DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Jesse Spencer Silver, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JESSE SPENCER SILVER (REGISTRATION #656035)
PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair
Brian Brophey
Lois Figg
HEARD: September 13, 2022
Linette King, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Andrea Wobick, for Jesse Spencer Silver
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 September 13, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Jesse Spencer Silver (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation.
3The 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
4The 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
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated July 23, 2020 (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 abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(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 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);2
(e) 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);
(f) 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);
(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Jesse Spencer Silver is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers with Inactive/Non-Practising status. 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 Renfrew County District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher, a Link Crew administrator, and a girls’ [XXX] coach at [XXX]School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
During the 20[XXX]-20[XXX] academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] female student at the School.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] female student in the Member’s class.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 3 and Student 4 were Grade [XXX] female students in the Member’s class. The Member was also their [XXX] coach.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 5 was a Grade [XXX] female student in the Member’s class. The Member was also her [XXX] coach.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 6 and Student 7 were Grade [XXX] female students in the Member’s class.
Inappropriate Interactions with Female Students
- During the 2016-2017 academic school year, the Member engaged in inappropriate interactions with female students, including when he:
(a) sprayed female students in the face with a water bottle;
(b) touched female students on the arm and/or shoulder;
(c) exchanged in electronic messages about topics unrelated to teaching or school work with at least two female students.
Interaction with Student 1
- During the 20[XXX]-20[XXX] academic year, the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1 in which he:
(a) discussed personal issues with Student 1;
(b) shared details about his family and his romantic relationships with Student 1;
(c) exchanged electronic messages of a personal nature with Student 1;
(d) drove Student 1 home from School on one occasion; and
(e) touched Student 1’s shoulder with his hand.
The Member’s relationship with her while she was a student was unprofessional in that he treated her as a friend, rather than as a student.
The Member continued to have a personal relationship with Student 1 for a year after she graduated in 20[XXX]. During this time, the Member:
(a) exchanged electronic messages of a personal nature with Student 1;
(b) went to the gym with Student 1;
(c) entertained Student 1 at his apartment on at least two occasions; and
(d) touched Student 1’s knee with his hand.
After graduating, Student 1 worked at a local [XXX]. She was the sole employee working during her shifts. On more than one occasion, the Member visited Student 1 at the [XXX]during her shifts. On one occasion, the Member bought Student 1 a Christmas present and brought it to her at work. Student 1 kept the fact that the Member had given her a gift a secret from her family, as they did not approve of the relationship given that the Member was her former teacher.
Student 1 described the outcome of her personal relationship with the Member as “devastating” for her. There were untrue rumours that Student 1 had pursued a relationship with the Member and had cheated on her previous boyfriend with the Member. As a result of these rumours, Student 1 cut off communication with the Member. At a party attended by the Member, Student 1 and her [XXX], Student 1’s [XXX], who was still a student at the School, confronted the Member about his relationship with his [XXX]. The Member repeated the rumour that Student 1 was interested in him. Student 1 witnessed this exchange and was upset to the point of crying.
In or about the spring of 2017, the Member twice attempted to connect with Student 1 after she ended their friendship by visiting her at her place of work. Student 1 asked the Member to leave on both occasions, the second time in tears. This was the last contact the Member had with Student 1.
Interactions with Students 2, 4 and 5
During the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member regularly socialized and spent time with a select group of female students, including Students 2, 4 and 5. This included occasionally eating his lunch with the students and sitting with them in the School cafeteria.
Student 2 noted how “touchy” the Member was with female students. She observed him placing his hands on students’ backs to walk past them, and she felt that she should not leave other students alone with him.
On more than one occasion, the Member conducted one-on-one workouts with female students. The Member continued this conduct despite instruction from other teachers that this was inappropriate.
On one occasion, the Member drove Student 4 and Student 5 in his personal vehicle to a [XXX] tournament in [XXX], Ontario.
Interaction with Student 6 and 7
During the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member inappropriately touched Student 6 and Student 7 on their legs during class. The Member also played with their hair.
Student 6 and Student 7 felt that the Member had been flirting with them. They were uncomfortable with the Member’s conduct and were concerned that he would try to take things further with them.
