Principal facing charges is given show of support: Is this right?

A former principal charged with allegedly failing to report the sexual assault of a Muslim girl by other students in her school was honoured for her "courageous contribution" to the education of black children on April 4, 2008.

The Global Afrikan Congress-Canada showed its support for Charis Newton-Thompson, the former principal of C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute, at its annual "family gathering" held at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Police charged Newton-Thompson, along with her two vice-principals Stan Gordon and Silvio Tallevi, in January of this year with failing to report a sexual assault on a student at their school by other students.

The GAC co-chair Cikiah Thomas before presenting the certificate of appreciation said, "We know of the recent event, we know the reason why and we want to make it quite clear that Charis is not alone and she will never be alone."

She and the two vice principals were charged under the Child and Family Services Act for failing to report the sexual assault by other students in their school against the Muslim student in the school washroom in October 2006. She and her two vice principals were put on home leave and face fines of up to $1,000 if convicted. The law is quite clear. Those persons who have children in their care are required by law to notify the police or Children’s Aid of any abuse they are aware of committed by anyone else against a child and this they chose not to do.

The charges stem from an investigation into school safety following the shooting death of 15-year-old Jordan Manners at C.W. Jefferys on May 23, 2007. It uncovered allegations of an October 2006 sexual assault on a Muslim girl in a school washroom that the three administrators allegedly failed to report to the police or the Children's Aid.

It is unfortunate that some of the male students in that school were taking advantage of a Muslim girl whom they knew would not report the sexual assault on her because once it became known by her family and/or other Muslims that she had been sexually abused by a male person, she would be treated with contempt and no Muslim man would marry her.

Cikiah Thomas said, "I think largely we find that people had not necessarily treated (Newton-Thompson) fairly, or the board had not, because other teachers have had the pulpit, so to speak, and they have not come to her defence."

Then she added, "They have not spoken up for her and they sort of treated her as if she was guilty and she had to prove her innocence first."

I am not going to say that she is guilty but let me ask this rhetorical question. If a principal of a school is required by law to report any crime brought about on another student in his or her care, and chooses to remain silent, is he or she not breaking the law? Of course, this is on the premise that the principal is aware of the assault in the first place. That has yet to be determined.

Cikiah Thomas in explaining why his organization gave her the award said that the award recognized her for her outstanding, unwavering and courageous contribution toward the struggle for equity and access for blacks in education. What about her outstanding, unwavering and courageous contribution towards the struggle to keep students safe from predators in her school?

I don't fully agree with that conclusion considering the fact that a 15-year-old student was shot to death in her school nine months later.

If these three administrators try to explain that if they knew about the assaults (which according to the lawyer for the principal, she did not know of them) and had reported the sexual assault on a Muslim girl in their school, the girl would be shunned by her family (as often does happen in Muslim families) that explanation wouldn't pass muster.

Since the matter wasn't reported to the police, the male students accused of sexually abusing her, continued to do so. They are facing charges also.

As far as the Global Afrikan Congress-Canada organization and its role in this matter, they should be shunned and treated with the contempt they deserve. They should have kept the award to themselves instead of bringing contempt upon themselves by awarding it to a principal who is facing serious charges.

I am convinced that the purpose of giving the award is so that it can be used as a means of ensuring that she who is a black administrator in the school system doesn’t lose her job. That is a bad motive. If that organization denies that, then why didn’t she get the award before the girl was sexually abused by some of her fellow students in that school?

A factor in receiving an award is the presence of powerful champions on one's behalf and, equally important, is an absence of powerful enemies. In an ideal world, perhaps we'd have neither champions nor enemies. We should operate solely on the individual merit of the nominees and their work. I am not disputing their claim that she has done much for her black students but that means little when she is facing serious charges with respect to the sexual assaults against a student who isn't black.

Awards are not only for the recipients; they also serve to make the people responsible for the recipient being chosen for the award and the colleagues of the recipient feel good about themselves and about their profession. But in this instant case, how can this woman’s colleagues feel good about themselves when they realized that a young Muslim girl was sexually abused while her principal allegedly said nothing to anyone about it? A pox on them all.

RESPONSE TO A LETTER FROM A READER

I received an email message from one of my readers taking issue with some of the points I made in the above article. It is not generally my policy to reply to messages sent to me with respect to my articles in my blog but I will do so in this case because the issues this person raised are interesting and challenging.

In the message, the reader said;

"…….you should know that in the western system of justice which is subscribed to by Canada through the charter of Rights and Freedoms requires everyone to be treated equally before and under the law. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms also states that under our system of justice, an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Has Charis Newton Thompson been found guilty of any offence, including the one mentioned in your article, by a court of law?"

