Professionally SpeakingThe Magazine of the Ontario College of Teachers
Back IssuesPour parler professionOct.ca

 

In this issue

Upfront

Departments

Features

Resources

Governing Ourselves

Reports

 

Reports: TQR changes| College Mandate | Council Meeting | Accreditation Committee | College Council | Public Interest | Investigations and Hearings | French-language services | TQR | Investigations | Dispute Resolution | Hearings

Hearings

Three-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: Thomas Leslie Newburgh
Registration number: 212643
Decision: Certificates revoked

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on April 24, 2007 into six allegations of professional misconduct against Thomas Leslie Newburgh related to a criminal conviction for fraud.

Newburgh, employed by the District School Board of Niagara, was certified to teach in November 2000. He did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel.

The panel received evidence that Newburgh and his common-law spouse received more than $600,000 in cheques obtained by fraudulent means from the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre over five-and-a-half years. In May 2003, Newburgh faced charges of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and uttering forged documents.

Newburgh pleaded guilty to fraud exceeding $5,000 and was sentenced to 18 months house arrest followed by three years probation. He and his common-law partner were also ordered to make restitution of $400,000.

Having examined the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a plea of no contest and a joint submission on penalty, the panel found Newburgh guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the Registrar to revoke his Certificates of Qualification and Registration.

The Discipline Committee panel wrote that “the member personally profited from his criminal activities at the expense of vulnerable members of society and has therefore abused the public trust.”

Further, “his involvement in this fraud and subsequent criminal conviction and sentence are inconsistent with the standards of the teaching profession… The member has brought the profession into disrepute and must forfeit the privilege of holding Certificates of Qualification and Registration. He has dishonoured the trust of children and cannot be a role model for them. He does not belong in the profession.”

The decision of the discipline panel appears on the College's public register.


Member: Robert John Creedon
Registration number: 189546
Decision: Reprimand with conditions

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on May 11, 2007 into seven allegations of professional misconduct against Robert John Creedon for disclosing inappropriate personal information to students and for sharing a room with three male students on an overnight trip.

Creedon, who received his Ontario Teacher's Certificate in June 1995, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel.

The panel heard evidence that Creedon, who worked for the Pic Mobert First Nation School Authority, told Grade 6-8 students that he had a yeast infection and spent an evening rubbing cream on a delicate area.

He also shared a room with three male students during a school trip. Creedon understood that school policy required him to sleep in the same room as, although in a different bed than, the students he chaperoned.

Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a guilty plea and a joint submission on penalty, the panel found the member guilty of professional misconduct. The panel reprimanded Creedon and directed that the decision appear in summary in Professionally Speaking and on the College's public register for three years.

The panel also directed Creedon to complete, at his own expense, a course on appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues within six months of the Discipline Committee decision, and to notify the Registrar within 30 days of its successful completion.


Member: Kelly Adrienne Pickard
Registration number: 420566
Decision: Reprimand, suspension and conditions

A Discipline Committee panel held public hearings on January 24, February 1 and April 20, 2007 into three allegations of professional misconduct against Kelly Adrienne Pickard related to inappropriate administration of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) in 2003.

Pickard, who was certified to teach in July 1998, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel.

The panel heard evidence that Pickard, who worked for the Hastings and Prince Edward DSB, acted contrary to EQAO instructions in administering the OSSLT.

Pickard acknowledged that, contrary to EQAO instructions, she:

  • told scribes and others involved in the administration of the tests not to seal the tests after the students were finished writing
  • told scribes that they “held the pens,” encouraged them to “do the best job they can” for the students and indicated that their role involved “levelling the playing field,” which some in attendance interpreted as an instruction to provide students with inappropriate assistance during the testing
  • told students during the test to “look at the question again” when they asked whether they had answered correctly
  • broke the seal on one student's test to enable him to continue writing after he had sealed the test at a scheduled interim break
  • reviewed the tests of non-scribed students for completeness and told students not to leave until they were finished
  • checked the test booklets of non-accommodated and accommodated (scribed) students to ensure they were complete, and arranged to have the student (and/or scribe) return to complete the answers.

Following a review, the EQAO determined that the irregularities in the administration of the test did not lead to a different pass/fail result for any of the school's students.

Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a guilty plea and joint submissions on penalty, the panel reprimanded Pickard for professional misconduct and directed that her Certificates of Qualification and Registration be suspended for six months, effective April 28, 2007.

Further, the panel directed Pickard to complete, at her own expense, a course on professional ethics prior to August 15, 2007. The panel said the suspension would be reduced by two months if Pickard provided proof of successful completion of the course to the Registrar by that date.

In reaching its decision, the panel considered the fact that, but for the circumstances related to the charges, many in her professional community consider Pickard to be a dedicated, capable and caring teacher.

The panel wrote: “The protocols of EQAO were clearly defined in detailed written instructions to schools and provided to the member. The member deliberately chose to disregard the protocols, particularly with respect to sealing of individual students' tests, time allowances and responding inappropriately to students' queries during the test. By these actions, the member failed to maintain the standards of the profession.”

With regard to suspension of her certificates, the panel considered Pickard's demotion and transfer by her board, consequent loss of salary and damage to her reputation.

“The reprimand, the six-month suspension and the course on ethics are appropriate in these circumstances,” the panel wrote. “These sanctions act as specific deterrents to ensure that the member understands the consequences of her behaviour and will not engage in similar behaviour.”

The decision of the discipline panel appears on the College's public register.


Member: Linda Marjorie Resmini
Registration number: 152431
Decision: Certificates revoked

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on April 23, 2007 into six allegations of professional misconduct against Linda Marjorie Resmini related to a criminal conviction for fraud.

Resmini, employed by the District School Board of Niagara, was certified to teach in June 1992. She was also a registered nurse who was employed by the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre (HHSC). Resmini did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel.

The panel received evidence that Resmini and her common-law spouse defrauded HHSC of more than $1 million by claiming payments for treatments and services by individuals Resmini fabricated belonging to an HHSC cleft lip and palate program that she facilitated. Cheques were deposited into a joint bank account belonging to Resmini and her common-law spouse.

In provincial court, Resmini pleaded guilty to fraud exceeding $5,000 and was sentenced to two years in prison followed by three years' probation. She and her common law partner were also ordered to make restitution of $400,000.

Having examined the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a plea of no contest and counsel submissions on penalty, the panel found Resmini guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the Registrar to revoke her Certificates of Qualification and Registration.

The Discipline Committee panel wrote that “the member, over the course of five-and-a-half years, undertook intricate and tedious planning… It was high-end fraud. It was carried out by a person who took advantage of her special position in the health-care industry.

“The member abused her position of trust and authority and in so doing has forfeited the privilege of being a member of the teaching profession,” the panel wrote.

“Her criminal actions against vulnerable members of society have proven that she is unable to put the needs of others ahead of her own. She dishonoured the trust of children and cannot be a role model for them. She does not belong in the profession.”

The decision of the discipline panel appears on the College's public register.


Member: Joan Teresa Bennett
Registration Number: 179581
Decision: Reprimand, suspension and conditions

A Discipline Committee panel held public hearings on May 14 and 15, 2007 into three allegations of professional misconduct against Joan Teresa Bennett related to inappropriate administration of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) in 2003.

Bennett, who was certified to teach in June 1983, attended the hearing on both dates and was represented by counsel.

The panel heard evidence that Bennett, who worked for the Hastings and Prince Edward DSB and had an unblemished 24-year career prior to the events of October 2003, acted contrary to EQAO instructions in administering the OSSLT.

While Bennett did not have any specific duties assigned to her with respect to the OSSLT, the panel heard evidence that she did not dispute the directions a colleague gave not to follow proper test procedures, and that Bennett did not request that the EQAO protocols be followed.

“In particular, the member went through the test booklets after the students had finished and left the testing area to ensure they were complete. Where incomplete test answers were found, arrangements were made for the students to return to complete the test answers before the booklets were sealed,” the Discipline Committee panel wrote.

Following a review, the EQAO determined that the irregularities in the administration of the test did not lead to a different pass/fail result for any of the school's students.

Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a guilty plea and joint submissions on penalty, the panel reprimanded Bennett for professional misconduct and directed that her Certificates of Qualification and Registration be suspended for six months, effective May 16, 2007.

