEARD: June 7, 2022

Linette King, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Heather Ann McConnell, for Ian Howard Alvin Handscomb

Erica Richler, 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 7, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Ian Howard Alvin Handscomb (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 June 25, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Ian Howard Alvin Handscomb is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

(b) 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);¹

(c) 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);

(d) 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);

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

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ian Howard Alvin Handscomb 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as an artistic director and teacher at [XXX] (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1 was a [XXX] year-old male student in the Member’s class.
At all material times, Student 2 was a [XXX] year-old male student in the Member’s class.

Electronic Communications with Student 1

During the 2018-2019 academic school year, the Member requested to follow Student 1 on Instagram. Student 1 accepted the Member’s request and followed the Member back.
Between January 29 and February 5, 2019, the Member sent personal messages to Student 1 on Instagram from his personal Instagram account including:

(a) calling Student 1 “[XXX]”, a nickname the Member gave to Student 1;

(b) asking Student 1 if he was home;

Student 1 found the situation “a bit creepy” and he felt uncomfortable.
Student 1 disclosed the messages to friends in his class via a shared chatroom. The students in the chatroom felt uncomfortable with the texts. One student noted that the messages “didn’t seem appropriate for a conversation between a student and a teacher”.
Students who saw the messages encouraged Student 1 to tell an adult. Two students reported the messages to the guidance counsellor at the School. These students were “uncomfortable with the fact that the Member was having a conversation with a student outside of school and not about a school related topic” and felt that the Member “over-stepped boundaries”.
Student 1 blocked the Member on social media and told his father about the messages.
On February 4, 2019, the Member spoke with Student 1 after class. The Member asked Student 1 why he could no longer see Student 1 on Instagram. He asked if Student 1 had blocked or unfriended him, and requested that Student 1 send him a message in order to check. Student 1 sent the Member a message on Instagram and the Member responded.
On February 5, 2019, the Member spoke with Student 1 after class. The Member asked Student 1 if he had reported on or gone to the office about the Member, or words to that effect, which made Student 1 feel uncomfortable, and concerned about whether teachers would “hate him”.

Electronic Communication with Student 2

Between January 29 and February 5, 2019, the Member sent personal messages to Student 2 on Instagram from his personal Instagram account including:

(a) asking Student 2 if he was doing homework;

(b) asking Student 2 how his trip to the mall was;

During the 2018-2019 academic school year the School held a Bell Lets [sic] Talk Day (the “Talk Day”) to raise awareness about and reduce stigma around mental health challenges. During the Talk Day, the Member shared his challenges with being a caretaker to his sick father with his class. He had also shared a personal story at the Talk Day the previous year.
Following the Talk Day, the Member disclosed additional personal information to Student 2 about the Member’s father and the Member’s father’s medical condition from his personal Instagram account. The Member shared with Student 2 that he was visiting his father up north, that his father had an “unpredictable disease”, and that “he is not in any pain”.
Student 2 felt uncomfortable with the correspondence and was afraid that the Member might text him again. Student 2 felt “weird” and “awkward” about the situation. He was worried that his parents might react to it by pulling him out of the School, and he wanted to stay at the School with his friends.

Board Discipline

On February 27, 2019 the Board interviewed the Member with respect to the allegations of misconduct. Before discipline could be brought forward, the Member submitted a letter of resignation, effective August 31, 2019.
In the course of its investigation the Board contacted the police. On February 5, 2019, the Member was cautioned by police, who advised the Member that while no criminal charges were being laid, students felt “awkward”, “weird”, “creepy”, and “insecure”, and that continuing this behaviour online could lead to future criminal charges.

Prior Board Discipline

By letter dated June 24, 2011, the Board suspended the Member for twenty days and ordered him to undergo training in maintaining professional boundaries. The Board concluded that the Member engaged in inappropriate communication and behaviour towards students. The Member had inappropriate online communications with a student in his class and with a former student. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter to the Member dated June, 24 2011 [sic].

Prior College Discipline

On September 23, 2014, the Member was found guilty of professional misconduct in relation to the incident described in paragraph 19 above. The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a twenty-day retroactive suspension, and terms, conditions and limitations were imposed on his Certificate of Qualification and Registration including the successful completion of a course on professional boundaries and boundary violations. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Discipline Committee Decision dated September 23, 2014.

