DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Janna 2024 ONOCT 06

Date: 2024-03-04

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

Nicholas John Janna, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

NICHOLAS JOHN JANNA (REGISTRATION #530280)

PANEL: Lois Figg, Chair Adam Lee, OCT Terrence Singh, OCT

HEARD: February 27, 2024

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Eric Granger, for Nicholas John Janna Erica Richler, 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 February 27, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Nicholas John Janna (the “Member”) did not attend 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, 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 December 7, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Nicholas John Janna is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

(b) he abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(c) he 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);

(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

6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. The Member wishes to avoid a hearing and to enter a plea of no contest to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. As such, he does not contest the facts which follow for the purposes of this proceeding.

2. The Member 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.

3. At all material times during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 academic years, the Member was employed as the High School Deputy Principal at the [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ethiopia.

4. At all material times during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 academic years, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old female student at the School in Grade [XXX] and Grade [XXX] respectively.

5. During the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member was an advisor to Student 1 and supervised her completion of a School-assigned project. During this time, the Member met with Student 1 in person at School and they exchanged emails related to her school project.

September and October 2019:

6. Over the summer of 2019, Student 1 emailed the Member to ask for book recommendations, and he responded with suggestions. In September 2019, when Student 1 returned to the School, she and the Member engaged in discussions about some of the books she had been reading. Student 1 found her conversations with the Member were very inspiring, and she started attending his office multiple times a week, sometimes twice in one day, to pursue further conversations with him.

7. Their conversations turned personal. The Member began complimenting Student 1 on her intellectual abilities and her appearance. The Member told Student 1 she was attractive when she wore skirts, and he asked her questions of a personal nature regarding her friendships and her relationships including with her ex-boyfriend. He gave her gifts, including a t-shirt with the title of a book they had discussed together and a bracelet. Student 1 was flattered by his attention. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are pictures of these gifts.

8. Around this time the Member asked Student 1 for her personal email address and phone number, and provided her with his, and they began sending each other emails and texts of a personal nature unrelated to School. The Member also created a private G-mail account and provided Student 1 with the password, and they communicated by writing to each other in a private shared Google Doc to which they both had access. The Member often wrote in the Google Doc in the early morning hours, and Student 1 would awaken early in order to read what he had written and respond to his questions and ideas. The Member also sent her pictures using this platform, including one in which he wore only a pair of boxers that exposed his tattoos, and asked her whether she liked the picture and whether she was bothered by their age difference. Student 1 believed the purpose of communicating with the Member using this platform was that it was secretive, and easier to erase than other social media platforms such as email and text messages.

9. The Member and Student 1 strategized together to come up with ideas that would enable them to see each other outside of School hours. For example, on Saturday, September 21, 2019, the Member suggested to Student 1 that he would pick her up that evening. When Student 1 told him that was impossible, the Member suggested that she tell her parents a friend was having a party and sending a driver to pick her up, so that she could sneak out of her parents’ home in order to meet with the Member.

10. On a Saturday in late September or October 2019, the Member and Student 1 arranged to meet at the School. When Student 1 arrived, she hid in the School’s bathroom to avoid being seen by her friend who was also on campus that Saturday for an extra-curricular event. Once Student 1 and the Member were in his office together, they spoke about matters of a personal nature that were unrelated to School. During their discussion, the Member offered Student 1 a vape, which she accepted. When she was getting ready to leave, the Member hugged her and she felt the Member move his hands down to the lower part of her back, which made her feel tense. She believed that the Member sensed her tension and he let go of her immediately, telling her that was enough for one day. Student 1 understood she needed to be discrete when leaving the School, so she snuck out through the back door instead of the front.

11. The Member and Student 1 came up with the idea that Student 1 would tell her parents she wanted to participate in a [XXX] club that would be organized and supervised by the Member. The club would meet at the School on Saturdays and travel around the city by car for the participants to [XXX]. The Member and Student 1 drafted a fake permission form using the School’s letterhead for Student 1’s parents to sign. Student 1’s parent signed the form granting Student 1 permission to attend the Member’s “club”, which was scheduled to begin on the Saturday after the School’s October term break.

