DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Williamson 2023 ONOCT 25

Date: 2023-04-20

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

Royce Galon Williamson, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ROYCE GALON WILLIAMSON (REGISTRATION #393833)

PANEL: Emma Rhodes, Chair

Pascale Evans, OCT

Lois Figg

HEARD: February 7, 2023

Lisa Feinberg, for the Ontario College of Teachers

No one appearing for Royce Galon Williamson

Rebecca Durcan, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(1) and 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish or broadcast the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of C.O. and 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 February 7, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (“Rules”).

2Neither Royce Galon Williamson (the “Member”) nor his legal counsel attended the hearing.

3College Counsel submitted an Affidavit of Service (Exhibit 2, Tab 5) affirmed on January 24, 2022 and an Affidavit of Christine Le Dressay (Exhibit 2, Tab 6) affirmed on January 24, 2023, to show that the College informed the Member of the allegations against him, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the College’s position with respect to penalty and costs. In these affidavits, Ms. Le Dressay, a law clerk with Glick Law, outlines her communications with the Member and his legal counsel and provides proof of service of all required documents.

4Based on these affidavits, the Panel was satisfied that the Member and his legal counsel had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and were aware of the time and date of the hearing and the College’s position with respect to penalty and costs. The Member’s legal counsel advised the College that the Member did not want to participate in the College’s disciplinary proceedings and did not wish to be further contacted by the College. The Panel therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

A. PUBLICATION ban

5The 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.

6The subsection 32.1(4) publication ban does not apply to C.O., who was a Grade [XXX] student at the time of the Member’s misconduct during the 1982/1983 school year, but who was older than 18 years old at the time of the hearing. Moreover, despite C.O.’s request to protect her identity, the panel was unable to order a subsection 32.1(4) publication ban because sexual abuse was not alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

7Wishing nevertheless to protect the identity of C.O., and upon the request of College Counsel and the advice of Independent Legal Counsel, the Panel ordered a publication ban under subsection 32.1(1) of the Act. Subsection 32(7) gives the Panel the authority to make an order that the public be excluded from a hearing if, in the Panel’s opinion, the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person justifies a departure from the general principle that hearings should be open to the public. Subsection 32.1(1) allows the Panel to order a publication ban in circumstances in which the test for closing the hearing under subsection 32(7) is met. The Panel found that, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations, which included the Member’s sexual assault of C.O. when she was [XXX] years old, the public disclosure of C.O.’s identity would do little more than to retraumatize and revictimize C.O., which could be harmful to her and have devastating impact on her life. The Discipline Committee has previously made this type of order in similar circumstances, including in Ontario College of Teachers v Jacquemain, 2022 ONOCT 116.

B. OVERVIEW

8In or around the 1982/1983 academic year, the Member engaged in several incidents of sexual assault of a female, Grade [XXX] student (“C.O.”). On September 4, 2020, following a civil action for damages brought by C.O. against the Member and the Trillium Lakelands District School Board (the “Board”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) found the Member liable for assault, battery, sexual assault, sexual battery and breach of fiduciary duty (the Court’s Reasons for Judgment were released on June 30, 2020).

9The Panel’s task is to determine whether the facts alleged by the College have been proven on a balance of probabilities and if so, whether the Member’s conduct gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. For the reasons that follow, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in professional misconduct. The Member contravened section 13 and subsections 14(d) and 14(f) of the regulation made under section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O 1980, c. 495, as amended (the “TPA Regulation”) and subsections 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

10The College requested and the Panel granted the withdrawal of the allegations that the Member contravened subsections 1(7.1), 1(7.2) and 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and the allegation that he engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act. These provisions do not apply with retrospective effect. The conduct occurred prior to the time that the Act came into force, and as such it would not be fair to allege specific allegations of professional misconduct that were not in force at the time of the conduct. The Panel granted the College’s request. The Panel notes that even though the conduct pre-dated the Act, the College still had jurisdiction to proceed with the subsection 1(18) and 1(19) allegations as they relate to the June 2020 civil findings of assault, battery, sexual assault, sexual battery and breach of fiduciary duty.

