Ontario College of Teachers v. Bujacz, 2024 ONOCT 41

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Bujacz 2024 ONOCT 41

Date: 2024-10-16

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 Lee Allan Bujacz, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

LEE ALLAN BUJACZ (REGISTRATION #526770)

PANEL: Emile Ramlochan, Chair Wanda Percival, OCT Sandra Pizzuti, OCT

HEARD: October 1, 2024

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Kaley Duff, for Lee Allan Bujacz Julie Maciura, 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 October 1, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Lee Allan Bujacz (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 January 17, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Lee Allan Bujacz is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(b) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(c) 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);

(d) 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);

(e) 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:

1. At all material times, Lee Allan Bujacz was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Pursuant to section 14(5) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”), the Member continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the College referable to the time he held a Certificate under the Act. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario (the “Board”).

3. At all material times in the spring and fall of 2021, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] female student of the Board. Student 1 knew the Member because he had been her Grade [XXX] teacher in elementary school.

4. The Member and Student 1 became Facebook Friends in May 2021. Between May 2021 to on or about November 22, 2021, the Member sent inappropriate and personal electronic messages to Student 1. Topics included but were not limited to:

(a) telling Student 1 that he had broken up with his current partner; and

(b) discussing with Student 1 that he had been three-weeks sober from drugs and alcohol.

5. In May 2021, the Member also commented on Student 1’s Facebook posts. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of the of the [sic] Facebook posts on which the Member commented.

6. In June 2021, Student 1 informed an Educational Assistant at school that the Member had been messaging her since his break-up with his partner. Student 1 described the Member’s conduct as “weird” and described the Member as “creepy”, stating there was no reason for him to text her and for him to be “liking” some of her Facebook posts.

7. In July 2021, Student 1’s mother contacted the Board to express her concern that the Member continued to communicate with Student 1 and to comment on Student 1’s social media posts.

8. The breach of boundaries between the Member and Student 1 negatively impacted Student 1’s emotional well-being, such that she doesn’t feel comfortable returning to school and doesn’t trust teachers or educators.

9. The Member acknowledges that by engaging in electronic communications and discussing personal issues with Student 1 on her public Facebook wall and in private messages over Facebook Messenger, he crossed professional boundaries and breached the Ethical Standards of the Teaching Profession, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C”.

Prior College Proceedings

10. On March 20, 2019, the Investigation Committee issued a reminder to the Member to “meet your professional obligations as a teacher to ensure that you comply with the Board and provincial guidelines with respect to the implementation of a students Individual Education Plan”.

11. On July 21, 2020, the Investigation Committee issued a written caution to the Member for posting negative comments on social media in relation to his Board and the College. The Member was cautioned to “exercise good judgment in all circumstances” and reminded that “teachers are significant role models in our society”. He was further cautioned to “use electronic communication and social media appropriately, as referenced in the College’s Professional Advisory on the Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media”.

12. On November 20, 2021, the Member received an oral admonishment by the Investigation Committee relating to classroom management issues. As part of its admonishment, the Investigation Committee reminded the Member that “teachers are significant role models in our society” and as such, he must “exercise good judgment and abide by the high standards of the teaching profession, in all circumstances”.

13. On February 10, 2023, the Discipline Committee found the Member engaged in professional misconduct for engaging in behaviour including but not limited to having “exchanged inappropriate electronic messages with a young and vulnerable student that were of a sexual nature”. By Order dated June 20, 2023, the Discipline Committee directed the Member to receive an oral reprimand and directed the Registrar to revoke the Member’s Certificate. The Notice of Hearing in relation to this matter had been issued on July 22, 2019. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Discipline Committee’s Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision dated February 10, 2023, and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Discipline Committee’s Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision dated June 20, 2023.

14. The Member has brought a motion before the Discipline Committee challenging the constitutionality of sections 30.2(1), 30.2(2) and 33(4.1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, and has filed a Notice of Appeal in the Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) on grounds including that the Discipline Committee erred in finding that the Member engaged in sexual abuse of a student. Currently, both matters remain outstanding.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

15. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

16. 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(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).

17. 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;

(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 between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

18. 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.

19. 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

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 October 1, 2024, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 14 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 breached professional boundaries by engaging in inappropriate electronic communications with Student 1.

