DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Siegel 2023 ONOCT 29

Date: 2023-03-20

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

Robert Tyler Siegel, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ROBERT TYLER SIEGEL (REGISTRATION #640357)

PANEL: Damienne Lebrun-Reid, Chair

Wanda Percival, OCT

Terrence Singh, OCT

HEARD: February 15, 2023

Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers

No one appearing for Robert Tyler Siegel

Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

By order of Justice J. North of the Ontario Court of Justice, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify the victim or a witness in this matter, pursuant to subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on February 15, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).

2Neither Robert Tyler Siegel (the “Member”) nor his legal counsel attended the hearing, although the Panel was informed that his legal counsel would be available as required.

3The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

4The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

5The Panel also received a certified copy of the transcript of the Oral Reasons for Judgment from the Member’s criminal proceeding before Justice J. North, dated August 4, 2022 (Exhibit 2 at Appendix C). In this proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice, an order restricting publication was made pursuant to subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Panel is required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, any information that could identify the victim involved in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated January 17, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Robert Tyler Siegel 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 failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

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

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

7College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Robert Tyler Siegel was, at all material times, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. He obtained a Certificate of Qualification and Registration on February 4, 2013.

2. On November 15, 2022, the Member’s membership status was changed to “Cancelled-Resigned.” 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 Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a Long-Term Occasional Teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.

4. At all material times, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old female student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class at the School.

Criminal Proceeding

5. On or about March 9, 2021, the Member was arrested by the Toronto Police Service and charged with the following offences:

(a) between the 1^st day of September in the year 2020 and the 30^th day of September in the year 2020 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region did commit a sexual assault on Student 1, contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (the “Code”);

(b) between the 1^st day of September in the year 2020 and the 30^th day of September in the year 2020 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region did, with a part of his body, namely his face, for a sexual purpose, directly or indirectly touch the body of a person under the age of sixteen years, namely Student 1, contrary to Section 151 of the Code;

(c) between the 1^st day of February in the year 2021 and the 28^th day of February in the year 2021 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region did commit a sexual assault on Student 1, contrary to Section 271 of the Code;

(d) between the 1^st day of February in the year 2021 and the 28^th day of February in the year 2021 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region did, with a part of his body, namely his hand, for a sexual purpose, directly or indirectly touch the body of a person under the age of sixteen years, namely Student 1, contrary to Section 151 of the Code.

6. On August 4, 2022, following a contested trial before the Honourable Justice J. North at the Ontario Court of Justice, the Member was acquitted on each of the four charges as North J. was left with a reasonable doubt by the Member’s evidence.

7. However, in his Reasons for Judgment, North J. concluded that, “the evidence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that [the Member] kissed [Student 1]’s cheek, told her that this was ‘our little secret,’ and touched her vaginal area”.

8. The Member resigned from his employment with the Board effective September 15, 2022.

9. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the Information in the criminal proceeding, dated March 9, 2021.

10. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a certified transcript of the Oral Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice J. North of the Ontario Court of Justice, delivered on August 4, 2022.

11. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a copy of the Written Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice J. North of the Ontario Court of Justice, released on August 22, 2022.

Member’s Prior History with the Board and College

12. There was a previous complaint made by the Board to the College regarding the Member’s conduct. In October 2017, the Member was orally admonished by the College’s Investigation Committee in relation to allegations that the Member asked a Grade 2/3 female student in his class to stay in at recess to sit on his lap, told the student not to tell anyone about this, and hugged students in his class, including by picking them up. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” is a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Investigation Committee, dated August 27, 2017.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

13. 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 to 12 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

14. The Member hereby acknowledges that the conduct set out at paragraphs 5 and 7-12 of the Uncontested Facts constitutes professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member further acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute “sexual abuse” of a student as defined in section 1 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.

15. 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 otherwise 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, or his legal counsel, and the College with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this document voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or the opportunity to have obtained legal advice.

16. 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.

17. 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 ON FINDING

8Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 15, 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(15), 1(18) and 1(19), and engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 12 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 paragraphs 5 and 7 to 12 of the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above.

10Section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1992, c.S.22 and rule 13.04(3) of the Rules allow the Panel to admit findings of fact made in the Member’s prior criminal proceedings. Based on these provisions and on the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the Panel adopts the factual findings made in Justice North’s oral and written Reasons for Judgment (Exhibit 2 at Appendix C, D). In particular, although Justice North acquitted the Member in his prior criminal proceedings, he stated in his reasons that he believed, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member kissed Student 1’s cheek, told her that it was “our little secret” and touched her vaginal area (“Justice North’s finding”). This is the evidentiary basis for the Panel’s finding of professional misconduct in the Member’s hearing before the College’s Discipline Committee.

