DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Quinn 2024 ONOCT 09 Date: 2024-03-13
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 Kevan Samuel Quinn, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS – and – KEVAN SAMUEL QUINN (REGISTRATION #657462)
PANEL: Lisa Tucker, Chair Yasser Leheta, OCT Emile Ramlochan
HEARD: March 7, 2024
COUNSEL: Lisa Feinberg, for the Ontario College of Teachers Phillip Abbink, for Kevan Samuel Quinn 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.
By order of Justice M.E. Misener and by order of Justice V. Giourgas of the Ontario Court of Justice, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify the victim or witness in this matter, pursuant to subsection 486.4 of the Criminal Code.
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.
2Kevan Samuel Quinn (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.
4The Panel also received the cover page of the transcript from the Proceedings at Trial and the first page of the Reasons for Judgment from the Member’s criminal proceeding, which notes a publication ban ordered by Justice M.E. Misener on January 16, 2020 and Justice V. Giourgas on November 16, 2020 (Exhibit 2). In these proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, an order restricting publication was made pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Panel is required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, any information that could identify the victim or a witness involved in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 7, 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 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);
(b) 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 3), which provides the following:
At all material times, Kevan Samuel Quinn 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 at [XXX] (the “School”), a private school in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Person A was also employed as a teacher at the School.
The Member and Person A had a close and affectionate friendship but were not romantically involved. Their friendship included touching each other affectionately, and many colleagues referred to them as “work husband and wife.” Touching included, “regular hugs, lying down together on a bed, holding hands with him publicly, and dancing closely together at social events with colleagues.” They both lived on campus at the School in separate dormitory rooms.
In December 2017, the Member and Person A attended a work Christmas party, at which they both drank alcohol. After the party, the Member and Person A returned to Person A’s dormitory room on campus, where they watched television laying on Person A’s bed. The Member’s hand was on Person A’s stomach. The Member moved his hand up towards Person A’s breast. Person A elbowed the Member’s hand away. The Member moved his hand away from Person A’s breast and back to her stomach. A few minutes later, the Member again moved his hand back towards Person A’s breasts. The Member did not obtain Person A’s consent to touch her breast before moving his hand towards her breast. Person A elbowed him hard in response. The Member moved away and fell asleep. Person A was angry at the Member but did not discuss this with him.
In November 2018, the Member and Person A were together in the Member’s dormitory room after a night of drinking. Person A told the Member she wanted to go back to her own room. Person A started to put on her boots as she sat on the Member’s bed. The Member tried to take off her boots and persuade her to stay. Person A got up and left the Member’s room.
On March 7, 2019, the Member, Person A, and several colleagues went out drinking to celebrate the end of parent-teacher meetings and the start of March break. A few of them, including the Member and Person A, went back to the dormitory room of another colleague, where they watched television on the couch. The Member had his arm around Person A. Person A was content with this, as this sort of physical contact was common between them. The Member then moved his hand under Person A’s tank top and bra and touched Person A’s breast without Person A’s consent to do so. The Member testified at trial that this contact lasted “less than a second.” In response, Person A bit the Member’s arm to get him to move his hand from her breast. Person A then got up and left the couch.
The next day, Person A confronted the Member about his conduct. The Member apologized to her.
Person A spoke to police and the School about the March 7, 2019 incident in the following weeks. The Member was charged with sexual assault of Person A.
The Member’s employment with the School was terminated on April 16, 2019. Member’s counsel had asked that the School await the completion of the criminal matter before the Member participated in the investigation, because the allegations were essentially the same. The School had not agreed, so concluded their investigation without a response from the Member.
A three-day trial was held in April 2022 with respect to the charges against the Member involving Person A. Justice Gosh [sic] acquitted the Member of the charges on May 12, 2022. Justice Ghosh had a reasonable doubt that the Member committed sexual assault, concluding that while there was not in fact consent, the Member had an honest but mistaken belief that Person A was consenting.
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 1-11 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 5-7 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).
- 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.
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
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).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 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 engaged in a pattern of violating Person A’s boundaries and touching Person A without her consent.
9The 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). The Member touched Person A in an intimate manner without her consent. The Member moved his hand up towards Person A’s breast, even after she elbowed his hand away, indicating that she wanted him to stop. On another occasion, the Member touched Person A’s breast under her shirt and bra without her consent. The Member also tried to stop Person A from leaving his room by trying to take off her boots after she had clearly communicated that she wanted to leave. Members are expected to maintain professionalism and to act with integrity when interacting with their colleagues, even in social situations. Teachers hold a privileged position of trust and authority in the community and are expected to demonstrate respect and care for other people, including by respecting others’ boundaries. The Member failed to do so when he touched his colleague without her consent on one occasion, and on another occasion,when he moved his hand towards her breast without her consent, despite his colleague indicating that she did not welcome it by elbowing his hand away . In failing to meet these expectations, the Member demonstrated a serious lack of moral and professional judgment.
10The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). The Member’s misconduct eroded the reputation of the teaching profession and seriously undermined the trust that the public places in teachers to act appropriately and respect people’s boundaries, both in and out of the classroom.
F. PENALTY DECISION
11The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), 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 appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a 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 four (4) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter; and
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 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 boundaries, 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.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
12The 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 Teachres v. Ashwin, 2021 ONOCT 13; Ontario College of Teacheres v. Tye, 2022 ONOCT 23; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Fazl, 2019 ONOCT 2, 2019 ONOCT 02.
13The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the fact that he touched his colleague without her consent on one occasion, and on another occasion, moved his hand towards his colleague’s breast, which indicated a pattern of misconduct and not a momentary lapse of judgment; and the negative effect on Person A, who felt angry at the Member’s violation. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Although not a mitigating factor, the Panel considers the fact that the Member does not have a disciplinary record with the College as the absence of an aggravating factor. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
14The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models for students and demonstrate integrity and respect for people’s boundaries both in and out of the classroom. The Member failed to do so when he touched Person A in an intimate manner without her consent. 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.
15Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a four-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 March 22, 2024, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
16The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional boundaries will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him make better decisions in any future interactions with his colleagues.
17The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: March 13, 2024
Lisa Tucker Chair, Discipline Panel
Yasser Leheta, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Emile Ramlochan Member, Discipline Panel
CORRECTION: On April 8, 2024, the Panel made minor corrections to paragraphs 9, 13 and 14, of these reasons to reflect the Statement of Uncontested Facts, in accordance with Rule 15.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
Footnotes
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204; Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453.