DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Janes 2025 ONOCT 25

Date: 2025-04-11

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

Julian Robert Janes, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JULIAN ROBERT JANES (REGISTRATION #492764)

PANEL: Damienne Lebrun-Reid, Chair Scott Barker, OCT Andrea Murik, OCT

HEARD: March 31, 2025

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Julian Robert Janes, self-represented Ahmad Mozaffari, 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 31, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Julian Robert Janes (the “Member”) attended the hearing and did not have 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 December 2, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Julian Robert Janes is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2 or the Regulations made under that Act, specifically Regulation 298, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(b) 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);

(c) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Julian Robert Janes 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by [XXX] (the “School”), a private school in Ottawa, Ontario, as a [XXX] school [XXX] and [XXX] teacher.

3. At all material times during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 academic years, the Member told his classes that the mental health of his students was his top priority.

February 2023:

4. At all material times in the 2022-2023 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student at the School.

5. From February 7 to February 9, 2023, staff and students from the School went on an overnight field trip. When Student 1 asked to switch rooms to be with friends, the teacher assigned to supervise Student 1 said that room switches were not permitted, but suggested that Student 1 could ask the Vice Principal. Student 1 asked the Vice Principal twice to switch rooms, and was denied on the basis that School policy did not permit room changes once assigned.

6. In the evening of February 8, 2023, Student 1 was in a friend’s room when the Member performed room checks. Student 1 advised the Member that they were having a panic attack and did not want to be forced to return to their assigned room. The Member was able to calm Student 1 down, and the Vice Principal and two teachers were made aware of the situation.

7. At around 10:00 p.m. that evening, Student 1 texted the Member on the Member’s personal cell phone to request the Member’s help. When the Member arrived at Student 1’s room, Student 1 was in a state of distress, and spoke of being “forcibly removed” from the room Student 1 wanted to be in by the Vice Principal and two other teachers, despite begging to stay. The Member helped calm Student 1 down, told Student 1 he would try to assist in resolving the situation, and returned to his room.

8. The Member was upset upon learning that Student 1’s distress occurred because his colleagues refused to accommodate a room change. He approached the two teachers the next morning at breakfast in a frustrated and angry manner, and based on his misinterpretation of Student 1’s reference to being “forcibly removed”, he accused them of physically removing Student 1 from the room the previous evening. The colleagues were uncomfortable with and upset by the Member’s tone and accusation, as there had been no physical interaction with Student 1.

9. That evening, Student 1 sent the Member detailed text messages explaining what had happened and how it made Student 1 feel.

10. The next morning on February 10, 2023, the Member approached the administration of the School to discuss the incident involving Student 1 on the overnight field trip. The Member provided the administration with Student 1’s text messages describing the incident, intending to discuss how best to ensure Student 1’s well-being. During their discussion, the administration voiced its concern that Student 1 had communicated with the Member using the Member’s personal cell phone number, which was contrary to the School’s policies. The administration was also concerned that the Member waited until he returned from the trip to report that Student 1 had been in distress, instead of reporting the incident on the day it occurred.

11. The Member received a letter of expectations from the School to address the above concerns. Included was a specific warning not to communicate with students outside of school hours or on his personal communication device. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the School’s letter to the Member dated February 24, 2023.

September 2023:

12. At all material times during the 2023-2024 academic year, Student 2 was a [XXX]-year old female student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class. Student 2 had been in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX]class during the 2022-2023 academic year.

13. On Saturday, September 23, 2023, Student 2 texted the Member’s personal cell phone number in the evening, to ask the Member to pick her up from work because she did not want to take the bus home. The Member was concerned when he received the unexpected text from Student 2, and agreed to pick her up. When he picked her up, Student 2 said she did not want to go home right away, so the Member drove her around for a bit. Then the Member parked his car near Student 2’s home, and the two of them continued to talk in the Member’s car.

14. Student 2’s parent was concerned when Student 2 had not arrived home on time, and tracked Student 2’s cell phone to the Member’s car parked near their home. Student 2’s parent knocked on the car window for Student 2 to get out. As soon as Student 2 exited the car, the Member drove off without saying a word.

15. At approximately 11:05 p.m. that evening, Student 2’s parent emailed the Principal about the incident. On Sunday morning, the Principal emailed the Member to inform him that the School had received information regarding his interaction with Student 2 the previous evening, and requested a meeting to discuss the matter. The Member responded that he expected the School would receive this information, he recognized the consequences of his actions, and he tendered his resignation. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the email exchanges between the Principal and the Member dated September 24, 2023.

16. The administration investigated the incident by speaking with Student 2, her parents, and the Member. Student 2 confirmed that she texted the Member for a ride home, but she and the Member had not communicated otherwise outside of School. Student 2’s parents confirmed that they reviewed Student 2’s text messages and did not see other messages between the Member and Student 2, nor did they believe that Student 2 was in danger or that there was an inappropriate relationship between the Member and Student 2.

17. When the administration spoke with the Member, he accepted that he should not have picked Student 2 up. He confirmed that he was aware of the School’s policies and that its warning in February 2023 was clear, however, he agreed to pick Student 2 up from work because he thought she needed his help. In recognition of his error and that he failed to comply with the School’s policies, he resigned from his position.