11The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member engaged in the sexual abuse of Student 1 by kissing her on the cheek and touching her vaginal area, which is conduct that is so notorious and offside of what is acceptable that expert evidence is not required to prove that the standards of the profession were breached.¹

12The Panel finds that the Member physically and sexually abused Student 1, contrary to subsections 1(7.1) and 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act. The Member made inappropriate physical and sexual contact with Student 1 when he kissed her cheek and touched her vaginal area. The Panel also accepts Justice North’s finding that the Member’s kiss could reasonably be inferred to have been of a sexual nature (Exhibit 2), especially given the context of the Member telling her that it was their little secret. As such, the Panel finds that the Member’s kiss on Student 1’s cheek and touching of her vaginal area constitutes sexual abuse, as defined in section 1 of the Act. It was physically and sexually abusive for the Member to initiate intimate physical, sexual contact with Student 1, who was under his care and vulnerable to the power dynamics between a student and a teacher. Teachers are expected to act in a professional manner and maintain professional boundaries with their students. The Member clearly flouted these boundaries, without any regard for Student 1’s well-being.

13The Member psychologically or emotionally abused Student 1, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Justice North’s Reasons for Judgment summarized the impact that the Member’s actions had on Student 1, based on Student 1’s testimony. For instance, Student 1 told the police that she felt uncomfortable when the Member touched her vaginal area, that it was too awkward to tell the Member that she did not like it when he did that, and that she “felt bad” because she was telling a secret to her parents (Exhibit 2, Appendix D). It is reasonable for the Panel to infer that the sexual abuse of a [XXX]-year-old student by a teacher who holds a position of trust and authority would be traumatic for the young student and would therefore amount to psychological or emotional abuse. Moreover, it is emotionally abusive for an adult in a position of authority to tell a young girl to keep their sexual abuse a secret. Members of the teaching profession are expected to not only ensure the physical safety, but also the emotional safety of students. The Member did the opposite in this case.

14The Panel finds that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(c) requires teachers to demonstrate the highest regard for a number of virtues, and it is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models for students. By making inappropriate physical and sexual contact with Student 1 and then stating that it was their secret, the Member failed to act as a positive role model and display moral virtues. He blatantly flouted professional boundaries and then placed a burden on Student 1 to keep his secret. This behaviour was completely unacceptable and contrary to his duties as a teacher under the Education Act.

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. Sexual abuse of a student by a teacher is reprehensible. The Member’s misconduct not only demonstrates a disregard for his professional obligations, but also a significant moral failing, especially since he was previously admonished by the College’s Investigation Committee in relation to allegations that he engaged in inappropriate physical contact and conduct towards students (Exhibit 2, Appendix E). The Member ought to have known to cease such inappropriate behaviour and to maintain professional boundaries, but instead, he engaged in even more serious misconduct through his sexual abuse of Student 1.

16The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s conduct has undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and eroded the trust and confidence that students, parents and the public place in teachers. The public trusts that when students are in a teacher’s care, they are properly cared for and in a safe and supportive learning environment. The Member’s actions in abusing Student 1 violated that trust in an egregious manner.

F. PENALTY Decision

17The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel (Exhibit 3). In an oral decision rendered on February 15, 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 and Qualification and Registration of the Member; and

3. The Member is required to reimburse the College, pursuant to s. 30(4)5 of the Act, for any funding provided to date for a person or persons under the Therapy and Counselling Program established under s. 58.1 of the Act (the “Program”), and for any future funding provided under the Program.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

18The Member’s professional misconduct 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 it has no discretion in this regard. With respect to the form of the reprimand, the Panel finds that a written reprimand is appropriate given the agreement of the parties.

19The Panel further accepts the parties’ joint submission with respect to the requirement that the Member reimburse the College for any funding provided under the Therapy and Counselling Program, pursuant to paragraph 5 of subsection 30(4) of the Act. The Panel accepts that this is an appropriate penalty given the parties’ agreement and the case law presented by College Counsel: College of Early Childhood Educators v. Daniel Robert Harker, 2020 ONCECE 4; and College of Early Childhood Educators v. Steven Richard Campbell, 2020 ONCECE 19. An order for reimbursement of any funding provided by the College under the Therapy and Counselling program can be made where a member’s act of professional misconduct consists of or includes sexual abuse (as in this case), a prescribed sexual act or a prohibited act involving child pornography.

20On May 8, 2018, subsection 58.1 was added to the Act, introducing the Program to the legislative framework. Following this addition, Ontario Regulation 438/19 governing Funding for Therapy and Counselling was enacted on January 1, 2020. Since the Member’s sexual abuse occurred after January 1, 2020, the Panel has the authority to order such reimbursement. This reimbursement order will ensure that the membership as a whole does not bear the financial costs of any funding the College provides for therapy for Student 1 and her family, sought through the Program. This will support the ability of Student 1, as the victim of sexual abuse, and her family, to seek therapy and counselling if necessary to support Student 1. The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

21The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.

Footnotes

1. 1See Novick v Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 at paragraph 71.