12. The Member asked Student 1 to go with him to a conference in South Africa in November or December 2019, and suggested he would invite another student so as not to arouse suspicion. He also asked Student 1 on more than one occasion whether she wanted to go to a hotel with him.

Electronic Messages:

13. In September and October 2019, the Member sent Student 1 inappropriate electronic communications of a personal nature including:

(a) he asked Student 1 to write in the Google Doc, and told her when to check the “doc” or “G doc” after he had written in it;

(b) he texted her good night, and asked her to text him in the morning when she got up;

(c) he asked her what she was doing on a Friday night;

(d) he called her “Pupa” and “my pupa”;

(e) he suggested that they share their locations with each other on their cell phones;

(f) he asked her, “what shall I wear tomorrow, you select”.

14. In September and October 2019, the Member sent Student 1 inappropriate electronic communications that included remarks of a sexual nature including:

(a) when Student 1 told the Member she may be able to meet him on the weekend, the Member replied, “I was invited to [redacted] house to watch rugby… or stare at you for hours. Hmmmm”, and, “Would much MUCH rather watch you. Every way you move.”;

(b) “obviously I’m going to get at you,” and, “I want to see you.”;

(c) “Your body moves perfectly and commands attention.”;

(d) “White is my favourite colour today. Curious is, what is my second favourite? I would have to know what is under to answer”, when Student 1 wore white clothing to School;

(e) “how do you need me to make you feel that right now…want me to make you feel more mine by making everyone jealous of you, cause I’m in.”;

(f) “I want to know everything ESPECIALLY the dark part. You need a release.”

15. In October 2019, Student 1 was planning to travel on a vacation with her family during the School’s term break. In or around the outset of the term break, the Member sent Student 1 inappropriate electronic messages including:

(a) “My mind will be preoccupied with you with the whole break. It’s actually worse on weekends and extended periods away. Even when I can just catch a glimpse of you… makes things go easier for me.”;

(b) “send them [photos] along please. And of you too!”;

(c) “Please send me pictures too. Not just of the sites but pictures of you.”;

(d) when Student 1 wrote that she hoped he wouldn’t get sick of her, the Member responded, “I won’t I promise. I will text you lots too. Wish I could have given you a proper goodbye.”;

(e) “Never sick of you. Ever. I want you so much;

(f) “Would love to travel with you one day soon.”

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” are copies of the messages referred to in the paragraphs above.

16. During the October term break, when the Member was in Canada and Student 1 was on vacation with her family, the Member sent Student 1 messages that were personal and sexual in nature. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” are copies of same.

Investigation and Termination of Employment:

17. Early on Monday, October 14, 2019, the first day back at School after the term break, the Head of School was informed of an allegation that the Member had engaged in inappropriate interactions with Student 1, and was provided with printed copies of electronic messages between the Member and Student 1 from September and October 2019 (please see Exhibit “C”). The Member was called into a meeting with the Head of School, the Deputy Head of School, and the High School Principal regarding the matter. The Member was placed on administrative leave with pay immediately, pending further investigation.

18. On October 15, 2019, the School’s Leadership Team determined there was sufficient evidence of grooming and sexual misconduct to substantiate a breach of the School’s Child Protection Policy, and terminated the Member’s employment for cause. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” are copies of the Head of School’s email to the School’s Board dated October 14, 2019, and termination email to the Member dated October 15, 2019.

Impact on Student 1:

19. The Member’s inappropriate behaviour and remarks of a sexual nature towards Student 1 had a detrimental impact on her emotional health and well-being. She had been infatuated with the Member and flattered that he made her feel special, yet the secretive nature of their interactions often left her feeling frustrated, stressed, confused, and manipulated by the Member.

