DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Ng 2023 ONOCT 14

Date: 2023-03-07

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

Christopher Anthony Kwoon Wung Ng, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY KWOON WUNG NG (REGISTRATION #585508)

PANEL: Emma Rhodes, Chair Rebecca Forte, OCT Anthony Jeethan, OCT

HEARD: March 2, 2023

Yufei (Fiona) Wang, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Daniel Goldbloom, for Christopher Anthony Kwoon Wung Ng

Rebecca Durcan, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(3) and 32.1(4) 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, or the person who was allegedly sexually abused, or the subject of sexual misconduct, a prohibited act involving child pornography, or a prescribed sexual act.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on March 2, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Christopher Anthony Kwoon Wung Ng (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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.

4A publication ban was also ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request of College Counsel on behalf of Student 1, who was allegedly sexually abused. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated September 6, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Christopher Anthony Kwoon Wung Ng 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 abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

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

(d) 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;

(e) 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);

(f) he contravened a law, the contravention of which has caused or may cause a student who is under the member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);

(g) 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);

(h) 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:

1. Christopher Anthony Kwoon Wung Ng is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member obtained a Certificate of Qualification and Registration on July 7, 2010. The Member’s status was changed to “Inactive/Non-Practising” on May 7, 2022. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

3. At all material times, the Member was employed by the York Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Richmond Hill, Ontario.

4. In the 2010-2011 academic year, Student 1 was a [XXX] year-old Grade [XXX] female student at the School. The Member was Student 1’s [XXX] teacher in the 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 academic years. In the 2011-2012 academic year, the Member had acted as Student 1’s [XXX] in the school’s [XXX].

5. In the Spring of 2011, outside of school hours, the Member befriended Student 1 via Facebook. The Member sent messages to Student 1 that made her feel “special.”

6. In or about May 2011, the Member started to engage in a sexual relationship with Student 1, including but not limited to kissing, sexual contact with Student 1’s breasts and vagina, digital penetration of Student 1’s vagina, mutual oral sex and vaginal intercourse.

7. The Member’s conduct had a negative impact on Student 1’s well-being.

8. The sexual relationship between the Member and Student 1 continued until the end of 2018.

Criminal Proceedings/Convictions

9. On February 10, 2020, York Regional Police charged the Member with:

(a) Between the 7th day of September in the year 2012 and the 29th day of June in the year 2013 at the City of Richmond Hill in the Regional Municipality of York did commit a sexual assault on Student 1, contrary to Section 271, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada;

(b) Between the 21st day of May in the year 2011 and the 25th day of February in the year 2013 at the City of Richmond Hill in the Regional Municipality of York did, being a person who was in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, with a part of his body, for a sexual purpose, directly touch the body of that young person, namely Student 1, contrary to Section 153, subsection (1.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and

(c) Between the 21st day of May in the year 2011 and the 25th day of February in the year 2013 at the City of Richmond Hill in the Regional Municipality of York did, being a person who was in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, for a sexual purpose, invite that young person, namely Student 1, to directly touch with a part of her body the body of the Member, contrary to Section 153, subsection (1.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

10. On or about April 1, 2022, the Member pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault. Other charges were withdrawn.

11. On April 27, 2022, the Member was sentenced to an 18-month conditional sentence 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 and the time for an appeal has expired.

13. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” are certified copies of the Court Information, appearances/endorsements, and disposition in the criminal proceedings.

14. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a certified copy of an Adult Conditional Sentence Order, dated April 27, 2022.

15. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a certified copy of an Adult Probation Order, dated April 27, 2022.

16. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” is a certified transcript of the Proceedings (Guilty Plea and Reasons for Sentence) remotely before the Honourable Justice A. Ghosh on April 27, 2022.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

17. By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-16 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

18. The Member hereby acknowledges that the conduct set out at paragraphs 5-11 and 13-16 of the Uncontested Facts constitutes professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly that he engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and breached Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19).

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 (including the Appendices) 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 prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the Discipline 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 in this document 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.

20. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise 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, 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.

21. 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

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 March 2, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student 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 16 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 at paragraphs 5 to 11 and 13 to 16 of Exhibit 2 constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in various sexual acts and behaviours towards Student 1. The Member pled guilty to and was convicted of sexual assault of Student 1 in his prior criminal proceeding.