During a conversation with the Member, Student 6 and Student 7 mentioned a [XXX] class that they were taking outside of School. The Member suggested that Students 6 and 7 should visit him at his home, as he lived near where the class was held.
Investigations
On June 13, 2017 the Member was arrested and charged with three counts of sexual interference and three counts of invitation to sexual touching with respect to his conduct with Student 3.
On December 18, 2018 the Member’s charges were resolved by way of a Recognizance to Keep the Peace which prohibited contact or communication of any kind with Student 3 and prohibited the Member from attending within 100 metres of any place where Student 3 lived, worked, went to school, or frequented.
Board Investigation
- The Member resigned from the Board effective, March 28, 2019, prior to the completion of the Board’s investigation into this matter. The Member did not participate in an interview with the Board.
Prior Investigation Committee Decision
- On or about October 16, 2019, the Member received an oral admonishment delivered in person from the Investigation Committee at the College relating to allegations concerning the Member’s interaction with Student 3 during the 2016-2017 academic school year. The Investigation Committee noted that the conduct of the Member was of “extreme concern” and “entirely contrary” to what is expected and required of Members. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Admonishment for Jesse Spencer Silver, OCT dated October 16, 2019.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 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 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 Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) 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;
(f) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990 chapter E.23, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and the circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
7Counsel for the College requested that the allegation 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/or that he engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as a by-product of the agreement between the parties that resulted in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and because the College posited that the evidence presented in the matter best fit under other heads of misconduct. The Panel granted the request.
8Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 13, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 25 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 constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of improper behaviour in fostering personal relationships with multiple students as well as touching them inappropriately.
10The Panel found that the Member abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1) when he touched multiple female students inappropriately and without their consent. The Member touched students on their arm, legs, shoulder and knee, as well as played with their hair and sprayed them in the face with water. In touching these students inappropriately, he crossed the professional boundaries that must exist between teachers and students and was abusive. Teachers are in a position of authority and should be trusted to establish and maintain proper physical boundaries with students, who are particularly vulnerable to unequal power dynamics, especially in the circumstances where the Member initiated physical contact. The Member’s conduct towards several students was a violation of the boundaries that teachers are expected to respect and maintain with students. When teachers touch students inappropriately, it puts students in an uncomfortable position and makes them feel unsafe, which is the opposite of how they should feel with members of the teaching profession.
11The Member’s physical behaviour and touching was so clearly inappropriate that Student 2, upon noticing how touchy he was, felt compelled to not leave other students alone with the Member. This is very concerning to the Panel, as students should not be made to feel uncomfortable and responsible for other students’ safety, or that they need to protect them from teachers. Teachers are expected to provide a safe environment for students and students should be able to trust that they will behave in a professional manner. The Member’s physically abusive behaviour broke that trust.
12The Member is also found to have abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). The Member took advantage of his position of authority and trust with students, without any regard to their well-being and in doing so, he abused students psychologically and emotionally. In engaging and fostering personal relationships with students, the Member discussed personal issues and shared details about his family and romantic relationships. In addition, he exchanged electronic messages about matters unrelated to school. He further spent time alone with the students, including driving them in his car, engaging in one-on-one workouts, inviting them to his apartment and socializing with them both in and out of school. He blatantly breached the teacher-student boundary and acted more like a friend than a teacher, which is not appropriate for someone in a position of trust and authority. Students are especially vulnerable to power dynamics, thus the Member’s behaviour was psychologically and emotionally abusive. Students were placed in the uncomfortable and awkward situation of carrying the burden of a personal relationship with a teacher. It was distressing for students, who felt like the Member was flirting with them and were concerned that the Member would try to further develop his inappropriately personal relationship with them. No students should have to bear the burden of feeling this way, especially since teachers are responsible for ensuring that students feel safe and supported. Students should trust that members have their best interests at heart. The Member failed in this respect and it was clear that the Member put his interests ahead of the students’ interests.
