Ontario College of Teachers v. Gillingham, 2023 ONOCT 62

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Gillingham 2023 ONOCT 62

Date: 2023-09-01

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

Reid Maxwell Gillingham, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

REID MAXWELL GILLINGHAM (REGISTRATION #280877)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair Erin Durant Andrew Glenny

HEARD: August 29, 2023

Jordan Glick, for the Ontario College of Teachers James Foy, for Reid Maxwell Gillingham Julie Maciura, 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.

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 August 29, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2On April 12, 2023, the Panel found that Reid Maxwell Gillingham (the “Member”) engaged in professional misconduct when he possessed, made available and/or distributed online child pornography and/or sexually suggestive images of persons who appear to be under 18 years of age and made sexually explicit and/or inappropriate comments online about persons who appear to be under 18 years of age. Based on this conduct, the Panel found that the Member contravened subsections 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and engaged in a prohibited act involving child pornography as defined in section 1 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), as alleged in the Notice of Hearing dated July 29, 2021 (Exhibit 1).

3The Panel reconvened on August 29, 2023, to hear submissions with respect to penalty. The Member attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to penalty.

A. PUBLICATION BAN

4The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of 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.

B. PENALTY Decision

5In the course of presenting their oral submissions, the parties informed the Panel that they had entered into a mutual agreement to seek a penalty order limited to the mandatory penalties set out at subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. The parties’ joint submission on penalty was presented orally to the Panel.

6In an oral decision rendered on August 29, 2023, the Panel accepted the parties’ joint submission on penalty and made the following order as to penalty:

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

2. 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

7The Member’s professional misconduct included prohibited acts involving child pornography, 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.

8The 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 parties’ joint submission on penalty, particularly given the high threshold that must be met before rejecting a joint submission on penalty.

9The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms. The reprimand was delivered to the Member by the Panel immediately following the hearing.