GUILTY PLEA

By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
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(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(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.

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

5Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on June 7, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

6The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 20 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 engaged in inappropriate electronic communications with two students.

7The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. As described above, the Member sent inappropriate personal messages to Student 1 and Student 2 on Instagram. Student 1 found the situation to be a “a bit creepy” and felt uncomfortable, as did other students who saw the messages. Student 1 then blocked the Member on social media. Despite being blocked, the Member continued to pursue Student 1, and confronted him about whether he had blocked the Member and whether he had reported the Member’s behaviour. This made Student 1 worry that teachers would “hate him”. Similarly, the Member sent inappropriate personal messages to Student 2 on Instagram, which made Student 2 feel “weird” and “awkward” about the situation.

8The Panel finds that the Member’s continued and persistent electronic communication with the students with no regard to their discomfort was inappropriate and that, by doing so, the Member psychologically or emotionally abused the students. Members hold a unique position of trust and authority, and as such, they are solely responsible for maintaining appropriate professional boundaries with students, including over social media. It is not appropriate for members to burden students with their personal issues or to put students in uncomfortable positions. They are expected to create supportive learning environments that prioritize the emotional safety of students, which the Member failed to do through his inappropriate communications. No student should receive unwanted attention from their teachers about topics completely unrelated to school. Students should also not be made to feel worried about reporting such behaviour, which is the right thing to do.

9The Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws, which set out the ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the ethical standard of “Care”, which requires members to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. By engaging in inappropriate conduct as described above, which made students feel uncomfortable, weird, and concerned, the Member demonstrated a lack of commitment to students’ well-being. The Member’s conduct, therefore, fell below the ethical standards of the profession.

10The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act. Subsection 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models. By engaging in inappropriate conduct as described above, including when he used profanity in his communications with Student 1, the Member acted as a poor role model.

11The Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. It is unacceptable for teachers, who are expected to be upstanding members of the community and to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students, to repeatedly engaged in inappropriate electronic communications with students. As an experienced teacher, the Member ought to have known that sending personal messages to students on Instagram was a violation of appropriate teacher-student boundaries, especially since the students themselves were able to recognize the inappropriateness of the Member’s unwanted attention and communications. Such conduct demonstrates significant moral and professional failings by the Member. The Member’s conduct can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

12The 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. By repeatedly engaging in boundary violations with students, the Member undermined the reputation of the teacher profession and breached the trust which students, parents and the public place in teachers.

F. PENALTY DECISION

13The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on June 7, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

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”);
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 Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) prior to returning to teaching, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations and appropriate communication with students, subject to the following conditions;

(i) the Member will provide to 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 (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 thirty (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. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISIOn

14The 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 decision of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Germundson, 2017 ONOCT 31(“Germundson”). College Counsel also provided the Panel with the decisions in Ontario College of Teachers v. Porter, 2021 ONOCT 86 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Riley, 2019 ONOCT 61 to demonstrate that the jointly proposed penalty falls within the range established by previous cases for similar conduct; however, the Panel agrees with Member’s Counsel that these two decisions were too dissimilar on their facts to assist with its determination.

15The 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 as he sent several personal messages to both Student 1 and Student 2. Furthermore, even after Student 1 blocked him on Instagram, the Member asked the student to send him a message again to check if the student had blocked him. In addition, the Member’s conduct caused emotional harm to several students who saw the messages and felt uncomfortable at the Member’s conduct. Moreover, the Member engaged in similar previous misconduct, despite having received Board and College discipline with respect to boundary violations, and he was an experienced teacher who ought to have known that his behaviour was inappropriate. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the proposed penalty would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated boundary violations with students, despite his prior Board and College discipline, warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students, which the Member repeatedly failed to do by engaging in inappropriate online communications with students. 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.

17Given 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 Germundson is of a similar underlying nature and confirms 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 September 1, 2022, as the Decision and Order was rendered between May 1 and August 1, 2022.

18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations and appropriate communications with students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, prior to any return to teaching. 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 give the Member a clear understanding of how to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students.

19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: June 10, 2022

Kimberley Westfall-Connor

Chair, Discipline Panel