DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Keith Allan Piette, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
KEITH ALLAN PIETTE (REGISTRATION #482825)
PANEL: Kirby Chown, OCT, Chair Andrew Glenny Alain Martel, OCT
HEARD: September 19, 2023
Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Andrea Wobick, for Keith Allan Piette Julie Maciura, 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 September 19, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Keith Allan Piette (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but did have legal counsel, Andrea Wobick, who was present at the hearing. 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
3At the outset of the hearing, the 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.
4Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request of College Counsel on behalf of Student 1, who was allegedly sexually abused. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated August 17, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Keith Allan Piette is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he abused a student physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);1
(b) he abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(d) 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);
(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);
(h) he engaged in a prohibited act involving child pornography as defined in section 1 of the Act.2
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Keith Allan Piette is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers with 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (the “Board”) as a Vice-Principal at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1 was a [XXX] year-old female student at the School.
The School had provided Student 1 with the Member’s Board cell phone number as a result of an unrelated school matter during the 2019-2020 school year.
Inappropriate Relationship:
In or around September 2020, after Student 1 accidentally sent the Member a text message intended for someone else, Student 1 and the Member began to communicate electronically. Within days, their conversations included personal and sexual content.
In the fall of 2020, Student 1 met the Member at his residence on several occasions, at which time they engaged in sexual relations.
Police Investigation:
On or about December 10, 2020, Student 1’s co-worker emailed the Board to report that she had reason to believe that Student 1 was involved in a sexual relationship with the Member. The Board contacted the police for guidance, and the police initiated an investigation.
Police interviewed Student 1 about her relationship with the Member on or about December 13, 2020. Student 1 acknowledged that she and the Member had communicated outside of school via electronic messages, but she would not provide a formal statement, and would neither confirm nor deny whether she and the Member had been involved in a sexual relationship.
Following her discussion with the police, Student 1 informed the Member that the police knew “something” and suggested that they delete their messages. She did not tell the Member that the police investigation related to him.
On or about December 15, 2020, police contacted the Member to inform him there was an allegation that he was involved in a sexual relationship with a student at the School.
By mid-February 2021, Student 1 felt distressed and overwhelmed regarding the situation with the Member, the police investigation, and rumours at School relating to the nature of their relationship. Student 1 told the police she didn’t want to return to school until their investigation was over because the stress she associated with the rumours and investigation was affecting her [XXX]. On or about February 23, 2021, Student 1 provided a statement to police in which she denied any involvement in a sexual relationship with the Member.
In the meantime, on or about February 16, 2021, police retrieved phone records for the Member’s personal cell phone and for Student 1’s personal cell phone. The records, limited to phone calls only, disclosed 36 phone calls between them between September 14 and December 15, 2020, with the timing of these calls occurring in the afternoons, evenings, and after midnight.
On or about March 1, 2021, police concluded their investigation due to a lack of sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges.
Board Investigation:
When the police initially informed the Board of its investigation into this matter on December 13, 2020, the Board immediately placed the Member on home assignment with pay pending investigation.
After the police concluded their investigation, the Board initiated its own investigation into the matter.
During its investigation, the Board met with the Member on three occasions.
The Board met with the Member on March 17, 2021, to advise the Member of the status of its investigation and to provide the Member with the information it had received to date. During this meeting, the Member acknowledged that he knew Student 1, explained that he had worked with her in a supportive and professional role, and stated that he never met with Student 1 outside of School and never engaged in a sexual relationship with Student 1.
Shortly after this meeting, the College sent the Board the documentation it had received from the police, which included witness statements and cell phone records that contradicted information provided by the Member when he met with the Board on March 17, 2021.
As a result of the additional information, the Board met with the Member a second time on April 9, 2021, in order to provide the Member with an opportunity to respond to the information included in the police report. Of particular concern to the Board was the record of 36 phone calls, including late night and weekend calls, between the Member’s personal cell phone and Student 1’s cell phone between September 2020 and mid-December 2020.
During this meeting, the Member said he used his personal cell phone to communicate with Student 1 about school-related and personal issues at a time when Student 1 was vulnerable and requested his support and guidance. The Member acknowledged that he did not document their phone calls or inform anyone, including the administration, the student success team, or Student 1’s parents, that Student 1 needed support.
During this meeting, the Board referred the Member to the College’s Professional Advisory on Professional Boundaries. The Member:
(a) acknowledged that he was familiar with the Advisory and the advice included in it, and acknowledged that his conduct towards Student 1 fit within the definition of “grooming” set out in the Advisory;
(b) maintained that his role was “supporting” and not “grooming”, as his relationship with Student 1 had always been professional;
(c) maintained that he never met Student 1 outside of School, that Student 1 had never been to his home, and that they did not engage in a sexual relationship.
At the conclusion of this meeting, the Board provided the Member with a copy of the cell phone records. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the College’s Professional Advisory on Professional Boundaries.
On April 24, 2021, Student 1 met with the Principal. Student 1 provided the Principal with details about her personal and sexual relationship with the Member. She drew a map of the interior of the Member’s apartment. She shared photos of the Member’s phone records with his handwritten explanations for each call. She stated that she and the Member created these scenarios together on April 9, 2021, in their attempt to justify the calls between them as reflected in the phone records the Board had provided to the Member earlier that day.
Student 1 said that she and the Member remained in contact during the currency of the police investigation, and during the Board’s investigation, throughout which time the Member encouraged her to “stick with their story”.
