Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Monteith 2024 ONOCT 39

Date: 2024-08-08

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

Sean Norman Gary Monteith, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

SEAN NORMAN GARY MONTEITH (REGISTRATION #202797)

PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair

Susan Arbour, OCT

Emma Rhodes

HEARD: September 30, 2024

Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Tara Boghosian, for Sean Norman Gary Monteith

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 30, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Sean Norman Gary Monteith (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.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 7, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Sean Norman Gary Monteith is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);

(b) he signed or issued, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);

(c) 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);

(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

At all material times, Sean Norman Gary Monteith was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
The Member has no disciplinary history with the College.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Hastings Prince Edward District School Board (the “Board”) as the Director of Education. The Member assumed the role of Director of Education for the Board in August 2019.
As Director of Education, the Member was issued a credit card by the Board to facilitate payment for goods and services incurred by him in the performance of his duties on behalf of the Board, including travel expenses. The Board’s Purchasing Cards Policy prohibited the Member from using his Board issued credit card for any personal expenses. The Purchasing Cards Policy also required the Member to sign and submit a form each month listing the expenses incurred on his Board credit card and the reason for incurring those expenses.
The vast majority of expenses that Mr. Monteith submitted in his role as Director of Education were proper and in accordance with his professional administrative responsibilities. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic Mr. Monteith improperly expensed several domestic accommodation costs and one flight ticket.
On September 10, 2019, the Member purchased an airline ticket using his Board credit card at a cost of $969.15. The ticket was for a roundtrip flight from Winnipeg to Ottawa departing September 13, 2019 and returning September 15, 2019. The ticket was issued in the name of another person and not the Member. While the Member engaged in discussions related to Board planning with this individual, the purchase of this airline ticket was predominantly for personal reasons, not Board activities. The Member signed and submitted documentation to the Board that stated this expense was incurred for a strategic planning consultation.
On June 17, 2020, the Member paid for a cabin rental at a lodge on Lake Nipissing near North Bay, Ontario for two nights using his Board credit card at a cost of $630.54. The Member stayed at the lodge from June 18-20, 2020. The Member’s stay at the lodge was for personal reasons and not related to Board activities. While he performed some Board-related work while he was at the lodge, there was no Board-related reason for him to be in North Bay. The Member signed and submitted documentation to the Board that stated this expense was incurred for a meeting with directors of education from other school boards. While he did have calls with directors of education from other school boards, there was no in-person meeting that would have justified submitting expenses for reimbursement for accommodations.
On August 3, 2020, the Member paid for a hotel room in Sudbury, Ontario for three nights and charged $350.20 to his Board credit card for this expense. The Member stayed at the hotel from July 31, 2020 to August 3, 2020. While the Member performed Board-related work during this stay, the Member’s stay at the hotel was for personal reasons and not related to Board activities. There was no in-person meeting or other reason that would have justified submitting expenses for reimbursement for accommodations. The Member signed and submitted documentation to the Board that stated this expense was incurred for “DM MOE [Deputy Minister of the Ontario Ministry of Education] announcement re. Opening. Participate with Rainbow DOE [Director of Education] in re-entry planning.”
On September 20, 2020, the Member paid for a hotel room in Vaughan, Ontario for one night at a cost of $139.85 using his Board credit card. The Member stayed at the hotel from September 19-20, 2020. The Member’s stay at the hotel was for personal reasons and not related to Board activities. The Member signed and submitted documentation to the Board that stated this expense was incurred for senior administrative planning and strategic planning. While the Member engaged in Board-related work while at the hotel, there was no in-person meeting or other reason that would have justified submitting expenses for reimbursement for accommodations.
Prior to any complaint being made to the College, Mr. Monteith fully repaid the Board for all the above-noted expenses.

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 10 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 4-9 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 keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);

(b) he signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);

(c) he committed an act or 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);

(d) 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

6Having 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 30, 2024 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(10), 1(12), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 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 failed to comply with his professional responsibilities as Director of Education. The Member engaged in a pattern of unethical and unprofessional behaviour by claiming that certain expenses he incurred on his Board credit card were Board-related when in fact the expenses were personal or predominantly personal in nature.

8The Member failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10). The Member was required to sign and submit a form each month listing the expenses incurred on his Board credit card and the reason for incurring the expenses under the Board’s Purchasing Cards Policy. This policy prohibited the Member from using his Board issued credit card for personal expenses. The Member failed to comply with this duty by claiming that some of the expenses that he submitted for reimbursement were Board-related when they were, in fact, for personal or predominantly personal expenditures.

