DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Mousseau 2023 ONOCT 15

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

David Thomas Mousseau, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

DAVID THOMAS MOUSSEAU (REGISTRATION #196297)

PANEL: Adam Dharsee, OCT, Chair

Kirby Chown, OCT

Rachelle Coleman

HEARD: February 13, 2023

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers

No one appearing for David Thomas Mousseau

Erica Richler, 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 February 13, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2David Thomas Mousseau (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have 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 2, Student 3, Student 4, Student 5 and Student 6, who were allegedly sexually abused. The Panel notes that Student 1, who was also allegedly sexually abused, did not request a publication ban under this subsection. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identities of, or any information that could disclose the identities of Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, Student 5 and Student 6.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

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

IT IS ALLEGED that David Thomas Mousseau 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 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;

(c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(d) 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);

(e) 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);

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

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. David Thomas Mousseau is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers in the 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the District School Board of Niagara (the “Board”) and worked as a teacher and coach at [XXX] School [XXX] and then at [XXX] School [XXX] in Fort Erie, Ontario.

Student 1

3. Student 1 was a female student of the Board. Student 1 graduated from [XXX] school in June 20[XXX].

4. Student 1 was never a student of the Member’s and never attended the Member’s school. The Member first encountered Student 1 when she was [XXX] student at [XXX] School and on her school’s [XXX] team. The Member coached the [XXX] [XXX] team and played against Student 1’s school [XXX] team.

5. The Member approached Student 1 when she was in Grade [XXX] and he saw her at her [XXX] school. He asked Student 1 on that occasion to say “hi” to him whenever he was at her [XXX]school coaching a team.

6. The Member approached Student 1 the following year when she was [XXX] at an event at her [XXX] school. Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student at the time, and the Member was attending the event with his Grade [XXX] class. The Member mentioned to Student 1 that he knew her from [XXX] when she was in [XXX] school, but Student 1 did not have any recollection of him at that time.

7. The Member reached out to Student 1 over social media that summer. On August 23, 20[XXX], when Student 1 was [XXX] years old, the Member friended her on Facebook, and sent her the following message on Facebook Messenger at 11:49 p.m.: “anyways…why did ya have to always…kick [XXX] butt..arrr…”.

8. From that point forward, the Member engaged in a personal relationship with Student 1 that included sending Student 1 numerous communications using Facebook Messenger in the evenings, late at night, and into the early morning hours, including over holiday breaks, throughout Student 1’s remaining [XXX] school years. Student 1 was a vulnerable adolescent at the time, and she grew to trust the Member as her friend and confidant.

9. While Student 1 was in [XXX] school, the Member offered to assist Student 1 to find a co-op placement, despite having no prior teacher-student relationship with her, and despite her not requesting his assistance. Beginning around August 30, 20[XXX], up to around August 6, 20[XXX], the Member repeatedly suggested to Student 1 that she work at his school and/or help him with his students for her co-op placement. Examples of these messages from the Member to Student 1 include the following:

(a) on August 30, 20[XXX] at around 11:46 p.m. the Member wrote to Student 1: […] if ya [sic] ever want a coop [sic]…let me know…lol”;

(b) on January 17, 20[XXX], at around 10:15 p.m. the Member wrote to Student 1: “were you looking for a coop [sic] placement?”;

(c) on August 24, 20[XXX], at around 11:56 p.m. the Member wrote to Student 1: “[…] if ya [sic] want a coop [sic] let [XXX][sic] know…help me coach…:)”;

(d) on October 5, 20[XXX], at around 8:48 p.m. the Member wrote to Student 1: “heard anything about coop [sic] placements yet?...:)”;

(e) on November 24, 20[XXX], at around 10:00 p.m. the Member wrote to Student 1: “”come to [XXX][sic]…lol…help me with my students…lol”;

(f) on August 6, 20[XXX], at around 12:26 a.m., the Member wrote to Student 1: “you should have co oped [sic] with me…we are sooooooooooooooo alike…lmoa [sic]… we would rock…”.