C. THE ALLEGATIONS

11The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated November 4, 2021 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Royce Galon Williamson is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section 13 (General Duties of Members) of the regulation made under section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O 1980, c. 495, as amended (the “TPA Regulation”);

(b) he failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, contrary to subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation;

(c) he failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation;

(d) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);¹

(e) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);²

(f) 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;³

(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).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS

1. Royce Galon Williamson is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member obtained an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate on August 30, 1982, and a Certificate of Qualification and Registration from the College on May 7, 1998.

3. On December 12, 2019, the Member’s membership status with the College was changed to “Retired.”

4. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Trillium Lakelands District School Board, formerly the Victoria County Board of Education, as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School in [XXX], Ontario (the “School”).

5. In or around the 1982/1983 academic year, [C.O.] was a female Grade [XXX] student at the School. During that year, the Member was [C.O.]’s [XXX] teacher and the School’s [XXX] leader.

6. In or about November and December 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) heard an action for damages brought by [C.O.] against the Member and the Board. The Court subsequently made findings, and it is alleged, that:

(a) the Member groomed [C.O.] by assuming a mentor/confidante/counsellor role with [C.O.];

(b) in or around March 1983, during a School [XXX] trip to [XXX], the Member, while climbing a set of stairs behind [C.O.], caressed her calf gently and smiled when she looked back;

(c) on the bus ride from [XXX] to [XXX] at the end of the School trip, [C.O.] awoke from sleep to find the Member touching and rubbing her foot, in an intimate way, under a blanket;

(d) on arriving in [XXX] at the end of the School Trip, the Member offered to give [C.O.] a ride home. During the car ride, [C.O.] dozed off while alone with the Member. She awoke when the truck stopped in a treed area. The Member began kissing her and removing her clothes. After removing all of her clothes except for her socks and shoes, the Member went to the passenger side of the truck and pulled [C.O.] on top of him so that she was straddling him. He touched her breasts, tried to penetrate her vaginally, and asked her to perform fellatio. He then turned her body around and sodomized her until he ejaculated;

(e) the Member sodomized [C.O.] on two additional occasions, once when he was driving [C.O.] home from [XXX] practice and once after [XXX] practice in his office;

(f) the Member had [C.O.] perform fellatio on him on several occasions including, but not limited to, while driving [C.O.] home after [XXX] practice, in his office after [XXX] practice, and in his office while class was ongoing;

(g) the Member engaged in inappropriate sexual contact and/or sexually touched and/or kissed [C.O.] on several occasions in the Member’s office while a class of students remained in the classroom.

7. The Court found the Member liable for assault, battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, and breach of fiduciary duty. [C.O.] was awarded $500,000 in general and aggravated damages, and damages for loss of competitive advantage, payable jointly and severally by the Member and the Board, and $100,000 in punitive damages payable only by the Member as a result of the findings of the Court.

D. THE MEMBER’S PLEA

12As the Member was not present, the Panel proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

E. THE EVIDENCE

13The College presented documentary evidence in order to prove the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. Relevant portions of this evidence will be set out in greater detail, as needed, in the Panel’s reasons for decision below. The following is a brief summary of the College’s evidence.

(1) Documentary Evidence

14College Counsel relied entirely on the findings of fact contained in the Reasons for Judgment of Justice D. Salmers dated June 30, 2020 (“Reasons for Judgment”) and the Judgment dated September 4, 2020 (“Judgment”), whereby the Court found the Member liable in damages to C.O. for the torts of assault, battery, sexual assault, sexual battery and breach of his fiduciary duty. The Reasons for Judgment describe in detail the Member’s conduct during the 1982-1983 academic year, which included grooming C.O. and subjecting her to extremely serious forms of sexual assault.

F. SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING

15College Counsel submitted that the evidence presented to the Panel proves each of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, on a balance of probabilities. College Counsel therefore submitted that the Panel should find that the Member engaged in professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing. College Counsel explained that the College was relying solely on the Reasons for Judgment and the Judgment because rule 13.04(3) of the Rules allows the Panel to admit findings of fact made in prior civil proceedings as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so found, and because calling C.O. to testify would be retraumatizing and revictimizing for her, and a poor use of scarce judicial resources. Accordingly, College Counsel urged the Panel to make its findings based on the documentary evidence before it.

