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
Mitchell James Skinner, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MITCHELL JAMES SKINNER (REGISTRATION #616407)
PANEL: Lisa Tucker, Chair Yasser Leheta, OCT Emile Ramlochan
HEARD: March 7, 2024
Jordan Glick, for the Ontario College of Teachers James Foy, for Mitchell James Skinner 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 March 7, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Mitchell James Skinner (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.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 2, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);2
(c) he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;3
(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);
(f) he engaged in a prohibited act involving child pornography as defined in section 1 of the Act.
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, Mitchell James Skinner (the “Member”) 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed as a teacher by the Limestone District School Board (the “Board”) at [XXX] Secondary School (the “School”).
On December 7, 2017, police executed a search warrant on the Member’s residence and seized several devices, including the Member’s cell phone and SD card, which contained child pornography. Police arrested the Member and charged him with child pornography charges.
The pictures on the Member’s cell phone and SD card depicted persons under 18 years of age and included seven images of child pornography, including images depicting sexual acts being performed with and among children. The Member acknowledges that these images constitute child pornography as defined in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Member’s cell phone also contained chat messages, in which child pornography was discussed, and applications that were used to hide some of the child pornography images from easy view.
The Board subsequently placed the Member on administrative leave, pending the outcome of the criminal investigation, and notified the College of the Member’s charges.
On October 8, 2018, the Member entered into an undertaking with the College not to seek or engage in any employment that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
On May 17, 2021, the Member was acquitted of the criminal charges, after the child pornography that was seized from the Member’s residence was excluded from evidence due to violations under sections 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This means that the criminal charges were never tried on their merits. Nonetheless, the Member does not contest that the images and comments found on his phone and identified at paragraphs 3-5 above belonged to him and that the images constitute child pornography as defined in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
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 1-8 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 3-6 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 committed acts or omissions 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);
(b) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19);
(c) he engaged in a prohibited act involving child pornography as defined in section 1 of the Act.
- 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;
(g) he understands that pursuant to section 33(1.1), he will not be entitled to apply for reinstatement of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration; and,
(h) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
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
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7) and 1(7.2) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97, and engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegations was being sought as there was no evidence to support findings with respect to theseallegations. The Panel granted this request.
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 March 7, 2024, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) and 1(19). The Member also engaged in a prohibited act involving child pornography, as 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 8 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 possessed child pornography, namely images and chat messages discussing child pornography, and that he used applications to hide some of the child pornography from easy view.
9The Panel finds that the Member engaged in a prohibited act involving child pornography as defined in section 1 of the Act. The Member did not contest that his cell phone contained images of child pornography and chat messages in which child pornography was discussed. The Member’s SD card also contained images of child pornography, including images depicting sexual acts being performed with and among children. The Member also acknowledged that the images found on his cell phone and SD card constitute child pornography as defined in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
10The Panel finds that the 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, subsection 1(18). Possessing child pornography perpetuates the exploitation of children who have been abused. Tthe Member’s possession of child pornography was a flagrant and abhorrent disregard of his duty and responsibility to ensure the safety of children. Moreoever, the Member’s attempt to hide some of the child pornography images from easy view was deceitful and repugnant. The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct cast serious doubt on his profesional and moral fitness to hold a position of trust and authority with children.
11The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). By possessing child pornography and attempting to hide child pornography, the Member has undeniably eroded the reputation of the teaching profession and seriously undermined the trust that the public places in teachers to protect children and serve as positive role models.
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 March 7, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;
The Registrar is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
13The Member’s professional misconduct included a prohibited act involving child pornography, 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. The Panel finds it reasonable to order a written reprimand, as jointly proposed by the parties.
14The 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.
15The Panel denounces the Member’s misconduct in the strongest terms.
Date: March 13, 2024
Lisa Tucker Chair, Discipline Panel
Yasser Leheta, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Emile Ramlochan Member, Discipline Panel