The panel directed that Bennett complete before September 15, 2007, at her own expense, a course on professional ethics, and ordered that the last two months of the suspension will only take effect if the member does not successfully complete the course by that date.

The panel considered that Bennett's eligibility for a principal's position was suspended by the school board pending the hearing's outcome. “This has had a significant financial impact on the member and has damaged her professional reputation,” the panel wrote.

“Her silence on the matter is alarming, particularly because of her apparent eligibility to become a principal,” the panel said. “Furthermore, she participated in the review of the booklets to ensure that they had been completed by the students, an action that she knew contravened the EQAO protocol.

“Members of the profession are expected to set a strong example of ethical behaviour. In this case, the member's tampering with test booklets amounted to cheating and is contrary to the values of the educational system,” the panel said.

“Members of the profession as mentors and guides are expected to be models with respect to honesty generally, and academic honesty in particular. By her actions, the member failed to live up to these expectations and caused members of the public to question the integrity of the education system.

“The public has a right to have faith in the integrity of the process, ensuring that every student graduating from high school has achieved an adequate standard of literacy, without intervention. The member's actions were inappropriate and unacceptable.”

The decision of the discipline panel appears on the College's public register.


Member: Diane Margaret Fair
Registration number: 110871
Decision: Reprimand, suspension and conditions

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on May 14, 2007 into three allegations of professional misconduct against Diane Margaret Fair related to inappropriate administration of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) in 2003.

Fair, who was certified to teach in August 1972, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel.

The panel heard evidence that Fair, who worked for the Hastings and Prince Edward DSB and has since retired, acted contrary to EQAO instructions in administering the OSSLT.

As principal, Fair had primary and overall responsibility for the administration of the OSSLT, including delegating responsibility for training scribes and making arrangements for students with special needs.

Fair acknowledged that, contrary to EQAO instructions, she:

  • participated in a decision not to seal the tests until they were checked, even though she knew that violated EQAO instructions
  • reviewed students' unsealed test booklets
  • arranged to have students (and/or scribes) return to finish incomplete tests.

Following a review, the EQAO determined that the irregularities in the administration of the test did not lead to a different pass/fail result for any of the school's students.

Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a guilty plea and submissions on penalty, the panel reprimanded Fair for professional misconduct and directed that her Certificates of Qualification and Registration be suspended for 10 months, effective May 15, 2007.

The panel directed Fair to complete, at her own expense, a course on professional ethics prior to September 30, 2007 and agreed not to impose the last two months of the suspension if Fair could show the Registrar that she had successfully completed the course by September 30th.

The panel heard that Fair had an unblemished, highly respected 34-year career in public education prior to the events of October 2003.

However, the panel said that Fair “disregarded the protocols established by the EQAO by allowing and taking part in discussions that would result in staff being directed to contravene EQAO protocols.”

Further, “by being present and participating in activities contrary to the protocols, she was signalling to those present her approval of and agreement with actions being taken by her and others.

“Members of the profession are expected to set a strong example of ethical behaviour,” the panel said.

“In this case, the member's tampering with test booklets amounted to cheating and is contrary to the values of the education system… The public has a right to have faith in the integrity of the process, ensuring that every student graduating from high school has achieved an adequate standard of literacy, without intervention. The member's actions were inappropriate and unacceptable.

“The length of the suspension reflects the seriousness of the misconduct and informs the profession and the public that condoning cheating, specifically on the OSSLT, will not be tolerated.”

The decision of the discipline panel appears on the College's public register.


Member: Tyler Jason Pike
Registration number: 183151
Decision: Certificates revoked

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on June 4, 2007 into seven allegations of professional misconduct against Tyler Jason Pike related to a criminal conviction for sexual exploitation.

Pike, who was employed by the Upper Canada DSB, was certified to teach in June 1993. He did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel.

The panel received evidence that Pike had been convicted of sexual exploitation and sentenced to 15 months in custody and three years probation for his sexual relationship with a 16-year-old female high school student.

Pike engaged in sexual acts with the student, not one of his, between September 2004 and February 2005. Following an investigation, the board terminated his employment.

