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
Michael Vincent Sardine, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MICHAEL VINCENT SARDINE (REGISTRATION #257065)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Anne Laflamme, OCT Kelly Marvin, OCT
HEARD: August 26, 2024
Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers Austen Metcalfe, for Michael Vincent Sardine Renée Kopp, 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 August 26, 2024, in accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Michael Vincent Sardine (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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.
4Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request 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 January 12, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Michael Vincent Sardine is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section 13 of the regulation made under section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O 1980, c. 495, as amended (the “TPA Regulation”);
(b) he failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, contrary to subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation;
(c) he failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation;
(d) he abused a student physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(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:
Michael Vincent Sardine is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. The Member obtained an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate on June 30, 1988 and a Certificate of Qualification and Registration on May 20, 1997. As of April 24, 2021, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is inactive/non-practising. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “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 Grand Erie District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] High School in [XXX], Ontario (the “School”).
Student 1 was a student at the School during the 1995-1996, 1996-1997, and 1997-1998 academic years. In the 1996-1997 academic year, Student 1 was a student in the Member’s [XXX] class.
During the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 academic years, the Member engaged in a personal relationship with Student 1 and engaged in boundary violations with Student 1 while she was a student, including:
(a) speaking on the phone with Student 1;
(b) driving Student 1 to his home;
(c) watching television and movies with Student 1 at his home;
(d) taking Student 1 to restaurants;
(e) taking Student 1 to events, including concerts, fairs, and book-signings;
(f) buying Student 1 gifts;
(g) writing letters to Student 1;
(h) allowing Student 1 to iron his clothes and perform other housework at his home;
(i) discussing living together; and
(j) telling Student 1 that he was going to marry her.
- During the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 academic years, the Member made comments of a sexual nature towards Student 1, including:
(a) discussing sexual experiences and acts with Student 1; and
(b) asking Student 1 to have sexual relations with him.
- During the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 academic years, the Member engaged in physical contact and touching of a sexual nature with Student 1, including:
(a) kissing Student 1; and
(b) touching Student 1’s body over her clothing, including her breasts and vagina.
- The conduct described in paragraphs 4-6 occurred both before and after December 4, 1997, which is the date that Ontario Regulation 437/97 came into force.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 4-7 of the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:
(a) he failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to section 13 of the regulation made under section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O 1980, c. 495, as amended (the “TPA Regulation”);
(b) he failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, contrary to subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation;
(c) he failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation;
(d) he abused a student physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically and emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(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); and
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
- By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that 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 Discipline 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 with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.
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, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, 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 and the plea of no contest, 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 August 26, 2024, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to section 13 and subsections 14(d) and 14(f) of the regulation made under section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O 1980, c. 495, as amended (the “TPA Regulation”), and subsections 1(7) (pre-2008), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 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 a personal relationship with Student 1, made comments of a sexual nature to Student 1 and engaged in touching of a sexual nature with Student 1.
9The Panel notes that prior to December 4, 1997, Ontario Regulation 63/55 made under the Teaching Profession Act (the TPA Regulation) was in force. As such, the TPA Regulation applied to the Member’s conduct which occurred from the 1995-1996 academic year until December 4, 1997. On December 4, 1997, the provisions of Ontario Regulation 437/97 made under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 came into force and as such applied to the Member’s conduct which occurred from December 4, 1997 until the end of the 1997-1998 academic year.
10The Panel found that the Member breached section 13 of the TPA Regulation, which provided the following:
A member shall strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession.
By engaging in physical and sexual touching with Student 1, such as kissing Student 1 and touching Student 1’s body, including her breasts and vagina, the Member acted dishonourably and displayed abhorrent disregard of his obligations to uphold the dignity of the teaching profession. By his conduct, the Member abused his position of trust and authority and took advantage of Student 1 by violating her bodily integrity and her human dignity. The Panel therefore finds that the Member breached section 13 of the TPA Regulation.
11The Member failed to show consistent justice and consideration in all his relations with pupils, contrary to subsection 14(d) of the TPA Regulation. Members are expected to treat students equitably and with justice, which the Member failed to do by engaging in a personal and sexual relationship with Student 1. Given the Member’s position of trust and authority as Student 1’s teacher, it was abhorrent for the Member to take advantage of this power imbalance to foster a personal relationship with her. The Member’s continued exploitation of Student 1’s vulnerabilities failed to show consistent justice and consideration for Student 1 and her well-being.
12The Member failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation. The Member abused his trusted position as a teacher to sexually exploit Student 1, who was under his care and supervision. By engaging in a personal relationship with Student 1 and by touching Student 1 in a sexual manner, the Member exploited her vulnerabilities and showed a complete disregard for Student 1’s well-being, during a period in her life where she should have been learning how to develop healthy relationships with her peers. It was abhorrently wrong for the Member to engage in such inappropriate conduct. The Panel therefore finds that the Member breached subsection 14(f) of the TPA Regulation.
13The Panel finds the Member abused a student physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7) [pre-May 2008 amendments] of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Given the use of the disjunctive “or” in the drafting of this subsection, any one of the above forms of abuse is sufficient to ground a finding under subsection 1(7) [pre-May 2008 amendments]. In this case, the Panel accepts the parties’ submissions and finds that the Member physically and sexually abused Student 1. The Member sexually abused Student 1 by asking Student 1 to have sexual relations with him and by engaging in sexual touching with Student 1, which included kissing Student 1 and touching Student 1’s breasts and vagina. By engaging in such abhorrent conduct, the Member also physically abused Student 1 by violating her bodily integrity. As such, the Panel finds that the Member sexually and physically abused Student 1.
14The 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). The Member’s repeated inappropriate conduct towards Student 1 demonstrates a significant moral failing and a flagrant disregard for his professional obligations. The Member abused his position of power and trust to violate Student 1’s bodily integrity and boundaries. Sexual offences, especially those committed against children, are egregious and demonstrate depravity of the Member. Such conduct demonstrates a lack of morality and professionalism by the Member and can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.
15The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Members of the teaching profession are entrusted with the care of children and are expected to protect and respect students. The Member failed to exercise good judgment and care of Student 1 by disrespecting her bodily integrity and personal boundaries. The Member’s conduct has undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and breaches the trust that the public places in teachers. The Panel therefore finds the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19).
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 August 26, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a reprimand, in writing, and that the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers; and
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
17The 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. Loehr, 2023 ONOCT 43, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Janna, 2024 ONOCT 6.
18The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to exercise sound professional judgment and act as positive role models. The Member failed to do so when he took advantage of his position of trust and authority by engaging in physical contact and touching of a sexual nature with Student 1. 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.
19Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, being that sexual abuse of a student is the most serious misconduct that a teacher can commit, the Panel finds that it is appropriate that the Registrar immediately revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration. The Member’s conduct towards a student was abhorrent and reprehensible. The Member’s physical contact and touching of a sexual nature of a student warrants an order of the Panel’s most severe penalty available. Although the Member has retired from the teaching profession, the revocation will most notably serve as a general deterrent to the other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct that the Member exhibited is unacceptable. By exposing a student to serious risks to her safety and bodily integrity, the Member egregiously breached his position of trust and authority. The Member’s conduct undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and will not be tolerated. The Member has accordingly forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: September 8, 2024
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Anne Laflamme, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Kelly Marvin, OCT 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.```