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
Réjean Godmaire, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
RÉJEAN GODMAIRE (REGISTRATION #205476)
PANEL: Élaine Legault, Chair
Scott Barker, OCT
Anne Laflamme, OCT
HEARD: October 10, 2023
Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Lise Leduc, for Réjean Godmaire
Renée Kopp, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(1) and 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 Student 1 or 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 the Honourable Justice R. Gattrell 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 section 486.4 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 October 10, 2023, in accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Réjean Godmaire (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. 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
3The 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.
4The Panel also issued a publication ban pursuant to subsections 32(7) and 32.1(1) of the Act. Where a Panel finds that there is the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person that justifies a departure from the general principle that hearings should be open to the public, it can render an order under subsection 32(7) excluding the public from the hearing. Subsection 32.1(1) allows the Panel to order a publication ban in situations where the Panel deems it appropriate to make an order excluding the public under subsection 32(7). The Panel notes that Student 1 requested a publication ban in order to protect her identity. In addition, the Panel notes that during the criminal trial against the Member, the Honourable Justice R. Gattrell of the Ontario Court of Justice issued a publication and broadcast ban (Exhibit 2, Tab G) pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Given the nature of the allegations and the fact that Student 1 was under 18 at the time of the alleged incidents, the Panel feels that it is important to protect her right to privacy. The allegations involve an inappropriate emotional relationship between the Member and a student that took a heavy emotional toll on the latter. Publishing or broadcasting Student 1’s identity could cause her further emotional harm, and as such, the situation warrants an exception to the general principle of the publicity of hearings. The Panel therefore issued a publication ban to protect the identity and any information that might disclose the identity of Student 1.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated July 18, 2022 (Exhibit 1), are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Réjean Godmaire is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
a) he abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;1
b) he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;2
c) 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);
d) 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);
e) 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);
f) he 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:
Réjean Godmaire is a member of the College whose status is “Inactive/Non-Practising.” 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 Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir, formerly known as the Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud (the “Board”), as a teacher at École [XXX] in [XXX], Ontario (the “School”).
During the 2002-2003 school year, Student 1 was a [XXX] year-old female Grade [XXX] student at the School. During the 2003-2004 school year, Student 1 was in Grade [XXX] at the School. The Member was Student 1’s [XXX] teacher when she was in Grades [XXX] and [XXX].
Student 1 turned 18 on [XXX], 2008.
Grooming for an inappropriate relationship
During the 2003-2004 school year, the Member established an overly close and inappropriate emotional relationship with Student 1. The Member’s behaviour exploited Student 1’s vulnerability, thus laying the foundations of a personal and sexual relationship.
The Member was part of a group of teachers working at the [XXX] Camp for youth (hosted by the [XXX], “[XXX]”). Student 1 was one of the students selected to attend the camp, which took place in [XXX], Ontario (near [XXX]), during the week of August 2-8, 2003. The Member, along with another individual, was co-leader of the [XXX] camp ([XXX]).
During the 2003-2004 school year, the Member gave Student 1 a card with pictures of hearts on it for Valentine’s Day. The card contained the following messages: “Would you be mine?” and “To [XXX],” “From Réjean XOXO”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are photos of the Valentine’s Day card.
Between August 15 and October 30, 2003, the Member invited a group of students from the School who had participated in the [XXX] camp, including Student 1, to spend the night at his and his wife’s home. Although the students’ parents had given their consent for their children to take part in the evening, this sort of activity was not appropriate.
During the 2003-2004 school year, the Member gave his Grade [XXX] students an assignment that required them to keep a journal. The Member responded to their journal entries with comments. A copy of Student 1’s journal, dated October 9, 2003 [sic]. The Member wrote personal and inappropriate comments in Student 1’s journal. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of an excerpt from Student 1’s journal in which the Member made the following comments:
“I really care about your [Student 1’s] happiness, and I like it when we can share a smile and understand each other at the same time. Your smile makes me smile and I love that. It’s something you and I share; I like that. So let’s keep on sharing smiles, and understanding what each other means… Your friend, Mr. Godmaire.”
On August 22, 2007, when Student 1 was [XXX], the Member initiated a conversation with her on Facebook. He sent Student 1 a series of inappropriate personal messages. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” are screenshots of these messages.