Having examined the evidence, a memorandum of agreement, a plea of guilty and counsel submissions, the panel found Pike guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the Registrar to revoke his Certificates of Qualification and Registration.

In rendering its decision, the Discipline Committee panel wrote, “He abused the authority and trust vested in him in his role as a teacher without regard for the well-being of students. His actions and criminal conviction demonstrate the seriousness of this matter. The committee, on behalf of the profession, must protect students and the public from such behaviours occurring in an education setting.

“This penalty demonstrates that the member's conduct is unacceptable in the eyes of the profession, the public and students and will not be tolerated.”

The decision of the discipline panel appears on the College's public register.


Member: James Maurice Melnick, also known as Jayme Melnick
Registration number: 443168
Decision: Certificates revoked

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on June 19, 2007 into nine allegations of professional misconduct against James Maurice Melnick related to his criminal conviction for his sexual relationship with a 14-year-old female student.

Melnick was also convicted of communicating by computer with a student he knew to be 14 years old, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence.

Employed by the Thames Valley DSB at the time, Melnick was first certified to teach in May 2001. He did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel.

The panel received evidence that the Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Melnick to six months in jail followed by a conditional sentence of 15 months.

In addition, he was ordered to undergo recommended counselling, avoid contact with the student or her family, refrain from using computer chat lines or e-mail to contact anyone under 14, and avoid the town where the student lives without advance approval from his supervisor.

The panel heard that Melnick sent weekly e-mails to the Grade 7 student and progressed to telephone conversations, more frequent e-mails and instant computer messages when the girl was in Grade 8. He assured the girl's mother he had no sexual interest in the student.

Subsequently, the relationship included phone and electronic communication at all hours, taking walks and trips together, and engaging in many acts of kissing, oral sex and sexual touching. On one occasion, Melnick spent the night with the student in a hotel 50 kilometres from her home.

Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a guilty plea and a joint submission on penalty, the committee found Melnick guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the Registrar to revoke his Certificates of Qualification and Registration.

“The committee finds the member's conduct is reprehensible and unbecoming a member of the profession,” the panel wrote in its decision.

“The member abused the authority and trust vested in him in his role as a teacher for his own gratification, without regard to the well-being of the student. The conduct of the member was unacceptable and in conflict with the duty of a teacher to protect, not abuse, students. Therefore, the member has forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession.”

The decision of the discipline panel appears on the College's public register.


Member: Not Identified
Decision: Reprimand with conditions

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing into six allegations of professional misconduct against a member for inappropriate contact with students.

The member, employed by the Upper Grand DSB, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel.

The panel heard evidence that the member asked students to massage his back during his technology class to help relieve an apparent muscle spasm. Although several male students acceded to the request and were witnessed by others, two students reported feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed. Following an investigation, the member was suspended by the board for four days without pay.

Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a plea of no contest and a joint submission on penalty, the panel reprimanded the member for professional misconduct.

The panel also directed the member to complete, at his own expense, a course on appropriate boundaries and boundary-violation issues within three months and to notify the Registrar within 30 days of its successful completion.

The panel decided to publish the findings without the name of the member. “The misconduct was a unique incident and was not of a severe nature,” the panel wrote.

“There was no evidence before the committee of any previous or subsequent misconduct. Publication of the member's name as a specific deterrent is unnecessary as the member has learned that his behaviour was inappropriate and it has not been repeated since his return to the classroom. The member understands through his suspension from employment and his appearance before the Discipline Committee that these admitted facts constitute professional misconduct.”

One panel member disagreed that publication be without the name of the member and wrote a dissenting opinion.

“To assure the transparency of the process, in an open hearing, the College has a duty to report to the public,” the minority decision stated.

“In order to protect and serve the public interest, the member's name should be published unless there are good reasons to not include the member's name. In this case there were not sufficient compelling reasons to not publish the name of the member. The need to publish the member's name and thereby inform the public outweighs the potential impact of embarrassment to the member.”

Glossary of terminology

The vocabulary used to report disciplinary hearings reflects their quasi-judicial nature. If you wonder what some terms mean, help is at hand.

For past and future reference, the College has posted a glossary of terms on its web site. A link to the glossary can be found on the decision-summary page.

Visit Glossary of Terms.