10. Examples of inappropriate personal messages the Member sent to Student 1 over Facebook Messenger while she was in [XXX] school include the following:

(a) on January 22, 20[XXX], between approximately 9:43 p.m. and 10:34 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1: “god i [sic] wish i [sic] had the chance to teach you gals…attitude like mine…:)”; “and next time I am at [XXX], if ya don’t say hi… I will yell at you..lol..jk”; “you are the best”;

(b) on February 20, 20[XXX], at around 10:34 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1: “[…] you always manage to make me smile…:)”;

(c) on March 10, 20[XXX], the Member wrote to Student 1 at 9:26 p.m. to ask her whether she was enjoying her time off during her break;

(d) on March 16, 20[XXX], between approximately 11:30 p.m. and 11:43 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1: “:) nite [sic] Student 1…as usual i [sic] enjoy our chats…god i [sic] wish i [sic] had taught ya [sic]…lol…:)”;

(e) on April 20, 20[XXX], while Student 1 was on vacation, the Member wrote to Student 1, “are you serious?...you can’t find a [XXX] date…? … I figured half the guys at [XXX]would be begging you to go with them…”;

(f) on July 5, 20[XXX], at around 11:28 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1: “I’d call but might freak you out…” and, “have a great summer Student 1…keep in touch… you make me smile…”;

(g) on December 25, 20[XXX], at around 12:43 a.m., the Member wrote to Student 1: “[M]erry [C]hristmas Student 1”, and on January 1, 2014 at 11:51 p.m. he wished Student 1 happy new year;

(h) on January 24, 20[XXX], at around 9:38 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1: “how can I have the shittiest day and yet…YOU make me laugh so hard…[smiley face emoji]…thanks Student 1…lol”;

(i) on May 30, 20[XXX], between approximately 9:30 p.m. to 11:48 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1:

(i) “if I was closer in age…I would…unfortunately I am old…lol”;

(ii) “funny thing is…people have told me we are similar…lmao…i [sic] am too”;

(j) on June 5, 20[XXX], between approximately 9:30 p.m. and 9:37 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1:

(i) “boob aprons…imagine…lol”;

(ii) “yes…lol…boner is used a lot…makes me laugh…:p”;

(iii) “…I forget that you are an adult…what [XXX]?” and, “… you are so lucky i [sic] am not 20….:)…lol”;

(iv) “nite [sic] Student 1…never stop being you…:)”;

(v) “please…call me [D]ave…:)”.

11. After Student 1 graduated from [XXX] school, the Member asked her for her cell number. The Member continued to initiate conversations with Student 1 and to exchange messages by text and Facebook Messenger with Student 1 after Student 1 started her post-secondary education.

12. On or about March 13, 20[XXX], after years of communicating over Facebook Messenger, the Member and Student 1 went out together to a [XXX]. Student 1 picked the Member up at his home at approximately 1:30 a.m. because she believed that the Member had been drinking and could not drive.

13. That night the Member talked a lot. Student 1 described the Member’s behaviour as “creepy”. When Student 1 dropped the Member off at his home, the Member asked Student 1 for a hug. Student 1 didn’t respond, but turned away from the Member because he made her feel uncomfortable and she had no intention of offering him any affection.

14. The Member continued to send Student 1 electronic messages. Approximately twenty-four hours later, at 12:47 a.m. on March 14, 20[XXX], the Member wrote to Student 1 on Facebook Messenger that “…this time yesterday…I was invited to go out at 1am… and she showed up… never thought she would…”; and, at approximately 2:14 a.m., he wrote to Student 1 that he wanted to go to the [XXX] again with her. The Member continued to send Student 1 messages for days, despite the fact that Student 1 had stopped responding to his communications and had deleted him as a Facebook friend. The Member’s messages included the following:

(a) on March 15, 20[XXX], between approximately 1:16 a.m. and 2:14 a.m., the Member sent Student 1 a YouTube video link entitled, “[XXX]–[XXX]”, and wrote to Student 1, “[XXX]l…lol”, which Student 1 took to be a reference to her because she has[XXX];