In 2011, while Student 1 was in university, the Member contacted her on Facebook and sent her a message inviting her to work as a counselor at the [XXX] camp from July 22 to 30, 2011. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a screenshot of the message he sent her on July 10, 2011.
Student 1 saw this experience as an opportunity and agreed to work at the [XXX] camp in the summer of 2011. On the day she arrived at camp, the Member gave Student 1 a handwritten letter. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the Member’s letter and its English translation. In this letter, the Member stated:
a) that Student 1 was his favourite student;
b) that there was surely a reason for their paths crossing after so many years;
c) that he liked her a lot.
The Member’s conduct had a detrimental impact on Student 1, who suffered from [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] as a result of his actions.
In June 2005, the Member resigned from his position with the Board to begin a new position with the Conseil scolaire des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est (the “CECCE”). On November 6, 2019, when the Member was teaching at École [XXX] in Ottawa, the CECCE relieved him of his duties without pay. The Member retired from teaching as of November 1, 2021.
In June 2017, during a hypnosis session with a past-life regression medium, Student 1 allegedly recovered repressed memory of incidents of sexual assault involving the Member that occurred in 2003 during Student 1’s time at the [XXX] camp and during the evening when the [XXX] camp students spent the night at the Member and his wife’s house (events described in paragraphs 6 and 8 above). The Member was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving Student 1. These charges were the subject of a criminal trial before the Ontario Court of Justice. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” are excerpts from Student 1’s testimony at the criminal trial. In a decision dated March 2, 2021 (attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H”), Justice R. Gattrell acquitted the Member of both charges owing to the standard of proof applicable in criminal cases.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the facts and 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)3, 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
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, who can accept it as being correct;
c) he pleads no contest to the findings by the College that the Uncontested Facts and allegations constitute professional misconduct as described in this document, and agrees that the Discipline Committee may make this finding without a hearing;
d) 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;
e) he understands that by entering a plea of no contest to these allegations, he is waiving his right to present evidence with respect to the conclusions to be drawn by the Discipline Committee;
f) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to present evidence relating to the order the Discipline Committee must make in accordance with the facts presented in the present Statement of Uncontested Facts and the resulting conclusions drawn;
g) 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;
h) he understands that any agreement between him and the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
i) 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 and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, for the purposes of such proceedings under the Act 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 plea of no contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee finds the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
7College Counsel requested the withdrawal of the allegations of professional misconduct set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing relating to section 1 of the Act, namely that the Member abused one or more students sexually and committed acts that constitute sexual misconduct, as defined in section 1 of the Act. College Counsel stated that the Panel should withdraw these allegations given that the Member was acquitted of the charges of sexual assault and sexual interference involving Student 1 during the criminal trial against him, and given that the request for withdrawal resulted from the negotiations associated with this hearing that led to the signing of 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 October 10, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7) [prior to the May 2008 amendments], 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 15 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts show that the Member established an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1 that exploited her vulnerability.
10The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7) [prior to the May 2008 amendments]. Given the use of the disjunctive “or” in the wording of subsection 1(7), the Panel can make a finding that a member has contravened this provision if they committed any of the above-mentioned forms of abuse. In the present matter, the Member abused Student 1 verbally, psychologically and emotionally. During the 2003-2004 school year, the Member gave Student 1 a Valentine’s Day card with pictures of hearts on it that contained the following message: “Would you be mine?” The Member also wrote inappropriate comments in Student 1’s journal (that she kept as part of a school assignment), including: “So let’s keep on sharing smiles, and understanding what each other means… Your friend, Mr. Godmaire.” When Student 1 was [XXX] years old (and no longer the Member’s student), the Member initiated a conversation with her on Facebook and they exchanged a series of inappropriate personal messages.
11The Panel finds that the above conduct constitutes verbal abuse, as the comments and exchanges between teacher and student were overly familiar and personal in nature. In addition, the Member was grooming Student 1 in order to develop a personal and emotional relationship with her.
