Ontario College of Teachers v Lamure, 2022 ONOCT 71

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Lamure 2022 ONOCT 71

Date: 2022-06-30

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

Kevin Lee Joseph Lamure, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

KEVIN LEE JOSEPH LAMURE (REGISTRATION #521570)

PANEL: Myrna Tulandi, Chair Scott Barker, OCT Sarah Choudhury

HEARD: June 29, 2022

Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers Heather Ann McConnell, for Kevin Lee Joseph Lamure Renée Kopp, 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 29, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Kevin Lee Joseph Lamure (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 March 29, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Member 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);

(b) he 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);

(c) 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);

(d) 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. Kevin Lee Joseph Lamure is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. His membership status has been ‘Inactive/Non-Practising’ since October 2, 2020. 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 has aboriginal ancestry on his maternal side. He is Algonquin and belongs to the Bear Clan. He is also a registered member of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation.

3. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Thames Valley School Board (the “Board”) as a Long-Term Occasional teacher at Byron Southwood Public School (the “School”) in London, Ontario.

4. At all material times, Person A was an adult female and the Member’s [XXX] and Person B was an adult male.

5. On December 29, 2018, believing Person A to be [XXX] to him, the Member forcibly entered Person B’s residence in St. Thomas, Ontario, where Person A and Person B were present at the time, and physically assaulted Person A and Person B.

6. Armed with a four- to six-inch knife, the Member began swinging the knife in an effort to strike Person B, but did not make contact with him. The Member then grabbed Person A by the hair and twice stabbed her with the knife. The knife penetrated her skin and punctured her arm. He then began repeatedly striking her until she was able to take refuge in the bathroom.

7. The Member followed Person A and gained entry to the bathroom, causing extensive damage to the door. Once inside, he found Person A seated on the floor in a defensive position. He began to kick and punch her head and body, while accusing her of having an [XXX].

8. The physical assault upon Person A left her with scrapes and bruises all over her head and body. Her eyes were both swollen and blackened and she suffered a broken lower jaw and two puncture wounds to her arm.

9. On December 29, 2018, the Member was arrested and criminally charged with:

(a) two counts of aggravated assault of Person A, contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (the “Code”);

(b) one count of breaking and entering with intent to commit the indictable offence of assault with a weapon, contrary to section 348(1)(b) of the Code;

(c) one count of assault with a weapon of Person A, contrary to section 267(a) of the Code;

(d) one count of assault with a weapon of Person B, contrary to section 267(a) of the Code; and

(e) one count of assault of Person A, contrary to section 266 of the Code.

10. On March 2, 2020 the Member pled guilty to and was found guilty of:

(a) one count of aggravated assault of Person A, contrary to section 268 of the Code;

(b) one count of breaking and entering with intent to commit the indictable offence of assault with a weapon contrary to section 348(1)(b) of the Code; and

(c) one count of assault with a weapon of Person B, contrary to section 267(a) of the Code.

11. On August 10, 2021, the Member was sentenced to a six-month custodial term followed by three years of probation. The Member was also made subject to various ancillary orders.

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

13. The Board terminated the Member’s employment effective September 25, 2021.

14. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” are certified copies of the Court Information sworn January 10, 2019, appearances/adjournments, and the disposition in the criminal matter.

15. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a certified transcript of the Proceedings before the Honourable Justice G. Donald dated March 2, 2020.

16. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a copy of the Gladue Report prepared by Quinn Read-Baxter for the Member to assist the criminal court in sentencing the Member.

17. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” is a certified transcript of the Proceedings on Guilty Plea and Reasons for Sentence before the Honourable Justice G. Donald dated August 10, 2021.

18. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “F” are certified copies of the Adult Probation Order and Prohibition Order Imposed at Sentencing, dated August 10, 2021

GUILTY PLEA

19. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-18 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

20. The Member hereby acknowledges that the conduct set out at paragraphs 4-7 and 10-13 of the Admitted Facts constitutes professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).

21. 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 having obtained the advice of legal counsel.

22. 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 29, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 18 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.

8The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 when he assaulted two individuals and broke and entered with the intent to commit assault with a weapon. College Counsel submitted, and the Panel accepts, that the Member’s misconduct was so offensive and notorious that expert evidence on the standards was not required.¹ Members are expected to be law-abiding citizens who are cognizant of the trusted, leadership role they hold in their communities. The Member’s violent, criminal conduct, although it occurred while he was off duty, set a very poor example and fell below the professional standards to which teachers are held.

