DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Dorcin 2023 ONOCT 28

Date: 2023-04-24

PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

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

Roseline Marie-Christine Aline Dorcin, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ROSELINE MARIE-CHRISTINE ALINE DORCIN (REGISTRATION #430863)

PANEL: Kimberley Westfall-Connor, Chair

Adam Dharsee, OCT

Rebecca Zaretsky

HEARD: April 3, 2023

Ava Arbuck for the Ontario College of Teachers

No one appearing for Roseline Marie-Christine Aline Dorcin

Julie Maciura, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 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.

1The penalty stage of this proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on April 3, 2023. In accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, this matter proceeded by way of an electronic hearing.

2On November 23, 2022, the Panel found that Roseline Marie-Christine Aline Dorcin (the “Member”) engaged in professional misconduct. The Member was scheduled to teach French Immersion at Earl Haig Public School (the “School”) for the 2019-2020 school year. Shortly before the start of the school year, the Member advised the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) and the School that she could not return to work due to medical reasons. She then sought and received sick benefits from the Board for a portion of the 2019 fall semester. While receiving sick benefits from the Board, however, she taught for the English Montreal School Board (the “Montreal Board”) which demonstrates that she was evidently not too sick to teach at the School. The Panel found that the Member’s dishonesty eroded the trust that the public places in teachers and the profession, that the Member lacked professional judgment and that she failed to abide by her professional obligations to teach students diligently.

3Based on the Member’s fraudulent conduct, the Panel found that the Member contravened subsections 1(12), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing dated November 1, 2021 (Exhibit 1).

4The Panel reconvened on April 3, 2023, to hear submissions with respect to penalty and costs. The Member did not attend these proceedings and did not have legal representation.

5College Counsel sought to have the penalty stage of the hearing proceed in the Member’s absence and submitted an Affidavit of Daniela Spano (Exhibit 7), affirmed on March 30, 2023, to show that the Member had been properly served at her last known email address with the Panel’s Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision, dated November 23, 2022, and that she was informed of the date and time of the penalty stage of the hearing as well as the College’s position with respect to penalty and costs, and the College’s materials in support of its position. More specifically, College Counsel advised the Member that the College would be seeking a penalty including the revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and costs up to the Tariff A amount of $10,000 per hearing day (pursuant to rule 16 and Tariff A of the Rules).

6Although the Member did not respond to any of College Counsel’s communications, none of the College’s emails serving her with the required materials and information bounced back as undeliverable. The Panel therefore finds that the College’s service to the Member’s last known email address of all required materials and information is deemed to have been received by the Member, and that she decided not to attend the penalty stage of this hearing. As such, the Panel heard the penalty stage of these proceedings in the absence of the Member.

A. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

7The College submitted that the Panel ought to direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers to immediately revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration. College Counsel submitted that revocation was warranted given that the Member had proven herself to be ungovernable. She blatantly disregarded her professional obligations to the teaching profession, her employer, and students, and she disregarded the authority of the College (her professional regulator) by failing to engage with College Counsel in any way throughout her discipline proceedings.

8College Counsel presented the following cases to the Panel in support of its proposed penalty: Ontario College of Teachers v Feldman, 2021 ONOCT 8; Ontario College of Teachers v Mackenzie, 2019 ONOCT 22; Ontario College of Teachers v Bird, 2019 ONOCT 5; Ontario College of Teachers v Saundercook-Menard, 2009 ONOCT 47; Ontario College of Teachers v Spence, 2022 ONOCT 37; Law Society of Upper Canada v Sebastiano Cammisuli, 2012 ONLSHP 157; Ontario College of Teachers v Castellano, 2016 ONOCT 100; Ontario College of Teachers v Reinders, 2017 ONOCT 62; Ontario College of Teachers v Suzuki, 2019 ONOCT 75; and Ontario College of Teachers v Weglarz, 2022 ONOCT 77. College Counsel submitted that these cases ought to guide the Panel with respect to its determination of the appropriate penalty, as they establish a range of reasonable penalties in cases involving ungovernable members who engaged in similar types of conduct to the Member.

