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
Noel Anthony Morgan, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
NOEL ANTHONY MORGAN (REGISTRATION # 257367)
PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair
Andrew Glenny,
Wanda Percival, OCT
HEARD: November 8, 2024
Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Parmbir Gill, for Noel Anthony Morgan
Ahmad Mozaffari, 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 November 8, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Noel Anthony Morgan (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.
4Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(4) of the Act at the request of Student 1, Student 2, Student 3 and Student 4, who were allegedly sexually abused. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1, Student 2, Student 3 and Student 4.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
5The allegations against the Member in the Amended Notice of Hearing dated May 15, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Noel Anthony Morgan is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);1
(b) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);2
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;3
(e) 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);
(f) 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);
(g) 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);
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19);
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Noel Anthony Morgan is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. 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 Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a secondary teacher at [XXX] (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario. He has been employed as a teacher for the Board for approximately 30 years, and had worked at the School for approximately 25 years at the relevant time. In addition to being a teacher, the Member is a [XXX].
In the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 1 was a female student in Grade [XXX] at the School.
In the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 2 was a female student in Grade [XXX] at the School.
In the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 3 was a female student in Grade [XXX] at the School.
In the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 4 was a female student in Grade [XXX] at the School.
In June 2018, Student 1, Student 2, and Student 3 approached School administrators to report concerns regarding the Member’s conduct. As a result, the Board undertook an investigation and interviewed a number of students and the Member.
The Member acknowledges that Students 1, 2, 3 and 4 would testify that they felt uncomfortable as a result of the conduct set out below.
Conduct involving Student 1
In the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 1 was a student in the Member’s [XXX] and [XXX] classes.
Following her [XXX] class one day, during the lunch period, Student 1 was in the hallway with friends. She was wearing tights. As the Member walked past the group, Student 1’s friend said, “Hey, Mr. Morgan, doesn’t Student 1 have a nice/ great butt!” The Member responded that, “If you want a nice/ great butt like Student 1, you should come to my [XXX] class.”
On another occasion in the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 1’s [XXX] class was going for a [XXX]. Student 1 was wearing a cropped shirt. The Member directed Student 1 to change into a t-shirt, and provided Student 1 with one of his own t-shirts. The Member also directed Student 1 to change into his t-shirt in the washroom in his office, despite knowing that students were not permitted to change in the staff gym office or staff bathrooms, and must change in the student change rooms only.
On a regular basis in [XXX] class, Student 1 would take out her makeup kit and proceed to apply makeup. The Member would ask Student 1 to put away her makeup and focus on the lesson. When this failed, the Member asked the class to collectively tell Student 1 that she is beautiful and does not need to wear makeup, and told Student 1 that she did not need to wear makeup because she was already beautiful.
Student 1 asked the Member if he could assist her in getting stronger, as she was hoping for an athletic scholarship. She also advised that she also had a personal trainer and had been working on her core strength. On more than one occasion in [XXX] class, the Member would use Student 1 to demonstrate “a [XXX] [XXX]”, and would partner with her, touching Student 1 for this purpose without asking her for her permission first.
On one occasion after March break, Student 1 encountered the Member in a School hallway. The Member told Student 1 that it was nice to see her and he hoped she had a nice March break. In front of other students, the Member hugged Student 1.
The Member had provided his personal cell phone number to all students. When his father-in-law was ill, the Member asked Student 1 to make a playlist of music for his father-in-law, and exchanged text messages with Student 1 regarding the playlist.
Conduct involving Student 2
In the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 2 was a student in the Member’s [XXX] and [XXX] classes.
During the fall of 2017, while out for a [XXX] with the [XXX] class, the Member noticed that while [XXX] Student 2 used her arms to cross her chest during the [XXX]. The Member asked Student 2 whether she was wearing a sports bra. Student 2 replied that she was not. After two weeks of seeing Student 2 continue to [XXX] with her arms across her chest, the Member brought to class a bag of old sports bras belonging to his wife and told Student 2 she could try on the sports bras and choose the ones that fit her.
In June 2018, Student 2 was presenting a culminating project in her [XXX] class. During her presentation, without Student 2’s knowledge, the Member began to film with his cell phone another student in the class who was focused on her phone and not engaged in the class. That student was sitting against a wall behind Student 2, who was standing as she made her presentation. Other students in the class saw the Member recording with his phone.
Conduct involving Student 3
In the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 3 was a student in the Member’s [XXX] class. At the beginning of the year, the Member provided his personal email address and telephone number to the class on the class outline.
On more than one occasion, the Member hugged Student 3 in the School’s hallway.
On one occasion, the Member called Student 3 a number of times as he was seeking help with an assembly he was holding. Student 3 did not answer the phone and did not know why he was calling her. When Student 3 called the Member back, he answered and said “I can’t talk now.”
One morning, the Member sent a text to Student 3 to say that he was on his way to class and to ask Student 3 to give the class instructions about what they should be working on in the meantime.
At the time of receiving the Member’s text message, Student 3 was presenting the School’s [XXX]. She replied to the Member’s text by asking him, “Can I say it [XXX]?” The Member replied “I know u r cute.”
On one occasion, Student 3 witnessed the Member kiss another female student on the forehead, in a School hallway in front of other students.
Conduct involving Student 4
In the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 4 was a student in the Member’s [XXX] class. At the beginning of the year, the Member provided his personal telephone number to the class for homework help.
