Conduct was contrary to duties of a teacher and broke trust with both school board and students
An Ontario teacher’s purchase of stolen goods from a student at his school was just cause for dismissal, an arbitrator has ruled.
The worker was a high school teacher for the York Region District School Board, where he was the head of the science department at a high school in Markham, Ont. He started teaching for the school board in 1995 and came to the Markham school in 2002.
A student at the school — whom the teacher had taught as a Grade 9 student in 2009 — was known as an “at-risk” student with academic, social, and emotional issues. The student had been suspended twice for drug-related incidents and often missed classes. In an attempt to get the student on the right track, the school board entered him into a program with academic and behavioural support from a child and youth worker employed by the school board. The teacher claimed to be aware the student had some issues, but didn’t know he had been disciplined or anything about his circumstances.
In December 2012, the teacher met the student in the boys’ washroom, where the student told him he had “a big lineup of stuff.” the teacher commented on a pair of headphones and the student told him he could get “anything you want at a cheap rate.” The student later testified the teacher gave him a list of things he wanted a few days later.
According to the student, he sought out the teacher on Jan. 15, 2013, with items to sell from “his uncle’s warehouse.” the teacher took him to the science storage room, where he purchased a shirt and a pair of shorts for $70 plus two lighters the teacher took from the supply cupboard. During this time, the teacher’s class was in the main classroom, which was visible through a window.
Teacher introduced other teachers to student and his merchandise
They left the room together and met a math teacher in the hallway. The teacher showed the other teacher the clothes he had bought and told him they came from a “wholesale warehouse. He led the teacher back to the science storage room, where the student showed more goods. The math teacher looked but left without buying anything.
The next day, the teacher met with the student again in the science storage room to view more clothing and brought along another teacher who had heard a student was selling clothing and asked the teacher about it. Neither teacher bought anything but the teacher’s colleague asked about getting a pair of jeans in a different size.
The day after that, Jan. 17, the student found the teacher while he was preparing for a class and said he could exchange a shirt he had bought for a different size. He also had a pair of jeans for the other teacher. They went into the science storage room and the teacher exchanged the shirt and bought two more items. He also called the other teacher about the jeans, which the teacher bought.
The teacherretrieved money for his purchases from his car and met the student by the library. Surveillance footage showed him looking briefly at others nearby, then pointing to the library and taking the student inside. The teacherlater acknowledged that he paid the student inside the library.
On Jan. 15 and 16, 2013, caretakers at the high school found broken retail security tags in a boys’ washroom. Meanwhile, the child and youth worker who was working with the troubled student notified the principal that the student was selling stolen clothes at the school and the teacher had purchased some from him. The child and youth worker also said she had learned the teacher had given the student a list of items to obtain for him.
School administrators began an investigation, as did the police. The teacher was placed on a paid leave of absence during the school investigation and police charged him with possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000. The school board then suspended its investigation while they observed how the criminal case proceeded.
An investigative meeting was scheduled for early May, where the teacher told school administrators that he first learned of the student’s clothing sales on Jan. 14, 2013, when he approached a group of boys. He said a boy told him the student was selling clothing from his father’s business and had no reason to believe they were lying. Nothing appeared to be out of the ordinary and he thought he would be helping out the student, though he also said he had no knowledge that the student’s family was struggling financially.
The teacher denied seeing any security or price tags on the items, but the student told the investigators and police he left tags on some of the items and when the teacher saw one, he looked at him and grinned. The teacheralso denied giving the student lighters as part of the payment, but acknowledged he kept a personal supply in the supply cupboard.
After the meeting, the school board superintendent provided him with a letter indicating he was recommending termination of his employment because he abused his role as a teacher in purchasing stolen goods from a student, encouraged other teachers to view and purchase stolen goods, and misappropriated board supplies — lighters from the science room — to pay for the stolen goods.
The teacher was terminated effective June 4, 2013. The criminal charges were withdrawn the following month after the teacher completed 50 hours of community service, though he didn’t admit guilt or accept responsibility for the alleged criminal conduct.
The other teacher whom the teacher introduced to the student and who bought clothing was suspended for one day without pay and issued a disciplinary letter.
Teacher likely knew items were stolen: Arbitrator
The arbitrator found there was no evidence the student actually told the teacher the goods were stolen, though there was reason for suspicion. The teacher could have used the science storage room because it had a table upon which to display the goods — as he maintained — and he may have been secretive about paying the student because he was uncomfortable with exchanging cash with a student. However, put together, the teacher’s behaviour was suspicious, said the arbitrator.
In addition, the arbitrator found it was likely the teacher saw a security tag on an item of clothing. The student was firm in his account that the teacher saw a tag and said he normally removed them with pliers, often at the point of sale. Caretakers found several tags in the same washroom where the teacher first met with the student, as well as in the science storage room.
“The most credible and convincing evidence presented at the hearing leads me to conclude that the teacher knew that the goods (the student) was selling were stolen,” said the arbitrator. “While this conclusion is primarily based upon my finding that he saw a security tag on an item of clothing, it is supported by the inference that the teacher learned of (the student’s) clothing sales before Jan. 14, 2013 (likely via an encounter in the boys’ washroom) and the inference that he sought to conceal payment for goods on Jan. 15 and Jan. 17, 2013.”
However, the arbitrator found the teacher’s introduction of the student to two other teachers — one who bought items and one who didn’t — didn’t constitute encouragement to view or purchase stolen goods — particularly since the second teacher asked to be introduced and stated the teacher didn’t influence his decision to buy.
The arbitrator also found it was unlikely the teacher purchased a supply of lighters for the science room supply cupboard to be used for experiments out of his own funds and they were likely school board property — particularly since he also denied using them for payment.
The arbitrator determined that the teacher knowingly purchased stolen goods from a student and took school board property to help pay for them. This was a breach of his duty under the Ontario Education Act, as he essentially encouraged the student to steal and failed to uphold “basic standards of conduct and virtues we subscribe to as a civil society.”
“As a teacher, indeed as an adult with his degree of knowledge and experience in the community, should have tried to discourage (the student) from such activity and helped him to find a more positive path,” the arbitrator said. “The teacher’s actions therefore not only breached the trust relationship of the school board, it also breached the trust relationship with this student that is essential to his role as a teacher.”
For more information see:
- York Region District School Board v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, District 16, 2016 CanLII 84432 (Ont. Arb.).