20. On September 27, 2002, the Ontario College of Teachers approved a Professional Advisory related to sexual abuse and sexual misconduct. On September 27, 2019, the Ontario College of Teachers approved an updated Professional Advisory related to professional misconduct of a sexual nature. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” are copies of the Advisories.

21. On September 27, 2017, the Ontario College of Teachers approved an updated Professional Advisory on the use of electronic communication and social media. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the Advisory.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

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

23. 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(7.3), 1(14), 1(18), 1(19). The Member further acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute sexual abuse as defined in Section 1 of the Act.

24. 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 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 counsel for the College and himself 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.

25. 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.

26. 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

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 February 27, 2024, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in sexual abuse of a student of a nature defined in section 1 of the Act.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 21 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pled 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 sexually abused Student 1 and engaged in a pattern of grooming behaviour.

9The Statement of Uncontested Facts demonstrates that the Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). During the period between September and October 2019, the Member gave Student 1 gifts and engaged in a personal relationship with Student 1, which included inappropriate physical, verbal and electronic interactions of a personal and sexual nature through text messages, email, and platforms such as Google Doc and Pinterest, as well as, meeting in the Member’s office at the School. Through strategizing deceitful ways in which they could meet in person, the Member encouraged a personal, secretive relationship with Student 1. In doing so, the Member took advantage of the power imbalance between him, a deputy principal, and a young, impressionable student. The Member does not contest that his inappropriate behaviour and remarks of a sexual nature towards Student 1 had a detrimental impact on her emotional health and well-being. In particular, the Member’s conduct towards Student 1 left her feeling frustrated, stressed, confused, and manipulated by the Member. By engaging in such behaviour, the Member showed a complete disregard for Student 1’s psychological or emotional well-being. The Panel therefore finds the Member’s conduct was psychologically or emotionally abusive.

10The Statement of Uncontested Facts demonstrates that the Member abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act. The definition of sexual abuse under section 1 of the Act includes touching of a sexual nature of the student by a member, and behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by a member towards a student. During the period between September and October 2019, the Member made several remarks of a sexual nature towards Student 1, including complimenting her appearance and asking questions about her relationships. On several occasions, the Member referred to Student 1 using pet names, such as “Pupa” and “MY pupa! Mine” (Exhibit 2, at page 34). He also made comments of a sexual nature, including “Your body moves perfectly and commands attention” (Exhibit 2, at page 30); “Never sick of you. Ever. I want you so much” (Exhibit 2, at page 40); “Would love to travel with you one day soon” (Exhibit 2, at page 42); “…You are being far from needy! Tell me how you would love for me to be with you.” (Exhibit 2, at page 45); and “…I get it my little pupa. You need to be taken. I will. I will take you in multiple ways that will force you to decide. Your frustration will be eliminated because you will just know in that moment my sincerity to own a part of you” (Exhibit 2, at page 46). Furthermore, the Member sent a picture of himself shirtless in boxers that exposed his tattoos, and asked Student 1 whether she liked the picture and whether she was bothered by their age difference. On one occasion, at School on a weekend, the Member hugged Student 1 and moved his hands down to the lower part of her back, which made Student 1 feel tense. Additionally, on more than one occasion, the Member asked Student 1 whether she wanted to go to a hotel with him. The Panel finds that the Member’s behaviour towards Student 1 included touching and behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature and therefore constitutes sexual abuse of a student.

11The 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 finds the Member breached the professional standards of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” and “Leadership in Learning Communities”, as well as the ethical standards of “Care”, “Respect”, “Trust” and “Integrity” set out in the by-laws. The professional standard of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” requires members to be dedicated in their care and commitment to students. The professional standard of “Leadership in Learning Communities” requires members to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supporting learning communities. The Member failed to uphold his commitment to Student 1 and her learning when he pursued and fostered a personal relationship with her—a young and vulnerable student who was infatuated with him. As a deputy principal, the Member was entrusted with the care and safety of students and was responsible for creating a safe environment for students to learn; however, the Member failed to uphold the professional standard of “Leadership in Learning Communities” when he engaged in a personal relationship with Student 1 and encouraged her to keep their communications and relationship a secret. Furthermore, the Member asked Student 1 to attend a conference with him in South Africa and on more than one occasion, asked Student 1 whether she wanted to go to a hotel with him. A member is always responsible for maintaining professional boundaries with a student. The Panel therefore finds the Member breached the above-noted professional standards.