13The Member’s irresponsible and psychologically abusive behaviour was especially evident from his interactions with Student 1. In addition to touching her inappropriately, he went to the gym and his apartment with her, as mentioned above. He bought Student 1 a gift, which she had to keep a secret from her disapproving family. Students should not have to bear the burden of the Member’s intrusive and inappropriate actions, as Student 1 did. He also visited Student 1 at her workplace numerous times, including after Student 1 attempted to end their friendship. He ignored her wishes to set boundaries and visited her again, which upset her to the point of tears. The Member also publicly perpetuated a rumour that Student 1 was interested in him, which also upset her to the point of crying. The Panel finds his behaviour to be psychologically and emotionally damaging. It was inappropriate, regardless of whether it occurred while she was a student or shortly after she had graduated. The Member not only pursued her with only his interests in mind, but also undermined her confidence and dignity in spreading a baseless rumour that one would reasonably expect would damage her reputation and sense of self.
14The Member is also found to have failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 (now 26) of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). The Panel found that the Member breached both his professional and ethical standards as a teacher.
15Of the ethical standards that members of the teaching profession are held to, the Panel finds that the Member breached the standards of care, respect and integrity. The Member was insensitive to the impact of his behaviour on students, especially Student 1, when she attempted numerous times to end her friendship with him after she had graduated. He ignored her wishes and continued to pursue her and in fact, perpetuated a rumour about his relationship with her in front of her [XXX], who was also a student. This was a breach of integrity and respect for students’ dignity and emotional wellness that is expected of teachers. Student 1, as someone who felt compelled to keep her relationship with the Member a secret from her family, was upset to the point of tears. The Member failed to show compassion or empathy for other students who were made uncomfortable by his actions. Student 2’s wariness and concern about leaving her peers alone with the Member demonstrates that the Member disregarded how his actions would negatively impact students and thus, failed to care for their needs and well-being. He did not care for students’ emotional wellness and how uncomfortable they would feel at his crossing of professional boundaries.
16Teachers are expected to be committed to students and their learning and treat students equitably and with respect. The Member failed in this regard, when he engaged in horseplay with them, exchanged electronic messages with them on topics unrelated to school, and fostered personal relationships with them both electronically and in-person. The Member’s behaviour demonstrated a lack of commitment to students’ learning and well-being. The Member also failed to serve as a leader in the learning community when he repeatedly crossed boundaries and made students feel uncomfortable both in and out of school. He abused his position of authority and trust when he ingratiated himself into students’ lives and touched them inappropriately.
17The Member also failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Subsection 264(1)(c) requires teachers to teach and model morality and virtuous conduct. The Member clearly disregarded this duty by repeatedly engaging in inappropriate and harmful behaviour to multiple students. A member who touches students inappropriately, encourages students to cross professional boundaries with him, ignores their wishes to set boundaries with him and instead undermines them, is not one who models the professional behaviour that is expected of members. The Member’s poor judgment and failure to adhere to his duties to model positive behaviour was not only observed by his peers who actively warned him about his behaviour but also by students, who felt wary and concerned. The Member’s lack of insight into the inappropriate nature of his behaviour, even after others brought this to his attention, was particularly concerning for the Panel.
18The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all of the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). The Member’s repeated inappropriate behaviour towards students demonstrated a flagrant disregard for his professional obligations and significant moral failing. He showed a concerning lack of moral fitness when he did not consider the negative impact of his actions on students. In particular, he did not consider how Student 1 would feel when he repeated a rumour about her to her [XXX] and continued to pursue a relationship with her despite her wish to end their friendship. He also did not consider how burdensome and concerned students like Student 2 felt when he continued his touchy behaviour with female students and also dismissed other teachers’ concerns about his inappropriate conduct. His decision to continue his inappropriate behaviour is indicative of his moral failing. His behaviour fell well below the standard placed on teachers and he ought to have known that his horseplay, repeated touching and crossing of boundaries with students were inappropriate and sorely lacked the professional judgment and responsibility expected of members.
19The Member is also found to have engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). The Member breached the public’s trust and expectations when he touched students inappropriately, fostered a personal relationship with Student 1 and invited students to spend more time alone with him outside of school. These actions were not in the best interests of students, but rather only served him. His treatment of female students showed a lack of awareness and disregard for appropriate student-teacher boundaries and undermined the public’s trust and confidence in the teaching profession.