G. DECISION ON FINDING

(1) Onus and standard of proof

16The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.

(2) Decision

17Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 7, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to section 13 and subsections 14(d) and 14(f) of the TPA Regulation and subsections 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

H. REASONS FOR DECISION

18The Panel has carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented in this matter. In the reasons that follow, the Panel comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the remaining allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel first sets out its factual findings and then explains why these facts give rise to a finding of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

(1) Factual Findings

19The Panel has the authority, pursuant to Rule 13.04 (3) of the Rules, to admit factual findings made during a member’s civil proceedings for the purposes of a member’s discipline hearing. Rule 13.04 (3) provides the following:

13.04(3) The Committee may, in its discretion, admit findings of fact, whether or not supportive of a finding of guilt, made in prior criminal, civil or administrative proceedings as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so found.

20The Panel admitted into evidence the Judgment of Justice D. Salmers dated September 4, 2020 (Exhibit 2, Tab 3) and the Reasons for Judgment of Justice D. Salmers dated June 30, 2020 (Exhibit 2, Tab 4). The Panel relied on the Court’s findings of fact contained in both documents as uncontradicted proof in the Member’s discipline hearing.

(a) The Member groomed C.O. by assuming a mentor / confidante / counsellor role with C.O.

21The Panel adopts the Court’s findings of facts with respect to particular 6(a) of the Notice of Hearing, pursuant to rule 13.04(3). The Panel notes that Justice D. Salmers described C.O.’s testimony as reliable and found that she had an excellent recollection of events, even though the events at issue happened four decades before the civil proceedings. Specifically, the Panel adopts the following findings of fact made by the Court in the Member’s prior civil proceedings.

22During the 1982-1983 academic year, C.O. was a [XXX]-year-old grade [XXX] student. At the time, the Member was C.O.’s [XXX] teacher and the school’s [XXX] leader. Given that C.O. was part of the school [XXX], she saw the Member frequently, both during [XXX] class and during [XXX] practice. The Member took on a mentor/confidante/counsellor role with C.O., who would often meet the Member multiple times a week and confided in him about ongoing personal or family issues. She trusted the Member and felt secure when confiding in him.

23During the March 1983 school break, the [XXX] took a trip to [XXX] that both C.O. and the Member attended. It was during this trip that the troubling incidents started to occur. While C.O. was climbing stairs, the Member touched her calf and smiled at C.O. In addition, during the same school trip, the Member asked C.O. to enter his hotel room, which she did, and he then left her waiting outside the bathroom until he eventually ushered her out the room. The Member never explained to C.O. the purpose of her being there. At the end of the trip, during the bus ride home, C.O. was awakened from her sleep by the Member touching and rubbing her feet in an intimate way under a blanket. From these incidents, the Court determined that through a mentor/confidante/counsellor role, the Member had groomed C.O. to accept more serious sexual advances.

(b) The Member caressed C.O.’s calf gently and smiled at her during a School [XXX] trip to [XXX]

24The Panel adopts the Court’s findings of facts with respect to particular 6(b) of the Notice of Hearing, pursuant to rule 13.03(4). The Court found that while on a ferry to the [XXX] during the school [XXX] trip in March 19 [XXX], while C.O. was climbing a set of stairs, the Member touched C.O.’s calf and smiled when she looked back at him. The Court also noted that the Member again touched her calf later the same day in a gentle, caressing manner.

(c) The Member intimately touched and rubbed C.O.’s foot on the bus ride from [XXX]

25The Panel adopts the Court’s findings of facts with respect to particular 6(c) of the Notice of Hearing, pursuant to rule 13.03(4). The Court found that the Member had intimately touched and rubbed C.O.’s foot under a blanket on the bus ride home from the [XXX] school trip, while she was sleeping, and that the Member’s behaviour caused C.O. to wake up.

(d) The Member forced anal penetration on C.O.

