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
Andrea Christine De Coeur, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
ANDREA CHRISTINE DE COEUR (REGISTRATION # 519101)
PANEL: Damienne Lebrun-Reid, Chair Scott Barker, OCT Élaine Legault
HEARD: September 28, 2023
Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jerry Raso, for Andrea Christine De Coeur 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.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on September 28, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Andrea Christine De Coeur (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation. The Member attended immediately after the hearing for the delivery of her reprimand, as agreed to by the parties.
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.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 2, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Andrea Christine De Coeur is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she 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);
(b) she 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);
(c) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
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:
Andrea Christine De Coeur is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. 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 Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Cornwall, Ontario.
At all material times during the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 1 was a [XXX] year-old female student in Grade [XXX] at the School.
At all material times during the 2017-2018 academic year, Teacher A was employed as a [XXX] teacher at the School. Teacher A was Student 1’s [XXX] teacher during the second semester of the 2017-2018 academic year.
On or about April 19, 2018, Student 1 approached the Member in the hallway. Student 1 was very upset and crying, and told the Member that she was leaving School early because Teacher A had touched her on her leg.
As soon as Student 1 disclosed the above information, the Member told Student 1 to stop talking because she could not hear about an issue involving that colleague. Instead, the Member asked Student 1 if she told her father what happened and whether he going to speak to the office when he picked her up from School that day, and Student 1 said yes. The Member wanted to be sure that the office was aware of Student 1’s allegation, and was relieved when Student 1 agreed that her father would speak to someone in the office about the matter.
The Member followed up with Student 1 a day or two later, at which time Student 1 confirmed that her father spoke to the office about the matter, and that she had since been transferred out of Teacher A’s class into an online class.
The Member acknowledges that she should have immediately reported the matter to the appropriate authorities herself. Instead, she relied on Student 1’s assurance that her father would report the matter to the office.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the College’s Professional Advisories on the Duty to Report (June 2015, updated June 2018).
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 her being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(14), 1(18) [unprofessional], 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(f) she understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) she understands and acknowledges that she 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
7Having 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 28, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The 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 her. She 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 behaviour that was contrary to the Member’s professional ethics and her ethical duty to report to the appropriate authorities an allegation that a student had been inappropriately touched by another teacher.
9The Member failed to comply with section 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). This provision sets out the standards of practice and the ethical standards for the teaching profession. The Panel notes that the Member did not have a legal duty to report the allegations to the proper authorities [XXX]. Nevertheless, the Panel finds that the Member had an ethical and moral duty to report the allegations to the appropriate authorities (as described in the College’s Professional Advisory regarding Duty to Report: Exhibit 2, at Tab B). The Member failed to carry out her ethical and moral duty to ensure student safety by failing to immediately report the allegation to the appropriate authorities. In doing so, the Member failed to ensure a safe learning environment for Student 1 and failed to adhere to the ethical standards of the teaching profession, including “Care”, which requires members to express their commitment to students’ well-being through good judgment and empathy. Additionally, the Member breached the standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities”, which requires members to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities to facilitate student success. The Member failed to adhere to this standard when she discouraged Student 1 from revealing details about the allegation and instructed her to report this information to her father. Further, the Member relied on other individuals, such as Student 1’s father and other administrative staff, to report the allegations to the appropriate authorities.
10The Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). The Member failed to report the allegation made by Student 1 to the appropriate authorities and instead assumed that the reporting obligations would be fulfilled by Student 1’s father and the School’s office. By not immediately reporting the allegation, the Member exposed Student 1 to a risk of future harm. By imposing the obligation to report the allegations on other individuals, the Member demonstrated a serious disregard for her professional obligations, as well as a lack of good judgment and responsibility.
11The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Students, parents and the public expect that members of the teaching profession will exercise good judgment when caring for their children and will ensure that their children are safe and supported at school. The Member’s failure to take appropriate action to protect Student 1 undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and violates the trust that the public places in teachers to protect students.
F. PENALTY Decision
12The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 28, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, or by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics with an emphasis on the duty to report. The Committee acknowledges that the Member has fulfilled this requirement as of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee;
(b) the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that the Member has successfully completed the course. The Committee acknowledges that the Member has fulfilled this requirement as of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
13The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.1 The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Maylon, 2023 ONOCT 51, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Quaglia, 2018 ONOCT 17.
14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the fact that the Member skirted her ethical responsibilities by discouraging Student 1 to disclose the allegation to her. Additionally, the Member is an experienced teacher and ought to have known her ethical and moral obligations related to the duty to report. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest the misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, she has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past, she encouraged Student 1 to report the matter to her father and followed up a few days later, and she has taken it upon herself to receive further training on the duty to report. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
15The Panel finds that the Member’s professional misconduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to ensure students’ safety and well-being, which the Member failed to do by not immediately reporting the allegations disclosed by Student 1 to the appropriate authorities. 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.
16The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics and the duty to report is appropriate as it assists in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her ethical and moral obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. The Panel finds that the Member has already fulfilled this condition as of the date of its decision. The Member has recently completed a course of instruction regarding professional ethics with an emphasis on the duty to report, which included an in-person presentation by the Children’s Aid Society about the duty to report. Given the parties’ agreement, the Panel accepts that no further coursework is necessary.
17The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: October 6, 2023
Damienne Lebrun-Reid Chair, Discipline Panel
Scott Barker, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.