On or about December 25, 2017, the Member sent a text message to Student 4 that said “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!”
On or about February 22, 2018, at approximately 9:23 p.m., the Member sent a text message to Student 4, providing a history of her name.
Board Investigation Outcome:
At the conclusion of the Board’s investigation, the Member received a letter of reprimand and a suspension without pay of twenty days. The Member was also transferred to another school and was directed to complete a course on appropriate professional boundaries, which he completed on or about October 18, 2019. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated September 11, 2019.
The Member retired from the Board in June 2024.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her [sic], being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7.2), 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty 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’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;
(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
7Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of the Amended Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7), 1(7.1) and 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegations was being sought because of insufficient evidence after speaking with potential witnesses. The Panel granted these requests.
8Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 8, 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
9The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 29 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain appropriate teacher-student relationships on multiple occasions.
10The Panel finds that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). The Member engaged in inappropriate conduct towards multiple female students. The Member made inappropriate comments regarding Student 1’s physical appearance including telling her she was “beautiful and did not need to wear makeup” and telling Student 1’s friend “if you want a nice/great butt like Student 1, you should come to my [XXX] class”. The Member also gave Student 1 his t-shirt and instructed her to change in the washroom in his office, despite knowing students are not allowed to change in staff’s offices, this was an inappropriate use of influence and would reasonably make students uncomfortable. On multiple occasions, the Member violated professional boundaries with female students: touching Student 1 for the purpose of demonstrating [XXX] without asking her permission first; hugging Student 1 and Student 3; providing Student 2 with a bag of used sports bras; as well as calling or texting Student 1, Student 3 and Student 4. Given the inherent power imbalance that exists between teachers and students, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably have had a negative psychological or emotional impact on Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, especially when some of the Member’s actions occurred in front of their peers. In making this finding, the Panel also relies on the Member’s acknowledgement that Student 1, Student 2, Student 3 and Student 4 would testify that they felt uncomfortable as a result of his conduct towards them.
11The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with section 32 of the by-laws,4 contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 which outlines the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. The Member breached the Ethical Standards of “Care”, “Respect” and “Trust”. The Ethical standard of “Care” prescribes that Members express their commitment to students’ well-being through positive influence and professional judgment. The standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. The ethical standard of “Trust” embodies fairness, openness and honesty. Also, the teachers’ relationships with students must be based on trust and honesty. The Member failed to act in accordance with the ethical standards when he crossed professional boundaries with four female students. In addition, he failed to consider students’ well-being when he made inappropriate comments about Student 1’s physical appearance, touched Student 1 without permission, and hugged Student 1 and Student 3; and told Student 2 she could try on and choose a sports bra from a bag of bras that his wife had used. Through his conduct, the Member failed to treat Student 1, Student 2, Student 3 and Student 4 with respect and dignity.
12The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15) which sets out the duties of a teacher. Teachers are required to set a proper example for students, act as a role model and to exemplify the virtues set out in subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act. The Member failed to set a good example for students on numerous occasions, including when he hugged Student 1 and Student 3 in the hallway of the school. His conduct not only set a poor example for Student 1 and Student 3, but also for the students who witnessed him hugging Student 1. He also failed to act as a role model for students when he shared his personal phone number and texted and called them for personal reasons and outside of school hours.
13The Member committed acts that, having regard to all circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member repeatedly demonstrated a lack of professional judgment in his conduct towards Student 1, Student 2, Student 3 and Student 4. He disregarded his professional obligations by ignoring the professional boundaries that must exist between teachers and students at all times. Also, the Member disregarded his professional obligations when he directed Student 1 to change into one of his t-shirt in the staff change room, despite knowing that student are not allowed to change in the staff’s offices. The Member was an experienced teacher of 25 plus years and he ought to have known that his conduct was unacceptable.
14The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Members are expected to interact with students in a professional manner and to maintain appropriate student-teacher boundaries. Conduct that violates these boundaries undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.
F. PENALTY DECISION
15The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on November 8, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two (2) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.
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 returning to teaching or any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding maintaining professional boundaries, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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
16The 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.5 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. Bennett, 2021 ONOCT 107 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Warland, 2021 ONOCT 77.
17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the following: 1) the nature of the misconduct, which included multiple professional boundary violations; 2) the Member acknowledged that the four students would testify that they felt uncomfortable as a result of the Member’s actions; 3) the Member’s actions were not a momentary lapse of judgment and he exhibited a pattern of violating professional boundaries across three academic years; and 4) the Member was an experienced teacher who ought to have known better how to conduct himself. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, expressed sincere remorse, has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past and has had a long career of 25 years at the same school. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
18The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of professional boundary violations with female students warrants a reprimand. Members of the teaching profession are expected to maintain appropriate teacher-student relationships and act in a professional manner at all times. The Member engaged in overly familiar interactions with four female students, including hugging students; touching a student without permission during class demonstrations; bringing used sports bras to school for a student; and inappropriate comments, calls and text messages to students. 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 misconduct, the Panel finds that a two-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 addition, the suspension will instill public confidence in the disciplinary process. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on November 23, 2024, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional boundaries will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. Although the Member is retired, 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 female students should he return to the teaching profession.
21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: November 13, 2024
Hanno Weinberger, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Andrew Glenny Member, Discipline Panel
Wanda Percival, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel
- Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel
- Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel
- At the time of the hearing, section 32 was amended to be section 26 of the by-laws.
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.