12The Panel finds that the Member breached all four ethical standards. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, compassion, and empathy in practice. The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. “Trust” embodies fairness, openness, and honesty in a member’s professional relationships with students, colleagues, parents and the public. The ethical standard of “Integrity” requires members to conduct themselves with honesty, reliability and moral action.

13The Member breached the ethical standard of “Care” by grooming Student 1 and exchanging personal messages, which escalated to include sexual content and sexual innuendos. The Member’s inappropriate behaviour towards Student 1 caused her emotional harm and demonstrated the Member’s profound lack of professional and moral judgment and disregard for Student 1’s well-being. The Member also breached the ethical standard of “Respect” by encouraging Student 1 to lie to her parents in order to meet the Member outside of regular school hours. Such conduct demonstrates a lack of respect for Student 1’s dignity and emotional well-being. Further, by grooming and engaging in a personal relationship with Student 1, the Member abused the trust of Student 1, her parents, his colleagues and the school board members, thus breaching the ethical standard of “Trust”. He took advantage of his position of trust and authority over Student 1 for his own benefit. By his conduct, the Member jeopardized the well-being of the students and the staff at the School. Lastly, the Member breached the ethical standard of “Integrity” when he deceived Student 1’s parents by falsifying a permission slip for them to sign, using a school letterhead for a non-existent school club in order to spend more time with Student 1 outside of regular school hours. As a deputy principal, the Member assumed a particular position of trust and authority within the school setting and was expected to act as a role model to students, his colleagues and the wider community, which he failed to do by abusing and grooming 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). As adults who hold a privileged position of trust and authority with students and the community, members of the teaching profession hold a moral and professional duty to respect students’ dignity and protect their well-being. The Member’s behaviour of establishing a personal relationship with Student 1 and making remarks of a sexual nature were disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Member continuously failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with Student 1 and engaged in grooming behaviour by giving Student 1 gifts, complimenting her appearance, inviting Student 1 to a hotel, encouraging her to spend time alone with the Member outside of regular school hours, communicating with Student 1 on multiple platforms and encouraging Student 1 to send pictures of herself, to name some examples. By engaging in such grooming behaviour, the Member demonstrated abhorrent and morally repugnant conduct for a deputy principal and egregiously breached his position of trust and authority. Such conduct demonstrates a serious moral failing, a flagrant disregard for his professional obligations and casts serious doubt on the Member’s ability to practise the profession without putting students at risk.

15The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Teachers are entrusted with the care of students and one of their fundamental responsibilities is to ensure students’ physical, psychological and emotional safety and well-being. By repeatedly engaging in serious boundary violations, which included the Member’s grooming and abuse of Student 1, the Member significantly undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and breached the trust which students, parents and the public place in teachers.

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 February 27, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

2. 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”).

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

17The Member’s professional misconduct consisted of or included the sexual abuse of a student, as described in subsection 30.2(2) of the Act. Given this finding, section 30.2(1) of the Act provides that the Panel must make an order: (1) requiring that the Member be reprimanded by the Panel; and (2) directing the Registrar to revoke the Member’s certificate of qualification and registration. The Panel makes both of these orders and notes that it has no discretion in this regard.

18The Panel recognizes that it may also order costs or a fine in accordance with subsection 30(5) of the Act but notes that the parties are jointly asking it to confine its order to the mandatory ones. The Panel finds it reasonable not to make these additional orders in light of the Member’s plea of no contest and joint submission on penalty, particularly given the high threshold that must be met before rejecting a joint submission on penalty.

19The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.