26The Panel adopts the Court’s findings of facts with respect to particulars 6(d) and 6(e) of the Notice of Hearing, pursuant to rule 13.03(4). In the Reasons for Judgment, the Court found that the Member had forced anal penetration on C.O. When the school’s trip arrived back in [XXX] from [XXX], it was late at night and the Member offered C.O. a ride home and told her that he was also dropping off two other, male students. The Member dropped off the two male students at home before C.O., even though, geographically, it would have made more sense to drop off C.O. first. During the ride home, C.O. fell asleep and was awakened when the Member stopped the car in a treed area. The Member then began to kiss and remove C.O.’s clothes and proceeded to remove his pants and underwear. He then went over to the passenger side of the car and pulled C.O. on top of him. The Member tried to penetrate her vaginally and asked her to perform fellatio. C.O. was terrified and said nothing. The Member then proceeded to turn C.O.’s body around and forced anal penetration on her. The Member then drove C.O. home.

27The Court also found, and the Panel accepts, that the Member forced anal penetration on C.O. on another occasion, in the Member’s office, which directly adjoined the [XXX] classroom at the School.

(e) The Member forced C.O. to perform oral sex

28The Panel adopts the Court’s findings of facts with respect to particular 6(f) of the Notice of Hearing, pursuant to rule 13.03(4). In the Reasons for Judgment, the Court found that there were several incidents where the Member forced C.O. to perform oral sex on him. One incident happened when the Member drove C.O. home after [XXX] practice. Other incidents happened in the Member’s office at school while class was ongoing. On two of these occasions, the Member called C.O. into his office while class was ongoing and forced her to perform oral sex on him.

(f) The Member engaged in inappropriate sexual contact and/or sexually touched and/or kissed C.O. on several occasions in the Member’s office while a class of students remained in the classroom

29The Panel adopts the Court’s findings of facts with respect to particular 6(g) of the Notice of Hearing, pursuant to rule 13.03(4). The Reasons for Judgment prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member engaged in inappropriate sexual contact and/or sexually touched and/or kissed C.O. on several occasions in the Member’s office while there were students in the adjacent classroom. The Court noted that this happened during [XXX] class. The Member called C.O. into his office and forced her to perform oral sex on him. On other occasions, the Member called C.O. into his office while class was ongoing and sexually touched her and kissed her. One such incident occurred during a test, where the Member called C.O. into his office to [XXX] as part of the test, with his door closed. He then touched C.O. over her clothes, including rubbing her crotch, while she [XXX].

30Furthermore, the Court found that C.O. did not want to engage in any of the sexual acts to which the Member subjected her, but she felt that she did not have a voice and could not stand up to the Member given the power imbalance between her (a student) and him (and adult in a position of authority).

(2) Legal Conclusions

31The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct set out above gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member:

• failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section of the TPA Regulation;

• failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, contrary to subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation;

• failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation;

• 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); and,

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

(a) The Member failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section 13 of the TPA Regulation

32The Panel finds that the Member contravened section 13 of the TPA Regulation as a result of his repeated sexual assaults of C.O. The sexual assaults occurred during the 1982/1983 school year, while the Member held an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate and was bound to follow the Teaching Profession Act and its regulations. In sexually assaulting C.O., the Member clearly failed to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession. The extremely serious sexual assaults to which the Member repeatedly subjected C.O. have no place in the teaching profession, whose main objectives are to keep students safe and to foster their growth and development. The Member flagrantly abused his position of trust and authority and took advantage of his access to C.O. by preying on her, and inexcusably violating her bodily integrity and her human dignity.

(b) The Member failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, contrary to subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation

33The Member breached subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation. This provision requires a teacher to “show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils”. By forcing upon her anal penetration and oral sex, and by subjecting C.O. to various other unwanted sexual acts, the Member had a devastating impact on C.O.’s well-being and showed no consideration for her whatsoever. Additionally, as a teacher and adult in a position of trust and authority, it was unfair for the Member to abuse that power and mislead, manipulate and exploit C.O. in the way that he did. It is clearly noted in the Reasons for Judgment of the Member’s civil proceedings that C.O. trusted the Member and did not understand why he was engaging in all these acts with her. In the following academic year, C.O. took steps to avoid the Member, including by no longer partaking in [XXX] practice and [XXX] class, which was her favorite subject at school.