9College Counsel submitted that revocation was the most appropriate penalty to protect the public, maintain high professional standards and preserve public confidence in the teaching profession. The Member’s dishonest conduct directly affected students, parents, the School, the Board, the community, and the reputation of the profession as a whole, and the Member’s subsequent decision to not engage whatsoever with the College throughout her discipline proceedings was indicative of her ungovernability. As such, College Counsel argued that the Member ought to forfeit the privilege of remaining a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.

B. PENALTY DECISION

10On April 3, 2023, the Panel made the following order as to penalty:

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

C. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

11In arriving at its decision with respect to penalty, the Panel considered the College’s submissions and the guiding principles underlying penalty orders, including specific and general deterrence, public protection, confidence in the College and proportionality in relation to the misconduct committed by the Member. Based on the jurisprudence presented, the Panel finds that the Member is ungovernable and that the penalty of revocation is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

12The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided by College Counsel. The sole mitigating factor in the Member’s case is that she had not been subject to the College’s discipline proceedings in the past. Although College Counsel submitted that the Member did repay part of the money owing to the Board, the Panel does not find this to be a significant mitigating factor because she did so only after the Board filed a grievance against her and her union, seeking repayment. There is no evidence to suggest that the Member’s repayment was borne out of her contrition or appreciation of the detrimental effects that her conduct had on the students and the school community.

13The aggravating factors in this case significantly outweigh the mitigating factors. The Member abused her trusted position as a member of the teaching profession in defrauding the Board and abandoning her students in pursuit of personal financial gain. Her actions were not a momentary lapse of judgment, but were rather planned, deliberate and maintained for a prolonged period of time. She could have stopped claiming sick benefits at any time, but decided to continue with her fraudulent scheme until she was caught.

14The Member’s misconduct not only negatively impacted her students’ education, but it damaged the reputation of the profession and the Board and raised great concern by parents and the public alike. Several media outlets published negative articles about the Member’s conduct (Exhibit 4, Exhibit 8). The Panel notes that the sensationalized reporting of the Member’s misconduct does not, in and of itself, provide justification for ordering the penalty, but finds it to be indicative of the deep impact that the Member’s misconduct had on the general public, the community and the reputation of the teaching profession. The public outcry about the Member’s misconduct makes it clear that the Member has tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession and eroded the trust that the community places in teachers.

15The Member’s complete failure to engage in the College’s discipline proceedings is particularly aggravating because it is indicative of the Member’s lack of insight, remorse and accountability. As a result of her dishonest conduct and her ungovernability, the Panel does not believe that the Member will abide by her professional obligations or respect the authority of her professional regulator in the future. It is therefore unlikely that any order short of revocation would serve as a sufficient deterrent or protect the public interest.

16As a self-regulating body, the College is mandated to govern its membership to ensure that members are held to a high standard of behaviour. In order to do this, members must respect the College’s processes and authority. When members demonstrate a complete disregard for the College and its processes, it is evident that they lack professional judgment, cannot be trusted to abide by their professional and ethical obligations and are ungovernable. Given the Member’s complete disregard for her professional obligations and her professional regulator, she has forfeited the privilege of remaining a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.

17As the Member did not participate in these proceedings, there is no evidence before the Panel that the Member is remorseful or even understands the significance of her misconduct. Furthermore, there is no evidence that explains the Member’s misconduct, any steps she has taken to mitigate against any future professional misconduct, including rehabilitative courses or other actions, or other assurances from the Member that she will abide by the College’s orders.

18Revocation will serve the principles of specific and general deterrence, and protection of the public. The order will signal to the profession and the public that the College takes misconduct of this nature seriously and will not tolerate members who disregard the College’s authority to regulate its membership in the public interest. Removing the Member from the profession will also protect the public by ensuring that students will not be exposed to a member who has demonstrated significant professional and ethical failings. Although revocation is not a mandatory penalty, it is the only appropriate order given the circumstances.