(b) on March 19, 20[XXX], at around 11:46 p.m., the Member sent Student 1 a YouTube video link to the song, “[XXX], which Student 1 found creepy;

(c) on [XXX], 20[XXX], at 6:59 a.m., the Member wished Student 1 happy birthday;

(d) on March 25, 20[XXX], at around 11:39 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1:

(i) “can I say something before I go to bed?... you always make me smile…whatever you post…”;

(ii) “if you ever feel down… phone me… I am here… you are a special lady”;

(iii) In response to Student 1’s “thumbs up” emoji, wrote: “hate the thumbs up… makes me want to call you… can i?”.

(e) on March 28, 20[XXX], at around 11:32 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1:

(i) “can I ask you something?” and, “why is that I never really got to know you…coached against you…yet feel…almost like I did…like I know you?...a connection”;

(ii) “you complete me”, and when Student 1 responded, “sorry I cannot be that person”, the Member replied, “I get it…but you do…but…still :)”.

15. Following this last message, the Member texted Student 1 to apologize to her. Student 1 responded by telling him not to contact her again and she blocked him from all forms of communication with her.

16. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of Facebook Messenger messages between the Member and Student 1.

Student 2

17. Student 2 was a former female student from [XXX] and had been in the Member’s class in Grade [XXX]. During the 20[XXX]-20[XXX] academic year, Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] [XXX]school student of the Board.

18. After Student 2 graduated Grade [XXX], the Member added her as a Facebook friend. From approximately October 20[XXX] to December 20[XXX], the Member engaged in electronic communications with Student 2, including but not limited to the following:

(a) on October 8, 20[XXX] at around 11:06 p.m., the Member:

(i) suggested to Student 2 that she and her best friend could earn community service hours working with him as [XXX] for his school’s [XXX] team;

(ii) offered to drive Student 2 and her friend home after games;

(iii) when Student 2 replied that she was a horrible[XXX], he offered to help her during the game and said he would provide candy;

(b) on December 25, 20[XXX], at around 12:19 a.m., the Member wrote to Student 2, “tell you[r] mom I wish her a Merry Christmas…and I miss you”.

19. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” are copies of Facebook Messenger messages between the Member and Student 2.

Student 3

20. Student 3 was a former female student at [XXX] and had been in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class. During the 20[XXX]-20[XXX] academic year, Student 3 was a Grade [XXX] [XXX] school student of the Board.

21. The Member became Student 3’s Facebook friend after Student 3 graduated Grade [XXX]. Student 3 had sent the Member a Facebook friend request prior to graduating from Grade [XXX], but the Member told her that he could not be her Facebook friend until after she graduated Grade [XXX].

22. From approximately October 20[XXX] to December 20[XXX], the Member engaged in a personal relationship with Student 3 that included exchanging electronic communications with Student 3, including but not limited to the following:

(a) on October 8, 20[XXX], at around 11:06 p.m.:

(i) asked Student 3 if she needed to earn community hours working with him as [XXX]for the school’s [XXX]team;

(ii) offered to drive Student 3 home after the games;

(iii) offered to help Student 3 keep [XXX] during game [sic] and/or said that he would provide candy if she agreed to be a [XXX].

Student 4

23. Student 4 was a former female student at [XXX] and had been in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class. During the 20[XXX]-20[XXX] academic year, Student 4 was a [XXX]school student of the Board.

24. During the 20[XXX]-20[XXX] academic year when Student 4 was in Grade [XXX], the Member initiated a personal relationship with Student 4 that included exchanging electronic communications of a personal nature.

25. On May 3, 20[XXX], between approximately 1:23 a.m. and 1:43 a.m. while exchanging electronic communications with Student 4, the Member wrote:

(a) “why could you not be 35 years old…lol…sorry…me bed…”;

(b) “bad…ooops”;

(c) “sorry [Student 4]”.

