DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE
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 Lee Allan Bujacz, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
LEE ALLAN BUJACZ (REGISTRATION #526770)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Yasser Leheta, OCT Kimberley Westfall-Connor
HEARD: October 12, 2023; additional submissions in writing.
Andrew Matheson and Noam Uri, for the Ontario College of Teachers Christopher Perri and Kaley Duff, for Lee Allan Bujacz Ravi Amarnath and Emily Owens, for the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario 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, a constitutional motion, was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on October 12, 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”). Additional submissions were made in writing by all parties, in accordance with rule 9 of the Rules.
2Lee Allan Bujacz (the “Member”) did not attend the motion but had legal counsel attend on his behalf.
3On August 30, 2021, the Member brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of sections 30.2(1), 30.2(2), 30.3, and 33(4.1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”). On September 13, 2021, the Panel found that the Member’s motion was premature and declined to hear the Member’s motion before a finding of sexual abuse, if any, was made.
4On February 10, 2023, the Panel found that the Member contravened subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel also found that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act.
5On June 20, 2023, the Panel ordered that the Member receive a reprimand and that the Registrar immediately revoke his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. The Panel remained seized of this matter for the purpose of hearing the Member’s constitutional motion.
6On October 12, 2023, the Panel reconvened to hear the constitutional motion. Prior to making submissions regarding the motion, the parties asked the Panel to make a ruling regarding the admissibility of two expert reports that the College and the Member intended to rely on in support of their respective positions in the motion. The parties made oral submissions on October 12, 2023, and additional submissions were made in writing between October 20, 2023 and November 3, 2023. This is the Panel’s decision regarding the admissibility of expert evidence in the Member’s constitutional motion.
A. PUBLICATION ban
7At the beginning of the constitutional motion hearing, the Panel reminded those present that it had previously ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of Act, which remains in effect. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identities of, or any information that could disclose the identities of Student 2, who was under 18 years of age at the time of the hearing, or her mother, who testified in this proceeding and whose identity could reveal the identity of Student 2.
8Additionally, the Panel reiterated that it had previously ordered a publication ban 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 or the subject of sexual misconduct. This publication ban also applies to Student 1’s mother, who testified in this proceeding, so as to avoid identifying Student 1. The subsection 32.1(4) publication remains in effect during the constitutional motion. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identities of, or any information that could disclose the identities of Student 1 or her mother.
B. DECISION
9The Panel finds that the expert report of Dr. Anthony Doob is admissible. Dr. Doob will be permitted to testify in the areas of:
- general deterrence, and
- the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences at deterring misconduct.
10The Panel finds that the expert report of Dr. Mary Louise Arnold is admissible. Dr. Arnold will be permitted to testify in the area of:
- the particular potential dangers and harms of sexual abuse, if any, arising in the context of teacher-student interactions.
11Written reasons for this decision will follow and will form part of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons on the Member’s constitutional motion.
Date: November 9, 2023
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Yasser Leheta, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Kimberley Westfall-Connor Member, Discipline Panel