School Policies:

18. Pursuant to the School’s policies, teachers are not permitted to communicate with students over personal devices, and are not permitted to drive students in their vehicles unless otherwise agreed to by both the School and parents.

The Member’s Personal Cell Phone Number:

19. In November 2022, students and faculty from the School went an overnight field trip to [XXX]. During a staff meeting prior to the trip, the administration initially proposed that teachers create WhatsApp groups with their assigned students for safety reasons, but ultimately decided against the idea because there was no way to hide a teacher’s personal cell number from students in the group. The Member missed or misunderstood the final direction, and created a WhatsApp group for his students. Student 1 and Student 2 had the Member’s personal cell phone number as a result of the WhatsApp the Member created for the [XXX] 2022 trip. The Member did not share his personal cell phone number with students on any other occasion.

Currently:

20. On February 21, 2024, the Member entered into an undertaking with the College whereby he agreed and undertook not to seek or engage in any employment requiring his Certificate of Qualification and Registration until the College disposes of this matter.

21. On May 24, 2024, the Member enrolled in and completed a course on Professional Boundaries offered by his federation (“ETFO”). Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Member’s certificate of completion dated May 24, 2024, and a letter from the ETFO course provider dated January 13, 2025, outlining the details of the course.

GUILTY PLEA

22. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

23. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(15), 1(18) – unprofessional only, 1(19).

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 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.

25. 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

6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on March 31, 2025, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(15), 1(18) (unprofessional only) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 21 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 engaged in boundary violations with students.

8The Member failed to comply with the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In particular, the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(c) requires teachers to demonstrate the highest regard for a number of virtues, and it is commonly understood to mean that members must behave with integrity and act as positive role models for students at all times. This includes setting proper boundaries with students to maintain a professional relationship with them. The Member’s conduct was contrary to these principles. The Member failed to uphold and model appropriate professional boundaries when he picked up Student 2 from work after she texted him on a Saturday evening on his personal cell phone and drove her around alone in his car before taking her home. Moreover, the Member failed to act as a positive role model when he did not report his concerns regarding Student 2’s safety to the School’s administration, contrary to the School’s protocols, or to her parent (but instead drove off without saying a word).

9The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). Unprofessional conduct involves a disregard for a member’s professional obligations, including the requirement that members demonstrate good judgment. The Panel finds that the Member demonstrated poor professional judgment when he approached his colleagues in a frustrated and angry manner and erroneously accused them of physically removing Student 1 from a room on an overnight field trip with students (which was not the case). Furthermore, the Member failed to demonstrate good judgment when he did not report his concerns for Student 2’s well-being to the School’s administration, contrary to the School’s protocol, or address his concerns with Student 2’s parent when he dropped her off at her home on the night of September 23, 2023. By driving Student 2 alone in his car and communicating with her outside of school hours, contrary to the School’s protocols, the Member demonstrated a disregard for his professional obligations to maintain professional boundaries with a student. The Panel notes that the Agreed Facts indicate that the Member understood that his conduct toward Student 2 was inappropriate and demonstrate that he failed to maintain professionalism (Exhibit 2, Exhibit C), that he was aware of the School’s protocols and that he was warned by the School, in February 2023, not to communicate with students outside of school hours or on his personal communication device. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct can be characterized as unprofessional.

10The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). By engaging in boundary violations with students, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and breached the trust which students, parents, and the public place in teachers.

F. PENALTY DECISION

11The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on March 31, 2025, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. 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;

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

(a) The Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries. The Committee acknowledges that the Member has fulfilled this requirement as of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee; and

(b) The Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that the Member has successfully completed the course. The Committee acknowledges that the Member has fulfilled this requirement as of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee.

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 Teachers v. Datoo, 2020 ONOCT 146; Ontario College of Teachers v. Drakes, 2019 ONOCT 69; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Maylon, 2023 ONOCT 51.

13The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. In terms of aggravating factors, the Member met with Student 2 on a Saturday evening after she texted him on his personal cell phone, despite having received a written warning not to communicate with students outside of school hours or on his personal communication device, only six months earlier (Exhibit 2, Exhibit B). Further, as an experienced teacher, the Member ought to have known that his conduct was inappropriate. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. The Member expressed remorse and insight into his conduct and proactively completed a course on professional boundaries in May 2024. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct in taking this course proactively, demonstrates insight and acceptance regarding his conduct. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

14The Panel also recognizes that the Member voluntarily entered into an undertaking with the College as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, and accepts the Member's statement during the hearing that he has abided by the terms of the undertaking and has not sought or engaged in any employment requiring a Certificate of Qualification or Registration since February 21, 2024.

15The Panel finds that the Member’s boundary violations with Student 2, despite prior warning from the School not to interact or communicate (including on his personal communication devices) with students outside of school hours, warrants a reprimand. Members are required to maintain appropriate boundaries with students, which the Member failed to do so when he picked Student 2 up in his car. 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 also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

16The Panel finds coursework is also appropriate for the rehabilitation of the Member, and notes that the Member has already fulfilled the terms, conditions, or limitations imposed on his certificate of qualification and registration given that on May 24, 2024, the Member completed a course on professional boundaries. This course included discussions and exercises on various topics relating to defining and applying appropriate professional boundaries with students. Given the parties’ agreement, the Panel accepts that no further coursework is necessary.

17The 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.