(c) The Member failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation

34The Member breached subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation, which requires a member to “concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they are under his care”. The Member abused his role as mentor/confidante/counsellor towards C.O. who often confided in him regarding personal issues. Instead of concerning himself with C.O.’s welfare, the Member exploited her youth and vulnerability by sexually assaulting her on several occasions. Some of these incidents occurred during class time while C.O. was clearly under the Member’s care.

35Furthermore, the Reasons for Judgment demonstrate that the Member’s actions caused emotional and psychological harm to C.O. The Court noted that following these incidents, C.O. experienced [XXX], [XXX], depression, and subsequently quit school even though she had plans to pursue post-secondary education and attend University.

(d) The Member 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)

36Even though the Member’s conduct occurred prior to the Act coming into effect, his conduct became public knowledge through his civil proceedings in 2020. Several findings were made against the Member in 2020. The findings relate to conduct that pre-dated the Act. But in light of the fact that the court made its finding when the Act was in force, the Panel has jurisdiction to make this finding of professional misconduct under subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The court’s findings are deeply troubling. The public and the teaching profession do not tolerate the sexual assault – or any form of assault - of students. The 2020 findings of the court demonstrate that the Member violated the trust that the public places in teachers. When parents send their children to school, they expect that they will be safe. The Member’s breach of this trust was repugnant. The Member groomed C.O., forced anal penetration on her, forced her to perform oral sex on him and engaged, on several occasions, in inappropriate sexual acts with C.O. Some of these incidents occurred while class was ongoing. This type of behaviour is completely unacceptable. The 2020 court findings proves that the Member’s conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

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

37Even though the Member’s conduct occurred prior to the Act coming into effect, his conduct became public knowledge through his civil proceedings in 2020. Several findings were made against the Member in 2020. The findings relate to conduct that pre-dated the Act. But in light of the fact that the court made its finding when the Act was in force, the Panel has jurisdiction to make this finding under subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The 2020 findings of the court demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession by sexually assaulting C.O. Through his egregious conduct, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers. Teachers are entrusted with the care of students and one of their fundamental responsibilities is to ensure students’ safety and well-being. Public confidence in teachers is undermined when members engage in sexual – and other forms of – assault against students. The Member’s behaviour seriously erodes the reputation of the teaching profession, as it is a clear example of a member abusing their position of power, trust and authority over a vulnerable student, by sexually assaulting her.

I. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

38College Counsel explained that the Panel has the discretion to order a penalty that it considers appropriate in the circumstances but submitted that revocation would be appropriate in this case because of the egregious conduct of the Member. According to College Counsel, given the harmful impact that the Member’s sexual assaults had on C.O., the Panel ought to revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

39College Counsel briefly presented the Panel with four previous cases decided by the Discipline Committee in order to establish that revocation and a written reprimand were appropriate orders that fell within the range of penalties ordered for similar misconduct in the past: Ontario College of Teachers v Clarke, 2019 ONOCT 84; Ontario College of Teachers v Schacter, 2020 ONOCT 226; Ontario College of Teachers v Tierney, 2022 ONOCT 51; and, Ontario College of Teachers v Vincer, 2020 ONOCT 116.

J. PENALTY DECISION

40On February 7, 2023, the Panel made the following order as to penalty:

1. The Member is directed to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered in writing, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers; and,

2. The Registrar is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

K. REASONS FOR PENALTY

41In arriving at its decision with respect to penalty, the Panel carefully considered the College’s evidence and submissions. The Panel was also mindful of the guiding principles that penalty orders should address, including specific and general deterrence, remediation (in appropriate cases), and public protection. In cases such as this, where the Member’s professional misconduct included the sexual assault of a student, the objectives of deterrence and public protection are of primary concern to the Panel. The Panel also recognizes the legal principle that like cases should be treated alike. The penalty in this case falls within the range of penalties ordered in several similar cases before the Discipline Committee, as presented by College Counsel.