26. Prior to receiving the above messages, Student 4 had noticed that the Member indicated he “liked” everything she posted on Instagram, which was beginning to make her feel uncomfortable. When she received the above communications from the Member, she felt very uncomfortable.

27. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” are copies of some Facebook Messenger messages from the Member to Student 4.

Student 5

28. Student 5 was a former female student at [XXX] and had been in the Member’s Grade [XXX] classes for both grades. During the 20[XXX]-20[XXX] and 20[XXX]-20[XXX] academic years, Student 5 was a Grade [XXX] and Grade [XXX] [XXX] school student of the Board.

29. The Member contacted Student 5’s mother because he knew Student 5 had a difficult time in Grade [XXX], and he sought permission to reach out to Student 5 to check in on her. From approximately April 20[XXX] to January 20[XXX], the Member texted or Facebook Messaged Student 5 every few weeks. Often Student 5 didn’t respond to his messages because she didn’t know what to say, which prompted the Member to send her more messages. When Student 5 responded with one-word responses because she was annoyed with the Member’s communications, the Member sent her even more messages. Student 5 was also annoyed because most of the Member’s messages were sent after 10:30 p.m., and up to around 1:00 or 1:30 a.m.

30. The Member’s electronic communications with Student 5 included the following:

(a) on April 8, 20[XXX], at around 11:09 a.m. he asked Student 5, “Don’t like my posts on Seinfeld..lol……:p”;

(b) on April 9, 20[XXX], at 6:35 a.m. when he realized that Student 5 hadn’t responded to the post above, he wrote “JK [and smiley emoji]”;

(c) on June 7, 20[XXX], at around 10:52 p.m., he wrote to Student 5, “Come visit me”;

(d) on June 23, 20[XXX], at around 1:19 a.m., he wrote to Student 5, “I miss you”;

(e) on October 12, 20[XXX], at around 12:25 a.m. he wrote to Student 5, “go to bed… lol”, followed by another message at 12:54 a.m., when he wrote to Student 5, “I miss you”;

(f) on November 2, 20[XXX] at 1:48 a.m., he began an exchange with Student 5 wherein he offered to purchase her and her mother [XXX] tickets, which he continued on November 28, 20[XXX] at 10:59 p.m. and into November 29, 20[XXX] at 12:54 a.m.;

(g) on December 3, 20[XXX] at 11:27 p.m., and on January 26, 20[XXX] at 11:36 p.m., he sent a “waving hand” emoji message to Student 5;

(h) on January 2, 20[XXX] at 11:35 a.m., the Member wrote to Student 5, “go to bed… you have school in the morning”;

(i) he wrote to Student 5:

(i) “i [sic] didn’t say anything stupid last night…did i [sic]?” and/or “ok…whew…lol…lmao”;

(ii) “you make me smile”;

(iii) “sweet dreams…..:)”.

31. Student 5 thought that some of the Member’s messages were “sketchy” and “a bit off”, but she didn’t raise it at the time because she had a [XXX] who attended the Member’s School. She eventually shared the messages with her mother. Although Student 5’s mother initially appreciated the Member’s concern for Student 5, after reviewing the messages, she advised Student 5 to unfriend the Member and block him from future communications. Student 5 felt relieved not to have any further connection with the Member. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” are copies of some Facebook Messenger messages between the Member and Student 5.

Student 6

32. Student 6 was a former female student of [XXX] and had been in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class when she was in Grade [XXX]. During the 20[XXX]-20[XXX], 20[XXX]-20[XXX] and 20[XXX]-20[XXX] school years, Student 6 was a [XXX] school student of the Board.

33. In addition to being Student 6’s Grade [XXX] teacher, the Member was Student 6’s [XXX] coach when Student 6 was in Grades [XXX]. When Student 6 was in Grade [XXX], she completed community service hours with the Member.

34. While Student 6 was on the [XXX] team coached by the Member, the Member had Student 6’s mother’s permission to communicate with Student 6 via Facebook regarding team-related issues. For example, the Member often asked Student 6 whether her mother could drive team members to [XXX] games.