9The Panel finds that the Member signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12). The Member signed or submitted documentation to the Board stating that certain hotel, lodging, and airfare expenses incurred using his Board credit card were for Board-related purposes such as strategic planning consultation or for meeting with directors of education with other school boards. In fact, there were no in-person meetings or other reasons that would have justified the Member submitting expenses for reimbursement. The Member knew or ought to have known that by characterizing personal expenses as Board-related expenses, he was signing a document that contained a false, improper or misleading statement.

10The 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). The Member submitted improper expenses on several occasions for his own benefit or for the benefit of another person. As Director of Education, the Member was the chief supervisor and was aware or ought to have been aware of the rules set out in the Board’s Purchasing Cards Policy. It was incumbent on him to follow these rules and lead by example. As a leader in the school community, it was unacceptable for the Member to engage in such dishonest behaviour. As a result, the Member’s misconduct can be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

11Finally, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming of a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). The Member’s misconduct is an example of behaviour that seriously undermines the reputation of the profession. Members of the public are entitled to assume that members in leadership roles, such as the Member, will act with sound professional judgment. By his actions the Member disregarded his professional responsibilities, which undermined the reputation of the teaching profession.

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 30, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty as amended orally on consent during the hearing and made the following order:

The Member is directed receive a written reprimand, which will be delivered electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 1 month commencing on the 15^th calendar day following the date of the Decision and the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1^st and August 1^st, the suspension will commence on September 1^st;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 90 days of the date [sic] of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member shall provide the course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 3(a)(i) above, the course practitioner shall provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee's concerns regarding the Member's professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member and the assignments to be completed by the Member; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in paragraph 3(a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report from the course practitioner stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

13As clarified at the end of the hearing, the Member will receive the reprimand electronically via email. He is not required to attend a reprimand.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

14The 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 the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Cosentino-Galloro, 2019 ONOCT 4, Ontario College of Teachers v. Villeneuve Mason, 2019 ONOCT 54, Ontario College of Teachers v. Mackenzie, 2019 ONOCT 22, Ontario College of Teachers v. Rocco, 2021 ONOCT 42, Ontario College of Teachers v. Pita, 2019 ONOCT 36, and Ontario College of Teachers v. McEwen, 2014 ONOCT 66.

15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are three aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the misconduct in this case was not an isolated incident but was repeated by the Member on several occasions. Second, the conduct involved dishonesty with false or misleading records being submitted. Finally, the Member was in a significant leadership position as Director of Education and there was an onus on him to not only abide by the Board’s Purchasing Cards Policy but to model the highest standard of conduct for the rest of the Board employees. The panel considered six mitigating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member did not contest the misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Second, the Member has expressed remorse regarding his misconduct. Third, the Member has had a very long career with no previous disciplinary history. Much of the Member’s career has been devoted to advancing the educational needs of underserved student groups in northern Ontario, particularly Indigenous students. Fourth, the vast majority of the expense claims submitted by the Member in his role as Director of Education were proper and in accordance with his professional responsibilities. Fifth, the Member fully repaid the Board for the expenses at issue prior to any complaint being made to the College. Finally, during the time frame of the conduct at issue, the Member was facing extreme professional demands as Director of Education relating to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as very difficult personal circumstances in his family. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s submission of multiple improper expense claims warrants a reprimand. Directors of Education are leaders in the community who are expected to act honestly and with integrity. Though the Member’s conduct did not directly involve students, it has nevertheless undermined the public’s confidence in administrators and tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession. 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.

17The Joint Submission on Penalty initially provided for the reprimand to occur immediately following the hearing and that the reprimand would be delivered electronically. During the hearing, the parties made an amendment to paragraph 1 of the Joint Submission on Penalty orally on consent. Instead of requiring the Member to receive a reprimand electronically immediately following the hearing, the parties asked the Panel to order one of the following: that a reprimand be delivered to the Member in writing, or that the Member be required to return within three months of the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee to receive a reprimand electronically. The parties submitted that the Panel could select whichever option the Panel deemed most appropriate. The parties proposed the amendment because due to an unexpected family illness the Member was in a remote area in northern Ontario on the date of the hearing and the Member was concerned that if he attempted to appear for a reprimand, he would be unable to do so as cell phone service and data are unreliable in that area. Member’s Counsel cited Ontario College of Teachers v. Cheechoo, 2017 ONOCT 25, in support of the written reprimand option. In that case a written reprimand was ordered when a Member lived in a northern community with unreliable internet service. In an oral decision rendered on September 30, 2024 the Panel decided that the reprimand would be delivered in writing. The parties gave the Panel discretion to select one of the two options. The Panel finds that a written reprimand is a fair and transparent option given the Member’s family circumstances and lack of access to reliable internet. A written reprimand will also ensure that the reprimand is received expeditiously.

18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a one-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on October 15, 2024, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as an administrator and member of the profession and will help him to make better professional and ethical decisions in the future.

20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: October 8, 2024

Hanno Weinberger, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel