|
HearingsThree-member panels of the Discipline Committee conduct public hearings into cases of alleged incompetence or professional misconduct. The panels are a mix of elected and appointed Council members. If found guilty of professional misconduct or incompetence, a member's certificate may be revoked, suspended or limited. In cases of professional misconduct only, the committee may also reprimand, admonish or counsel the member, impose a fine, publish its order in Professionally Speaking, or order the member to pay costs. Panels of the Discipline Committee have ordered summaries of these recent disciplinary cases to be published in Professionally Speaking. Member: Tommy Kouzmanis A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on September 18, 2008 into allegations of professional misconduct against Tommy Kouzmanis for acting inappropriately with students and school administrators. Kouzmanis was certified to teach in September 2004 and taught at the secondary school level for the Toronto DSB. He attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. In an agreed statement of facts, Kouzmanis admitted asking a female student to go into the bathroom next to his office to try on sports clothing, including a bathing suit. At a later date, while checking his digital camera in his office, Kouzmanis took a photo of the student from behind as she was filling out a form. Kouzmanis defied his principal’s directive not to be alone in his office with any female students and requested that other girls, who were alone or with others, try on sports clothing in the bathroom next door while he was alone or with other students in his office. The panel also heard that Kouzmanis used his school computer to view pictures of nude women on the Internet. Kouzmanis resigned from the board in August 2006 and has not taught since. Having considered the evidence, a plea of no contest, an agreed statement of facts, a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel reprimanded Kouzmanis for professional misconduct and suspended his Certificates of Qualification and Registration for three months. The panel directed Kouzmanis to complete at his own expense a course on appropriate boundaries with students and boundary violation issues. Further, he must inform the Registrar of his intent to return to work at any public or private school at least 30 days before starting work. In its decision the panel wrote: “Successful completion of a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar … will serve to rehabilitate the member by ensuring that in the future, should he return to teaching, he will make appropriate professional judgments and maintain proper boundaries.” The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Not identified A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on September 17, 2008 into allegations of professional misconduct against a member for taking student medication from a school storage closet. The member, who was certified to teach in June 1969, taught for the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic DSB. The member attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. In an agreed statement of facts, the member acknowledged taking student medication, without authorization, from a school cupboard. On a number of occasions between 2003 and 2005, prescription medicine, including Dexedrine and Ritalin, had been removed without authorization or record from a locked storage closet in the school. Subsequently, the school installed surveillance cameras to catch the culprit. The cameras videotaped the member unlocking the medicine/storage cabinet on one occasion and caught the member in the principal’s office another time. Subsequent to police charges, the member apologized by letter, made restitution and filed a medical report with the Crown. The charges of theft under $5,000 were eventually dropped. Having considered the evidence, a plea of no contest, an agreed statement of facts and the submissions of counsel, the panel directed the member to appear before it for counselling and suspended the member’s Certificates of Qualification and Registration for three months. In addition, the panel directed the member to provide the Registrar with a psychiatrist’s or family physician’s report annually for three years from the date of the decision and every three years thereafter until the member stops teaching. The report is to provide proof of fitness to continue teaching and attest to the member’s compliance with any recommended treatment, counselling and medication. The panel said the suspension would not be enforced if the member kept up treatment and reported regularly to the Registrar. The member must advise the Registrar in writing within 30 days of leaving the teaching profession in Ontario, the panel said. This is “an isolated incident triggered by traumatic events in the member’s past,” the panel wrote in its decision, which appears on the College’s public register. Member: Maurice Gerald Kennedy A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on October 22, 2008 into allegations of professional misconduct against Maurice Gerald Kennedy related to a criminal conviction for indecently assaulting minors. Kennedy was certified to teach in September 1999 and taught high school for the Niagara Catholic DSB. He did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that the court sentenced Kennedy to serve five years in federal prison in March 2007 for the indecent assault of three males under the age of 18 between June 1973 and November 1983. The court also placed a lifetime ban on his attending public areas where children under the age of 14 are likely to be present. The board dismissed Kennedy in April 2007. He lost his appeal of the conviction and sentence in August 2008. Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of College counsel, the panel found Kennedy guilty of professional misconduct, directed the Registrar to revoke his Certificates of Qualification and Registration and ordered publication of the case with the member’s name. In its written decision, the panel said Kennedy “committed multiple acts of indecent assault on minors over long periods of time. There were threats of violence. There was premeditation and gross abuse of trust. “Sexual assault of children is among the most reprehensible and egregious acts that any member of society can commit. The member’s conduct is abhorrent to the profession and to the public.” The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Jeremy Raymond Pike A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on November 11, 2008 into allegations of professional misconduct against Jeremy Raymond Pike related to a criminal conviction for sexual interference and making and possessing child pornography. Pike was certified to teach in June 2002 and taught elementary school for the Durham DSB. He did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that Pike received a 14-year prison sentence after being convicted in criminal court of eight counts of sexual interference and one count each of possessing and making child pornography. The court banned him for life from being in the presence of anyone under the age of 14. Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of College counsel, the panel found Pike guilty of professional misconduct and directed the Registrar to revoke his Certificates of Qualification and Registration. Pike was found guilty of “heinous acts, performed against children,” the Discipline Committee panel wrote in its decision. He pleaded guilty to and was convicted on 10 of 95 original counts related to sexual interference and child pornography. “The sexual offences involved eight young boys (ages two to 14), six who have been identified and two who are unknown,” the panel said. “There is photographic and video evidence to indicate that the member touched the boys while he bathed them and while he slept with them. These assaults included fondling, masturbation, acts of fellatio and anal intercourse. On some occasions, the boys’ legs were restrained during these acts.” The acts spanned four years, were planned, deliberate and involved the abuse of children he babysat, the panel said. “The member has brought the profession into disrepute,” the panel said. “The member’s conduct over a lengthy period represents an abuse of trust, both with the children and with their families. The fact that he engaged in a long-term pattern of sexual abuse of children requires that he receive the maximum penalty, revocation of his Certificates of Qualification and Registration.” The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Paul Schalm A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on November 6, 2008 into allegations of professional misconduct against Paul Schalm related to a criminal conviction for Internet luring. Schalm, who was certified to teach in August 1976 and worked for the Waterloo Region DSB, did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that Schalm entered an Internet chat room in March 2006 to communicate with a person he thought was a 13-year-old girl for sexual purposes. He provided his age, city of residence and the fact that he was a teacher. In fact, Schalm was chatting with a police officer. Schalm pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of Internet luring. He received a six-month conditional jail sentence and was ordered to complete 100 hours of community service. Further, he was ordered not to be in the presence of anyone under 18 except as required for employment or in the presence of his immediate family. Having considered the evidence, Schalm’s plea of guilty, an agreed statement of facts, a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel found Schalm guilty of professional misconduct and directed the Registrar to revoke his Certificates of Qualification and Registration. In its written decision, the Discipline Committee panel found Schalm’s offences “very disturbing.” The panel said the fact that Schalm did not intend to meet the “girl,” suggesting instead that they could have “chat sex” (flirtatious talk about kissing, sleeping apparel and private body parts) did not mitigate the severity of his actions. “Children are vulnerable members of society and must be safeguarded against predators who use the Internet to lure them into a situation where they can be sexually exploited and abused,” the panel said. The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Not identified A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on November 5, 2008 into allegations of professional misconduct against a member related to a criminal conviction for theft. The member, who taught elementary school for the Durham DSB, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that the member stole cash and a credit card from a school colleague and used them to buy jewellery and electronics, which were found later in her home. The member pleaded guilty to the criminal charges. She was given a conditional discharge, placed on 12 months probation and ordered to perform community service and to attend counselling. In December 2007, the board fired her. In its written decision, the panel said that the member “failed to maintain the standards of the profession by stealing from a colleague. “This is a fundamental betrayal of trust,” the panel wrote. “This action also contravened the Education Act that expects teachers to inculcate societal norms and serve as role models. The member’s actions were serious, fraudulent and deceitful toward her colleague. This conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional and unbecoming a member.” Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a plea of no contest, a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel reprimanded the member for professional misconduct. Further, the panel directed the Registrar to suspend her Certificates of Qualification and Registration until the end of June 2009. The reprimand provided an opportunity for peer counseling “to ensure her understanding of suitable ethical behaviour,” the panel said. The panel also said that suspension was more appropriate than revocation because “the member fully understands the enormity of her transgression, the goods were recovered, she pleaded guilty in criminal court, and she is determined to continue on her path of rehabilitation.” The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. |