35. After Student 6 graduated from Grade [XXX], the Member’s communications became more personal in that the Member asked her how she was doing, how school was, and whether she wanted to gain volunteer hours. Some of these messages were sent by the Member to Student 6 via Facebook Messenger during the early morning hours, including over the summer. For example, the Member messaged Student 6 on or about July 5, 20[XXX] at around 1:34 a.m., to ask her if she knew whether there would be a[XXX] that year, and he messaged her again on July 28, 20[XXX], at 1:54 a.m., to ask her how the summer had been treating her. Student 6 was between Grade [XXX] and Grade [XXX] in July 20[XXX]. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” are copies of some Facebook messages between the Member and Student 6.

Board Investigation

36. On or about May 3, 2020, allegations that the Member was engaging in inappropriate communications through social media with Board students were brought to the Board’s attention. On May 4, 2020, the Board placed the Member at home with pay pending investigation.

37. The Board’s investigation revealed that from approximately 2010 to 2020, the Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with current and former female students of the Board. Effective July 9, 2020, the Board terminated the Member’s employment. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the Member’s letter of termination.

Current Status

38. The Member is not teaching in any capacity and has no intention of returning to teaching.

GUILTY PLEA

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

40. 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(7.3), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19). The Member further admits that his conduct constitutes sexual abuse of a student as defined in Section 1 of the Act.

41. 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.

42. 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

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 13, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of students as defined in section 1 of the Act.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 38 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 heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of boundary violations with six female students, including exchanging electronic communications of a personal or sexual nature with them on social media.

9The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member sent numerous messages of a personal or sexual nature to Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, Student 5 and Student 6, mostly late at night or early in the morning. Additionally, the Member employed manipulative tactics towards students which would reasonably have brought students physically closer to him such as, repeatedly suggesting to Student 1 that she work at his school and/or help him with his students for her co-op placement and offering to drive Student 2 and Student 3 home after games. Furthermore, the Member pressured students to engage with him. For instance, the Member told Student 1 to say “hi” to him whenever he saw her at her [XXX] school and pressured Student 5 to respond to his messages by sending her more messages. Such conduct by an adult in a position of trust would reasonably have an adverse impact on the psychological or emotional well-being of those students, particularly on Student 1 and Student 5 (who had a difficult time in Grade [XXX]) who were vulnerable. Indeed, Student 5 was annoyed by the Member’s communications and found some of his messages to be “sketchy” and “a bit off”. Evidently, when Student 5’s mother asked her to block the Member, Student 5 felt relieved not to have any further connection with him. Similarly, Student 4 felt uncomfortable when she noticed that the Member “liked” everything she posted on Instagram, and when she received the Member’s messages on May 3, 20[XXX], between 1.23 a.m. and 1.43 a.m. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct towards students was psychologically or emotionally abusive.

10The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct constitutes sexual abuse of students, contrary to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and as defined in section 1 of the Act. In coming to this finding, the Panel places significant weight on the fact that the Member has pleaded guilty to the allegation of sexual abuse under this head of misconduct.

11The definition of sexual abuse at section 1 of the Act includes behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the student. Section 1(7) of the Act further provides that, for the purpose of the definition of sexual abuse under the Act, behaviour, remarks and conduct include acts or remarks that are done or made by electronic means. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of grooming behaviour towards the six students by fostering inappropriate personal relationships with them and sending them inappropriate electronic messages on social media late at night, in the early hours of the morning and over holiday breaks (with respect to Student 1 only). The Panel has reviewed the messages which the Member sent to the students and notes that they were informal, personal, and contained sexual innuendoes such as the following:

• on February 20, 20[XXX], at around 10:34 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1: “[…] you always manage to make me smile…:)”;

• on April 20, 20[XXX], while Student 1 was on vacation, the Member wrote to Student 1, “are you serious?...you can’t find a [XXX] date…? … I figured half the guys at [XXX] would be begging you to go with them…”;

• on July 5, 20[XXX], at around 11:28 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1: “I’d call but might freak you out…” and, “have a great summer Student 1…keep in touch… you make me smile…”;

• on January 24, 20[XXX], at around 9:38 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1: “how can I have the shittiest day and yet…YOU make me laugh so hard…[smiley face emoji]…thanks Student 1…lol”;

• on June 5, 20[XXX], between approximately 9:30 p.m. and 9:37 p.m., the Member wrote to Student 1, “boob aprons…imagine…lol” and “yes…lol…boner is used a lot…makes me laugh…:p”;

• on December 25, 20[XXX], at around 12:19 a.m., the Member wrote to Student 2, “tell you[r] mom I wish her a Merry Christmas…and I miss you”.

• on October 8, 20[XXX] at around 11:06 p.m., offered to help Student 3 keep [XXX] during games and/or said that he would provide candy if she agreed to be a [XXX].

• on May 3, 20[XXX], between approximately 1:23 a.m. and 1:43 a.m. while exchanging electronic communications with Student 4, “why could you not be 35 years old…lol…sorry…me bed…”;

• on June 7, 20[XXX], at around 10:52 p.m., he wrote to Student 5, “Come visit me”;

• on June 23, 20[XXX], at around 1:19 a.m., he wrote to Student 5, “I miss you”; and

• on October 12, 20[XXX], at around 12:25 a.m. he wrote to Student 5, “go to bed… lol”, followed by another message at 12:54 a.m., when he wrote to Student 5, “I miss you”.

12In light of the totality of the evidence presented and more particularly the Member’s relentless pursuit of Student 1, the timing of the messages, the nature of the messages and various other circumstances surrounding the Member’s conduct such as pressuring students to engage with him and using manipulative tactics to bring student physically closer to him as described above, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct towards Student 1 (until June 5, 20[XXX] and before she graduated [XXX] school), Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, Student 5 and Student 6 amounts to behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature and meets the definition of sexual abuse under the Act.

13The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws that set out the ethical standards for the teaching profession. The Member’s conduct, which included the sexual abuse of six students, clearly fell below the ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the ethical standards of “Care” and “Trust”. Members are required to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. Members’ professional relationships with students, colleagues and parents are based on trust. The Member’s sexually abusive conduct had an adverse psychological or emotional impact on the students, which demonstrates the Member’s lack of commitment to students’ well-being. By his inappropriate conduct, the Member also breached the trust which the students and their parents placed in him. For instance, the Member asked Student 5’s mother for permission to check in on Student 5 but then ended up initiating a personal relationship with Student 5. Similarly, the Member had Student 6’s mother’s permission to communicate with Student 6 via Facebook regarding team-related issues, but the Member’s communications with Student 6 became more personal.

14The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(c) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to “inculcate by precept and example […] the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.” Simply put, teachers are expected to exemplify moral virtues and serve as positive role models, even when they are outside of the classroom. By grooming students and making remarks of a sexual nature towards them, the Member acted immorally and was a poor role model for students.

15The 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. Teachers are expected to be upstanding members of society, to ensure the safety and well-being of students and to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students. It was unacceptable for the Member to groom and send sexual or inappropriately personal messages to six students. The Member continued to communicate with Student 1 even after she had graduated, went out with her, and asked her for a hug, which made Student 1 uncomfortable. The teaching profession does not tolerate such reprehensible conduct. The Member’s conduct demonstrates serious moral and professional failings and can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

16The Member’s conduct as described above was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By repeatedly engaging in boundary violations with students, which included sending them numerous remarks with sexual overtones, the Member undermined the trust which the public places in the teaching profession and tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession as a whole.

F. PENALTY DECISION

17The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 13, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

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

2. The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”).

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

18The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included the sexual abuse of students, 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 it has no discretion in this regard. 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.

19The 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 guilty plea and joint submission on penalty, particularly in light of the high threshold that must be met before rejecting a joint submission on penalty.

20The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.