F. RESIGNATION, UNDERTAKING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
20On July 26, 2022, the Member entered into a Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment (Exhibit 4) with the College, in which he agreed to the following terms and conditions:
I hereby resign as a member of the Ontario College of Teachers with immediate effect.
I undertake that following my resignation, I will not teach in any public or private school in Ontario or work in any position which requires membership in the Ontario College of Teachers.
I will not seek reinstatement of my Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
I understand that a breach of this Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment, may constitute professional misconduct and that in those circumstances, should I obtain a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Ontario College of Teachers will be at liberty to re-institute these proceedings.
I acknowledge that my status on the Public Register of the Ontario College of Teachers will be “Resigned-Cancelled” and the notation will read as follows:
“On July 26, 2022, the Member resigned his membership with the Ontario College of Teachers and has undertaken never to teach again nor to seek reinstatement of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. The Member resigned his membership while a disciplinary proceeding was pending.”
I acknowledge and understand that decisions of the Discipline Committee are available on the Ontario College of Teachers’ website.
I acknowledge my understanding about the scope, purpose and effect of my execution of this Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgement and am executing same voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
G. PENALTY DECISION
21The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 13, 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 eight (8) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.
H. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
22The 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 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. Blew, 2018 ONOCT 7; Ontario College of Teachers v. Burke, 2021 ONOCT 76; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Primi, 2022 ONOCT 56.
23The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the prolonged duration of the Member’s misconduct, including after Student 1 graduated and the fact that the Member continued his behaviour even though it was flagged as inappropriate by his peers and other students. College Counsel submitted that the fact that the Member was criminally charged with respect to his actions towards Student 3 should be an aggravating factor, but the Panel agrees with the submission of Member’s Counsel that the fact that the Member was criminally charged does not serve to act, in and of itself, as an aggravating factor, especially since it occurred after the conduct in question here. However, the Panel does find the fact that the charges were not withdrawn and instead were resolved by way of Recognizance to Keep the Peace as part of the overall aggravating context against the Member.
24In terms of mitigating factors, the Panel considered that the Member pleaded no contest to the allegations against him and agreed on the penalty, which prevented students from having to testify and spared the parties from expending the time and resources that would have otherwise been required to proceed with a lengthy, full hearing. In addition, the Panel gave weight to the fact that the Member entered into a Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment, and took the initiative to remove himself from the profession, which was indicative of him taking his own conduct and consequences seriously. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
25The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models that students can trust, but the Member failed to do so when he breached boundaries with numerous students several times, including by inappropriately touching them, engaging in a personal relationship, spending time with them outside of the school setting, spreading a rumour and making them feel uncomfortable. 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 and notify members and the public that such behaviour is not tolerated.
26Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that an eight-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The eight-month suspension (which the Panel has authority to order even when a member has resigned) communicates to the profession at large that such conduct will result in a strong and lengthy suspension, given that eight months is tantamount to a full school year. 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. Although the Member has resigned, the fact that the suspension will be published on the Registrar will continue to serve as a specific and general deterrent. In accordance with the parties’ submissions, the Member’s suspension will begin on September 28, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
27While the cases presented by College Counsel are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in said cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that the penalty ordered is justified and not unduly harsh nor lenient.
28The Panel gave serious consideration to the Member’s Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment. The Panel notes that the Member resigned while the discipline hearing was pending and also undertook to never reapply. In taking these steps, the Panel was reassured that the Member eventually acquired some insight into his conduct and his personal circumstances. The Panel finds that the Member’s decision to resign and never reapply is a significant measure that will ensure the protection of the public interest, as the Member has effectively removed himself from the teaching profession.
29The Panel is satisfied that the penalty, in conjunction with the Member’s undertaking, is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: September 21, 2022
Rebecca Forte, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Brian Brophey Member, Discipline Panel
Lois Figg Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
- As of January 20, 2022, section 32 of the by-laws has been re-numbered to section 26 of the by-laws.
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.