8The Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member sent multiple inappropriate and personal electronic messages to Student 1 and commented on Student 1’s Facebook posts. Student 1 found the Member’s conduct to be “weird” and described the Member as “creepy”. The Member’s conduct negatively impacted Student 1’s emotional well-being as she did not feel comfortable returning to school and no longer trusted teachers and educators. Members hold a unique position of trust and authority, and as such, they are responsible for supporting students’ emotional development and refraining from emotionally or psychologically abusing students. The Panel finds that the Member’s electronic communications with Student 1, in which the Member showed no regard for her discomfort, were entirely inappropriate. By engaging in such communications, the Member psychologically or emotionally abused Student 1.

9The Panel finds the Member 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). The Panel found that the Member breached the ethical standards to which all members of the teaching profession must adhere to, namely Care, Respect, Trust, and Integrity. The ethical standard of Care provides that members express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. The ethical standard of Respect provides that members must honour students’ emotional well-being and their dignity. The ethical standard of Trust calls for fairness, openness and honesty in professional relations with students. Finally, the ethical standard of Integrity requires members to conduct themselves with honesty, reliability and moral action.

10The Panel finds that the Member breached the ethical standard of Care when he initiated and engaged in inappropriate and electronic communications with Student 1. By doing so, the Member demonstrated a profound lack of professional judgment and commitment to Student 1’s well-being, as his behaviour negatively affected Student 1 and made her uncomfortable in returning to school. Additionally, the Member failed to adhere to the standard of Respect, by failing to treat Student 1 with respect and honour her human dignity and emotional wellness. The Member failed to demonstrate the ethical standard of Trust, as expected of members, as he failed to exercise appropriate professional judgment in his communications with Student 1. The Panel also notes that the Member engaged in inappropriate communications with Student 1 for a period of about seven months while already facing allegations of professional misconduct before the Discipline Committee (Exhibit 2, paragraph 13), which demonstrates his failure to comply with the ethical standard of Integrity that requires members to engage in continual reflection regarding their behavior. The Panel therefore finds the Member’s misconduct violated all four ethical standards.

11The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Subsection 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models. The duty to be a positive role model includes maintaining professional boundaries with students. By engaging in inappropriate electronic communications and discussing personal matters with Student 1, such as telling her that he had ended his relationship with his current partner and had been sober from drugs and alcohol for a period of three weeks, the Member failed to act as a positive role model as required by his professional duties.

12The Panel finds 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 Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that the member’s behaviour can properly be characterized by all three terms. It is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional for a member to take advantage of his position of trust and authority to engage in inappropriate electronic communications with a student. As an experienced teacher, the Member ought to have known that discussing his relationship as well as the use of drugs and alcohol were not appropriate subjects of communication between a teacher and his student. Such conduct demonstrates significant moral and professional failings by the Member. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

13Lastly, the Member’s conduct as described above is conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Teachers hold a unique position of trust and authority. The public’s confidence is eroded when teachers send students electronic communications of a personal nature. Furthermore, the Member failed to engage in continual reflection, and the fact that he was facing allegations of professional misconduct before the Discipline Committee in a separate matter at the time of his misconduct demonstrates conduct unbecoming a member. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and breached the trust that students, parents and the public place in teachers.

F. PENALTY DECISION

14The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 1, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three (3) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) prior to commencing or resuming a teaching position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a 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 (i) above, the course practitioner will 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;

(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) 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.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

15The 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. Handscomb, 2022 ONOCT 63, Ontario College of Teachers v. Porter, 2021 ONOCT 86, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Milner, 2022 ONOCT 85.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment as he sent several personal messages to Student 1 over a period of about seven months. Second, the Member’s conduct caused emotional harm to Student 1, as his conduct made her feel uncomfortable returning to school and caused her to lose trust in teachers and educators. Third, the Member ought to have known that his behavior was inappropriate, since the College had already taken action against him for similar behavior in the past. Similarly, at the time of the misconduct, the Member was facing additional allegations of professional misconduct, which did not deter him from engaging in similar behaviour by initiating electronic communications with Student 1. In terms of mitigating factors, the Panel’s finding and reasons for decision² had not yet been released prior to the Member engaging in professional misconduct, as described above. Additionally, the Member did not contest their misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and sparing Student 1 and other witnesses from having to testify at a contested hearing.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students, which the Member repeatedly failed to do by engaging in inappropriate electronic communications of a personal 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. The Panel finds it appropriate to order a written reprimand as agreed to by the parties.

18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a three-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. As the Member’s certificate of Qualification and Registration has been revoked, the suspension will primarily serve as 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 16, 2024, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students, if he returns to teaching.

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

Footnotes

1. 1See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.
2. 2Ontario College of Teachers v. Bujacz, 2023 ONOCT 12