9The Member contravened laws, the contravention of which are relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16). He was found guilty of one count of aggravated assault, contrary to section 268 of the Code; one count of breaking and entering with intent to commit the indictable offence of assault with a weapon, contrary to section 348(1)(b) of the Code; and one count of assault with a weapon, contrary to section 267(a) of the Code. These contraventions of the Code are highly concerning, as they relate to the Member’s ability to act appropriately in emotional and stressful situations, without resorting to violence. The Member’s criminal offences of breaking and entering with the intent to assault someone with a weapon and subsequently assaulting two individuals violently and repeatedly are relevant to his ability to maintain a safe learning environment for students. Teachers are trusted to resolve issues productively and to maintain their composure in difficult situations. The Member’s behaviour demonstrated poor judgment and a concerning inability to control his emotions, which therefore call into question his suitability to remain a member of the teaching profession.

10The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct could reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. It is unacceptable for members of the teaching profession to engage in criminal actions and have blatant disregard for the law and safety of others. The Member’s misconduct involved abusive and violent behaviour and as such, the Panel finds his behaviour could reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

11In a similar vein, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members must uphold the public’s trust in the profession and its members by acting appropriately in and out of the classroom with due regard for the law. The Member’s behaviour, however, eroded such trust when he broke and entered another’s residence with the intent to assault people with a weapon and subsequently committed aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The Member’s violent, off duty conduct reflected very poorly on the profession as a whole.

F. PENALTY DECISION

12The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on June 29, 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; and

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

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

13The 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 and other adjudicative bodies presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Bowles, 2021 ONOCT 135; Ontario College of Teachers v Condy, 2021 ONOCT 131; Ontario College of Teachers v Oliphant, 2019 ONOCT 72; Ontario College of Teachers v Canacari; 2017 ONOCT 4; Ontario College of Teachers v Lutczyk, 2017 ONOCT 97; Law Society of Ontario v. Wilkins, 2021 ONLSTA 15; Howe v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, 2019 NSCA 81; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Fox, 2021 ONOCT 34.

14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case include the extremely serious and abhorrent nature of the Member’s violent criminal offences. He broke and entered a residence and proceeded to violently attack two individuals. The Panel also considered the significant physical and emotional impact that the Member’s actions had on one of the victims, which included head trauma, contusions, a broken jaw, puncture wounds and also anxiety, depression, and insomnia.

15College Counsel submitted that another aggravating factor was that the criminal court judge had found that the Member’s attack was planned and premeditated, as he went to the residence armed with a knife. Member’s Counsel did not agree as she submitted that there was no evidence presented during the criminal proceeding or factual finding made to this effect. The Panel notes that there may have been no evidence presented or factual finding made with respect to the premeditated aspect of the Member’s criminal offence, because premeditation was not an element of the criminal offence at issue before the Court (see Exhibit 2, Appendix E, at page 6). Nevertheless, the Court reached the unchallenged conclusion that the Member’s conduct was not a “snap decision”. The fact that the Member was “armed with a knife when he entered the apartment demonstrates a level of planning and deliberation” (Exhibit 2, Appendix E, at page 15). The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s criminal conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment – the element of planning that was involved in the Member’s criminal conduct is an aggravating factor. The Panel further recognizes, however, that this determination does not materially change the outcome of this case, given the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty.

16In terms of mitigating factors, the Panel considered that the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and obviated the need for witnesses, including the victims, to testify. Moreover, the Panel recognizes that the Member has not previously appeared before the College and does not have any prior discipline history. Notably, the Panel gave considerable weight to the Member’s Indigenous background, recognizing systemic and historical factors that may have impacted his conduct and brought him before the College in this proceeding. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s violent misconduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models for students, which the Member failed to do when he resorted to breaking and entering with the intent to commit assault with a weapon and then violently assaulted two people. His decision to brandish a weapon was dangerous, but his violent and repeated execution of the assault was disturbing and especially unbecoming a member of the teaching profession, as members are expected to respect the law, serve as positive role models for students and in their communities, and maintain their composure during difficult situations. 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.

18The Panel finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is appropriate in this case. The Member’s conduct towards two members of the public was abhorrent and reprehensible. Person A’s victim impact statement demonstrates the deep psychological damage that they continued to live with after the Member’s attack (see Exhibit 2, Appendix C, at pages 28-30). The Panel recognizes that the Member has expressed remorse and that there are mitigating factors related the Member’s Indigenous background, but cannot ignore that the Member’s actions had serious consequences. His utter disregard for people’s safety and the law warrants an order of the Panel’s most severe penalty available: revocation. Not only has the Member’s conduct had a grave impact on one of the victims, but it has also eroded the public’s trust in the teaching profession. The public must be able to trust that teachers will model respect for others and the law, and that they will provide a safe space for student learning. The Member’s actions are not reflective of someone who embodies such values and through his egregious misconduct, he has forfeited the privilege of being a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.

19The 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 Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 at para. 71.
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.