On April 27, 2021, the Board interviewed the Member a third time to provide him with an opportunity to respond to the information provided by Student 1. The Member continued to deny any intimate involvement with Student 1. However, when confronted with the photo of his handwritten phone record notations and Student 1’s map of his apartment, the Member acknowledged his handwriting, acknowledged having shared the phone records with Student 1, and acknowledged that Student 1 had been inside his apartment. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board placed the Member on an unpaid leave of absence effective April 27, 2021.
The Board terminated the Member’s employment for cause, effective May 4, 2021. At the termination meeting on that date, the Member acknowledged that he had not been truthful with the Board, that he regretted his actions, and that he was remorseful. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s May 4, 2021 letter to the Member.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is 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(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19). The Member further acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute sexual abuse as defined in Section 1 of the Act.
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 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 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 counsel for the College and himself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, 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.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
7Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (h) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and that he engaged in a prohibited act involving child pornography as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as a result of the negotiations between the parties that resulted in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. The Panel granted these requests.
8Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 19, 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 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 25 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 the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with Student 1, and that he encouraged her to mislead the police and the Board regarding the nature of their relationship.
10The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to the Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). The Member engaged in a personal and sexual relationship with Student 1, which included inappropriate electronic messages and phone calls as well as sexual relations at the Member’s residence. The Member’s conduct negatively impacted Student 1’s emotional and psychological well-being. She felt distressed and overwhelmed about the police investigation and about the rumours circling around the School relating to the nature of her relationship with the Member. As a vice principal in a position of significant power over students, the Member should not have engaged in a sexual relationship with Student 1. After a complaint was made about the relationship, the Member should have never encouraged Student 1 to mislead the Board and the police and to “stick with their story”. This kind of behaviour reasonably put immense pressure on Student 1 and had a negative impact on her mental health. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct constitutes psychological and emotional abuse.
11The Member abused a student sexually, contrary to the Ontario Regulation 43/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act. The definition of sexual abuse under section 1 of the Act includes sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between a member and a student, touching, of a sexual nature, of the student by the member or any behaviour or remark of a sexual nature towards a student. The Member’s behaviour constitutes sexual abuse as he engaged in a sexual relationship with a [XXX]-year-old student at his School. This relationship included communication by electronic messages (which included sexual content) as well as engaging in sexual relations with her at the Member’s home. The Member’s conduct was abhorrent and meets the definition of sexual abuse of a student as set out in section 1 of the Act.
12The Panel finds that the Member 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). Members are required to adhere to the ethical standards of the profession which include Care, Respect, Trust and Integrity. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, compassion, and empathy in practice. As well, members are required to honour students’ emotional wellness and cognitive development (“Respect”). “Trust” embodies fairness, openness, and honesty in the member’s professional relationships with students. Finally, “Integrity” requires the Member to demonstrate reliability and moral action. In particular, in this matter the Member breached each of the ethical standards of “Care,” “Respect,” “Trust” and “Integrity” through his misconduct. In particular, the Member failed to demonstrate the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect” by engaging in sexual relations with Student 1. Additionally, by asking Student 1 to mislead the Board and the police during their investigation, the Member failed to consider Student 1’s well-being and emotional wellness, and instead acted in his own self-interests. Similarly, the Member failed to maintain the ethical standard of “Trust”, by sexually and emotionally abusing Student 1, by breaching the trust of Student 1’s parents and by lying to the Board about the nature of their relationship. Finally, the Member failed to act with “Integrity” by engaging in the grossly immoral action of having a personal and sexual relationship with a [XXX] student.
13The Member failed to comply with the Education Act, specifically s.264 (1), contrary to subsection 1(15) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97. Section 264(1) of the Education Act sets out the duties of a teacher. In particular, section 264(1)(c) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to exemplify moral virtues and serve as a positive role model, both inside and outside of the classroom. By engaging in sexual relations with Student 1 and encouraging her to mislead the police and the Board regarding the nature of their relationship, the Member demonstrated morally repugnant behaviour. As well, the Member failed to comply with his professional duties and failed to model appropriate behaviour by taking advantage of a vulnerable and young female student.
14The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). Members of the teaching profession hold a privileged position of trust and authority with students and the community. As such, they have a moral and professional duty to respect students’ dignity and to protect their well-being. As a vice-principal, the Member should have maintained appropriate professional boundaries with Student 1. The Member’s conduct demonstrated a significant moral failing. He ought to have known that his conduct was unacceptable and that engaging in sexual relations with Student 1 fell below the standards of the profession. Additionally, the Member disregarded his professional obligations by engaging in sexual relations with Student 1 and by disregarding her emotional well-being. The Member’s conduct demonstrated a shocking lack of judgment and violated the trust that the public places in members of the teaching profession. Such conduct demonstrates a lack of morality and professionalism by the Member and can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.
15The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Students, parents, guardians and the public expect that members of the teaching profession will exercise good judgment when caring for their children and will take proper action to protect and respect them. The Member failed to protect and respect the bodily integrity of a young female student. His conduct has undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and breaches the trust that members of the public have in vice-principals.
F. PENALTY Decision
16The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 19, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.
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
17The 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 requires that the Panel 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.
18The 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 cooperation in this matter, his plea of no contest and joint submission on penalty, particularly given the high threshold that must be met before rejecting a joint submission on penalty.
19The Panel wishes to underline that it denounces the Member’s misconduct in the in this matter in the strongest terms.
Date: September 22, 2023
Kirby Chown, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Andrew Glenny Member, Discipline Panel
Alain Martel, OCT Member, Discipline Panel