CITATION: Grogan v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 6545
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 073/16
DATE: 20161019
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, NORDHEIMER and BALTMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANGELA GROGAN Appellant
– and –
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Respondent
Heather Alden and Kirsty Niglas-Collins, for the Appellant
Shane C. D’Souza and Vladimira M. Ivanov, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: October 19, 2016
NORDHEIMER J. (orally)
[1] Angela Grogan appeals from the decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers. The Discipline Committee found that the appellant had made two false reports of abuse against a teacher, A.A., respecting his involvement with a non-verbal, developmentally delayed female student. The Discipline Committee ordered that the appellant’s teaching certificate be revoked as a consequence. The appellant appeals both the findings and the penalty imposed.
[2] In the 2009-10 school year, the appellant made multiple reports to the School Board, the Children’s Aid Society and the Police about alleged abuse involving A.A. and this student. The School Board investigated these allegations as did the College with respect to similar complaints made by the student’s parents. Both determined that no action was warranted. A.A. then complained to the College about what he alleged were false accusations made by the appellant. The College investigated A.A.’s complaints and referred three of them to the Discipline Committee.
[3] The appellant challenges the findings of the Discipline Committee that the allegations made by the appellant regarding the conduct of A.A., with this student, were false. The appellant contends that the Discipline Committee ignored material evidence that concerned the credibility of A.A.; the Discipline Committee applied a higher standard of scrutiny in assessing the appellant’s evidence than it did the evidence of A.A.; and that the Discipline Committee reversed the onus of proof.
[4] Before turning to the main issue, I would note that the standard of review to be applied to the Discipline Committee’s decision is reasonableness.
[5] In my view, none of the appellant’s criticisms of the Discipline Committee’s decision are made out. The Discipline Committee heard from seventeen witnesses over nine days. Its reasons occupy more than eighty-five pages. The Discipline Committee considered all of the evidence that it heard, and it made various findings of fact based on that evidence. The Committee properly ignored evidence, that it heard, that was not relevant to the allegations that it was charged with determining.
[6] Insofar as there were conflicts in the evidence, the Discipline Committee explained why they preferred certain evidence over other evidence. In some instances, these findings were based on corroborating evidence from other witnesses, in others they were based on corroboration from independent physical evidence (notably video surveillance) and in some instances the findings resulted from failings that the Discipline Committee found in the appellant’s evidence. None of these conclusions reflect any unequal level of scrutiny of the appellant’s evidence over that of A.A. as contended by the appellant. All of these decisions are ones that the Discipline Committee was entitled to make and which were justified on the evidence presented.
[7] Further, this court is required to accord deference to those factual findings. As McLachlin C.J.C. explained in Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 19, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226 at para. 38:
Assessments of credibility are quintessentially questions of fact. The relative advantage enjoyed by the Committee, who heard the viva voce evidence, must be respected.
[8] It should also be noted, when considering the appellant’s criticisms of the Discipline Committee’s conclusions, that the standard of proof for the Discipline Committee’s findings is on a balance of probabilities. It is not the higher criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[9] Given that standard of proof, given the reasons offered by the Discipline Committee for its conclusions, and given the deference that this court must extend to the Discipline Committee’s credibility findings, there is simply no basis for this court to interfere with its factual findings. Those findings are reasonable ones that were open to the Discipline Committee to reach on the evidence that it heard.
[10] Turning then to the issue of penalty, I accept that the penalty of revocation of the appellant’s teaching licence is a most serious one. Once again, though, the Discipline Committee gave careful and thorough reasons for reaching its conclusion as to the appropriate penalty. In its thirty pages of reasons on penalty, the Discipline Committee considered all of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It also appropriately distinguished the early decision in Ontario College of Teachers v. Welland, 2014 LNONCTD 120, both on the basis that the Discipline Committee was not bound by that decision but, more importantly, that that decision resulted from a joint proposal from the parties.
[11] The facts remain that the appellant made very serious allegations against a fellow teacher, allegations that the Discipline Committee found to be false. While engaging in the alleged conduct would have been an extremely serious offence by a teacher, falsely accusing a teacher of that same conduct is also extremely serious. As the Discipline Committee said, in its reasons on penalty, at p. 28:
More germane to the penalty decision is the fact that the Member engaged in serious misconduct on more than one occasion, which had a devastating impact on her colleague, and which negatively affected the public’s trust and confidence in the profession.
[12] Contrary to the appellant’s submissions, the fact that the appellant contested the allegations made against her was expressly not held against her by the Discipline Committee in reaching their conclusion on penalty. Also contrary to the appellant’s submissions, the Discipline Committee did consider whether the penalty would have a chilling effect on the reporting of suspected abuse and expressly found that the penalty would not have that effect, provided that a complainant has a “reasonably held suspicion” regarding the alleged conduct.
[13] The penalty that the Discipline Committee decided on is within the range of reasonable penalties, based on the findings that the Discipline Committee made regarding the actions of the appellant. There is no principled basis for this court to interfere with that decision.
[14] The appeal is dismissed.
COSTS – Swinton J.
[15] I have endorsed the Appellant Book and Compendium as follows: “This Appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered today by Nordheimer J. Costs to the respondent fixed at $7,000.00, an amount agreed by the parties.”
___________________________ NORDHEIMER J.
SWINTON J.
BALTMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 19, 2016
Date of Release: October 20, 2016
CITATION: Grogan v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 6545
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 073/16 DATE: 20161019
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, NORDHEIMER and BALTMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANGELA GROGAN Appellant
– and –
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORDHEIMER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 19, 2016
Date of Release: October 20, 2016