12The Panel finds that the Member’s aforementioned conduct constitutes psychological and emotional abuse. His conduct had a detrimental impact on Student 1, who suffered from [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX]. It is reasonable to infer that the Member establishing an inappropriate and overly personal relationship with Student 1 when she was in Grade [XXX] and maintaining that relationship into her adult years adversely affected her. Teachers are expected to maintain professional boundaries with students, which the Member repeatedly failed to do.
13The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the by-laws, specifically section 26 of the by-laws, which sets out the ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). “Care”, “Respect”, “Trust” and “Integrity” are the ethical standards of the teaching profession. In this case, the Member failed to meet the standards of Trust and Integrity. Above all else, the relationships between members of the teaching profession and students, their parents and the public are based on trust. Both parents and the public expect teachers to ensure students’ physical and emotional well-being. The Member completely disregarded Student 1’s emotional well-being when he established an overly familiar and inappropriate emotional relationship with her. Further, he demonstrated a lack of integrity by engaging in immoral conduct when carrying out his professional responsibilities. The Member acted immorally when he groomed Student 1 in order to develop an inappropriate relationship with her and continued to pursue that relationship when she was no longer his student.
14The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Paragraph 264(1)(c) of the Education Act provides that it is the duty of a teacher to “inculcate by precept and example […] the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.” In short, teachers are expected to exemplify moral values and act as positive role models for students. In this case, the Member engaged in conduct that did not reflect the moral values of the teaching profession and failed to act as a positive role model by developing an overly familiar and inappropriate emotional relationship with Student 1. In addition, inviting a group of Grade [XXX] students to spend the night at his home, despite their parents having given their consent, was inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of both moral and professional judgment.
15The Member 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). Teachers are expected to be upstanding members of society and to maintain professional boundaries with students at all times. In the case at hand, the Member developed an inappropriate relationship with Student 1, including giving her a Valentine’s Day card with pictures of hearts, writing personal comments in her school assignment journal and attempting to pursue a personal relationship with her when she was no longer his student. His conduct casts serious doubt on his moral and professional fitness to be a teacher.
16Finally, the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Parents and the public expect teachers to ensure their children’s safety and well-being, and to maintain professional boundaries at all times. By engaging in inappropriate conduct towards Student 1, the Member undermined the public’s trust in the teaching profession and tarnished the reputation of the profession as a whole.
F. PENALTY DECISION
17The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 10, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the office of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
18The 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.4 The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither too harsh nor too lenient such that it would 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. Paterson, 2023 ONOCT 5; Ontario College of Teachers v. Cameron, 2019 ONOCT 87; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Crowther, 2019 ONOCT 18.
19The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in this case are that the Member abused his position of trust and authority to establish an inappropriate emotional relationship with Student 1 and maintained it when she was no longer his student. As a result, she suffered serious emotional harm. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving Student 1 from having to testify and saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
20The Panel finds that for engaging in inappropriate conduct towards Student 1, the Member deserves a reprimand. Teachers are expected to maintain professional boundaries with students at all times. The influence teachers have over students does not end immediately at graduation, especially in cases where they have abused their position of trust and authority to groom a student for an inappropriate relationship with them after high school. In this case, the Member’s groomed Student 1 for a personal and emotional relationship, which was a clear violation of professional boundaries. 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.
21The penalty of revocation is not a mandatory in this case; however, the Panel feels that it is appropriate in the circumstances. Not only did the Member violate professional boundaries with Student 1 while she was his student, but he also engaged in conduct that exploited her vulnerability, thereby laying the groundwork for establishing a personal and sexual relationship with her. The Member’s behaviour and actions towards Student 1 while she was still a student caused her psychological harm and seriously impacted her emotional well-being. His conduct also undermined the public’s trust in the teaching profession. Members of the profession hold a unique position of trust and authority, which the Member blatantly abused by grooming Student 1 for a future personal and sexual relationship. Accordingly, the Member is no longer entitled to be a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.
22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: October 16, 2023
Élaine Legault Chair, Discipline Panel
Scott Barker, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Anne Laflamme, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- Paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing refers to the provisions of the Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97 as previously enacted. On May 5, 2008, subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 was amended to its current version. The allegation that the Member had sexually abused one or more students as defined in section 1 of the Act was withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
- The allegation was withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
- Prior to the 2008 amendments to Ontario Regulation 437/97.
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.