9The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by sexually assaulting Student 1. The Panel accepts College Counsel’s unopposed submission that misconduct of the nature committed by the Member is so notorious and offside of what is acceptable that expert evidence is not required to prove that the standards were breached.¹ Sexually assaulting a student is egregious conduct which clearly falls below the standards of the profession.

10The Member abused a student physically contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s conduct towards Student 1 included kissing her, making sexual contact with her breasts and vagina, digitally penetrating her vagina, and engaging in mutual oral sex and vaginal intercourse with her. The Panel finds that by engaging in such conduct, the Member violated Student 1’s bodily integrity and therefore physically abused her.

11The Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member did not contest that his conduct had a negative impact on Student 1’s well-being. Furthermore, the victim impact statement of Student 1 in the Member’s criminal proceeding (Exhibit 2 at Appendix E) demonstrates the lasting and devastating effects which the Member’s conduct had on her. Among other things, Student 1 has experienced [XXX] and [XXX] in a variety of emotional, cognitive, and physical functions. Student 1 lives in a state of constant alert and had wished at times that [XXX]. Day to day activities for Student 1 have been difficult and often stripped of joy, peace and pleasure. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct was in breach of this head of misconduct.

12The Member sexually abused a student contrary to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and as defined in section 1 of the Act. The definition of sexual abuse includes (a) sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between the member and the student, (b) touching, of a sexual nature, of the student by the member; or (c) behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature, by the member towards the student. The Member exploited his position of trust and authority by befriending Student 1 via Facebook outside of school hours and sending her messages which made her feel special. The Member then engaged in various sexual acts towards her, including sexual intercourse, as set out above. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct evidently meets the definition of sexual abuse under the Act. This finding is further supported by the fact that the Member was convicted of sexual assault of Student 1, in his prior criminal proceeding.

13The Panel finds that the Member’s criminal conviction for having breached section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada demonstrates that he contravened a law relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, and which has caused a student who was under his professional supervision to be put at risk, contrary to subsections 1(16) and 1(17) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession must be trusted to work closely with, and ensure the safety and well-being of, students. By engaging in a serious sexual offence towards Student 1, the Member demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness and a complete disregard for the safety and well-being of a student under his care. The Member’s criminal conduct therefore calls into question his suitability to hold a teaching certificate and cast serious doubt on his ability to practise the profession without putting students at risk.

14The Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. It is abhorrent for a teacher, who is expected to be an upstanding member of society, to take advantage of their trusted position by sexually assaulting a student. Through his conduct, the Member demonstrated a complete lack of moral and professional judgment. He exploited his position of trust and authority by taking advantage of his access to Student 1, by preying on her vulnerabilities, by grooming her, by isolating her, and by manipulating her to compel her compliance with his own depraved sexual desires (see Exhibit 2 at Appendix E). As such, the Member’s behaviour can be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

15The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By sexually assaulting Student 1, the Member undermined the trust which students, parents and the public place in teachers and tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession.

F. PENALTY Decision

16The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on March 2, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.

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

17The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included the sexual abuse of a student, as described in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. Given this finding, section 30.2(1) of the Act provides that the Panel must make an order: (1) requiring that the Member be reprimanded by the Panel; and (2) directing the Registrar to revoke the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration. The Panel makes both of these orders and notes that these mandatory penalty provisions apply retrospectively in this case pursuant to section 63.2 of the Act.² In relation to the form of the reprimand, the Panel finds that a written reprimand is appropriate in light of the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty.

18The Panel recognizes that it may also order costs or a fine in accordance with subsection 30(5) of the Act but notes that the parties are jointly asking it to confine its order to the mandatory ones. The Panel finds it reasonable not to make these additional orders in light of the Member’s plea of no contest and joint submission on penalty, particularly given the high threshold that must be met before rejecting a joint submission on penalty.

19The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.

Footnotes

1. 1Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 established that expert evidence is generally required to prove a breach of the standards of the profession, unless the conduct is so notorious and so manifestly contrary to the standards that expert evidence is not required.
2. 2Although this mandatory penalty provision was not in force at the time of the Member’s sexual abuse of Student 1 (i.e., beginning in the Spring of 2011), section 63.2 of the Act provides that the mandatory penalty provisions at section 30.2 of the Act apply retrospectively where the sexual abuse occurred before April 3, 2019 and no order has been made under subsection 30(4) of the Act before then. These conditions are met in this case and the Panel must therefore apply the mandatory penalty provisions set out at section 30.2 of the Act.