42The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct, which included the sexual assault of C.O. on numerous occasions and the fact that it led to significant emotional harm for C.O. The predatory nature of the Member’s conduct was also an aggravating factor, as was the fact that he exploited C.O.’s vulnerabilities and put her in compromising positions where she could not escape his unwanted sexual advances, including when he forced anal penetration on her in his car late at night in an isolated clearing in the woods. The Panel did not identify any mitigating factors in this case.

43Revocation is not a mandatory penalty in this case, but the Panel believes that revocation is the only appropriate and proportionate order in light of the Member’s extremely serious professional misconduct and based on the similar cases provided by the College in which revocation was also ordered. The teaching profession and the public do not tolerate the sexual abuse of students by members. C.O. was vulnerable and the Member took advantage of his position of trust and authority in the most egregious way possible – by repeatedly violating her bodily integrity and by inflicting deep and long-lasting emotional harm. The Member’s conduct had a devastating impact on C.O. that continued into her adulthood. During the years following the Member’s sexual assaults of C.O., she experienced [XXX] and became withdrawn from school. The Member’s behaviour was toxic and it affected all aspects of C.O.’s life, including her interpersonal relationships, her education, and her employment history.

44There is no place in the profession for members who sexually assault students. The public expects that children will be safe when they are at school. Teachers are entrusted with the care of students. They must provide students with a physically and emotionally safe learning environment. By repeatedly sexually assaulting C.O., the Member egregiously breached his position of trust and authority. Revocation is the only penalty that appropriately responds to professional misconduct of this nature and gravity. The Member’s conduct undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and will not be tolerated. He has accordingly forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.

45Furthermore, the Panel accepts that a written reprimand is appropriate in this case. Members are expected to serve as positive role models and adhere to the highest moral standards. The Member failed to do by abusing his role as mentor/confidante/counsellor towards C.O. 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.

46The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

L. costs submissions of college counsel

47College Counsel submitted that it would be appropriate to order costs in this proceeding and submitted that the appropriate quantum is $5,000, which is half of the Tariff A amount that is prescribed for a day of proceedings.

48College Counsel relied on Ontario College of Teachers v. Trinchi, 2020 ONOCT 134, where the Panel had made a finding of misconduct based on the Member’s criminal proceedings. College Counsel also briefly presented the relevant factors that the Panel ought to consider when ordering costs against a member, as set out in Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2019 ONOCT 20. College Counsel further submitted that the Member was uncooperative, that the Member was advised that the College would be seeking costs and finally that there was no evidence that the Member was unable to pay costs.

M. costs decision

49On February 7, 2023, the Panel made the following order as to costs:

1. The Member is ordered to pay costs to the College fixed in the amount of $5,000, which must be paid within 90 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee.

N. REASONS FOR COSTS

50Section 30(5) of the Act states that the Panel may make an order to fix costs payable by a member to the College. Rule 16.05 of the Rules indicates that no evidence is required if the costs are equal to or less than the amount in Tariff A. College Counsel submitted that the College was seeking costs in the amount of $5,000.00, which equates to half a day of hearing. The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submissions that where a member is found guilty of professional misconduct it is fair to order them to pay costs for the proceedings.

51The Panel finds that based on the Affidavit of Christine Le Dressay affirmed January 24, 2023 (Exhibit 2, Tab 6), the Member was uncooperative during the disciplinary process. The Panel also noted that the Member was advised that the College may seek an order for costs if the matter proceeded on a contested basis without the Member’s participation. Given that the Member was liable for damages in a civil judgment, that the Reasons for Judgment and Judgment are admissible under Rule 13.04 as proof of the Member’s prior civil liability, and that the Member did not attend his hearing to contest the allegations against him, there is no good reason that this matter should have had to proceed on a contested basis. The Member’s lack of cooperation required this hearing to proceed on a contested basis when it could have been resolved more efficiently with the Member’s cooperation. His uncooperative conduct unnecessarily lengthened the duration of this hearing. Moreover, the College was largely successful in proving the allegations against the Member. There was no evidence before the Panel of the Member’s inability to pay a costs award.

52Accordingly, based on the relevant Hall factors described above, the Panel ordered the Member to pay costs to the College in the amount of $5,000.00, to fairly apportion the financial burden of conducting a contested hearing over the course of half a day, where it should not have been necessary to do so.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
3. 3Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.