19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

D. COSTS SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

20College Counsel sought an order for costs payable by the Member to the College, pursuant to paragraph 4 of subsection 30(5) of the Act. In accordance with Rule 16.05(3) and Tariff A of the Rules, College Counsel submitted that the Panel should order costs in the amount of $15,000 for one and a half hearing days, which is the amount contemplated by Tariff A, and thus does not require the College to prove the expense of the hearing.

21College Counsel submitted that it was appropriate for the Panel to award costs against the Member in this case because she was so unresponsive with the College since the start of the proceedings against her and refused to engage in the discipline process in any way, despite the College’s numerous attempts to communicate with her about the case (Exhibit 2, Exhibit 7). The Member was duly advised of the possibility of costs being ordered against her on November 11, 2021, January 18, 2022, July 25, 2022, August 15, 2022, December 13, 2022, and February 24, 2023 (Exhibit 2, Exhibit 7).

22College Counsel submitted that, had the Member been more cooperative, the discipline proceedings could have been shortened, which would have conserved costly hearing resources. In support of their submissions, College Counsel relied on the following cases: Ontario College of Teachers v Hall, 2019 ONOCT 20 (“Hall”); Ontario College of Teachers v Wilson, 2020 ONOCT 151; and Ontario College of Teachers v Arsenault, 2022 ONOCT 39.

E. COSTS order

23On April 3, 2023, the Panel made the following order as to costs:

1. The Member shall pay costs of this proceeding to the College, fixed in the amount of $15,000, which must be paid within 12 months of the date of the Decision and Order.

F. REASONS FOR COSTS

24The Panel has the jurisdiction and authority to order costs payable by a member to the College where it has found that member guilty of professional misconduct, according to paragraph 4 of subsection 30(5) of the Act. Pursuant to Rule 16.05(3) of the Rules, the College does not have to provide evidence of the costs of a day of hearing if the amount claimed is equal to or less than the amount set out in Tariff A (i.e., $10,000 per hearing day). College Counsel sought $15,000 in costs, which is the amount prescribed in Tariff A for one and a half hearing days.

25The Panel is mindful that the goal of cost orders is to allocate the costs of the proceedings fairly. Cost awards are not intended to be an additional punishment to the Member, but are ordered to ensure that the College’s membership is not held entirely financially responsible for proceedings where a member has been found guilty of professional misconduct.

26One of the Hall factors that weighs in favour of a costs order against the Member in this case is the success of the College in proving its case. In cases where significant hearing time is spent receiving evidence on allegations that are ultimately not established, a member ought not to be liable for those costs. In the Member’s case, however, the College was entirely successful at proving all the allegations listed in the Notice of Hearing.

27Another Hall factor that weighs in favour of a costs order against the Member in this case is the Member’s uncooperativeness. Conduct that unnecessarily lengthens the duration of the proceeding ought to be sanctioned. Consistent with the principle of apportionment, the College and, through their licensing fees, the general membership, ought not bear fully the costs of discipline proceedings against uncooperative members. In this case, the College repeatedly attempted to engage with the Member to discuss the case, and to potentially narrow the contested issues so as to shorten the proceedings. The Member, however, was completely disengaged in the process and did not respond to any of the College’s communication attempts. In short, she was ungovernable and entirely uncooperative. The College was therefore required to prove its case on a contested basis, over the course of one and a half hearing days. It is reasonable for the Member to bear some responsibility for these costs, based on her decision to not engage or cooperate in any way during an important discipline process with her professional regulator.

28Hall also provides that a member’s ability to pay a costs order ought to be considered as a factor in ordering costs against a member. In this case, as she failed to participate in the hearing, the Member did not present any evidence about her inability to pay the costs ordered against her.

29The Panel is satisfied that an order of $15,000 in costs payable by the Member to the College within 12 months of the Decision and Order dated April 3, 2023, is just and appropriate in the circumstances.