From what the reader was saying is that I have convicted the principal of the C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute in North York without her having the benefit of a trial. Let me deal with that issue by reviewing the facts of the case.

She is accused (along with her two vice principals) of not reporting to the police or alternatively to the Children’s Aid the incidents in which a Muslim female student was sexually attacked by boys in her school, the said attacks having taken place in one of her school’s washrooms during school hours. I feel confident that the police would not have charged her with that offence if there was a record of her having notified the police and/or Children’s Aid of these offences that this poor girl was forced to endure a number of times in her school. I would be remiss if I didn't add that the lawyer for the principal denies the allegation.

The School Safety Community Advisory Panel released its findings on August 28th 2007 detailing the state of school safety at the troubled C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute in North York while she was the principal. The panel unearthed evidence that the administration failed to report an alleged sexual assault on a 14-year-old female student. As many people are no doubt aware, the principal and vice-principals were given other duties after the panel discovered that staff didn't follow through on some serious allegations first raised by a teacher. This is yet to be proved in court.

The CFSA (Child and Family Services Act) charges (if applicable) reflect allegations aired at the panel hearings that school staff became aware of the washroom incident but failed to report it to police or the Children's Aid Society, as the law supposedly requires with all allegations of physical or sexual assault.

I can appreciate an argument in a limited degree that could be forwarded in her defence that the principal and two vice principals might not have been told by their staff that the girl was sexually molested in a school washroom. But I have difficulty accepting that premise considering the fact that in the Report, teachers at C.W. Jefferys came forward saying the school had appalling safety conditions including alleged beatings and gun sightings that were ignored by the school's administration. (principal and both vice principals)

The panel learned of the allegations that a Muslim girl was attacked in a school washroom in October 2006 and that the school administrators were told of it but did not report it to police or the Children’s Aid Society. If they ignored complaints by teachers about beatings and gun sightings, is it possible that they also ignore instances of sex molestation of a student by other students?

I am convinced that the police authorities probably reviewed the allegations with an assistant crown attorney (assistant district attorney in the USA) before deciding to file the charges and considering the evidence that was produced during the hearings conducted by the panel with respect to the testimony given by the witness who attended the school as students and teachers alike, I don’t see how the police could arrive at any other conclusion other than the one they arrived at and that is that the principal and her two vice principals were informed of the sexual assaults on the young girl and did not report the assaults to the police or alternatively to the Children’s Aid. Again I say, these allegations have yet to be determined in court.

Do I think she was wrong in not doing so? If she was informed of the assaults, then yes I do. I could be wrong, just as the police can be wrong and just as the assistant crown attorney who will prosecute her may be wrong but surely my reader wasn’t suggesting that I can’t express my views publicly as to whether or not I think the principal was wrong in not reporting the abuse to the appropriate authorities. Let me ask this rhetorical question.

If a principal of a school is required to report any crime brought about on another student in his or her care, and chooses to remain silent, is he or she not wrong in not reporting the crime to someone in authority?

My article in my blog was not so much about the principal as it was about the organization that awarded her for her work at the school.

We all remember Alan Eagleson, the former Canadian hockey czar who had a position of power, wealth and fame; the friend of prime ministers and Supreme Court justices, whose reach into the top echelons of the Canadian Establishment never exceeded his grasp. He even received the Order of Canada for his work as a hockey czar. Then later everyone learned that he was a thief who stole a million dollars from the hockey players and their pension fund. Thirty prominent people - from hockey, politics, the media, even the church - most of who did not know he was negotiating a plea bargain that would see him plead guilty, had sent glowing letters that were read into the public record, lauding him for being a good friend and a great family man of the highest integrity. "We have often talked about shared values," wrote former Liberal prime minister John Turner. "For him those values are Faith, Family and Friends." Added Bob Clarke, the president and general manager of the Philadelphia Flyers: "Alan is a very good and decent Man!"

Would they have made those statements had they known that he was going to plead guilty to stealing a million dollars from the players he was representing? I think not. Most of us condemned the man and the media did the same thing long before his trial commenced even before we learned that he would later plead guilty to his crimes. Our conclusions were later determined to be justified when he pleaded guilty at his trial to stealing from the players and their pension plan.

Imagine how embarrassed Canadian officials felt after they awarded him the Order of Canada, and then learned that this thief had pleaded guilty to stealing all that money from hockey players and their pension plan. Needless to say, the Order of Canada was returned.

What I am trying to say is that some people who have read the news probably believe at this present time that the principal and her two vice principals were really wrong in what they neglected to do if in fact they neglected to notify the authorities of the sexual assault upon the student. I am sure I speak for everyone who has those current thoughts in mind that if they are acquitted, or if it is determined that they did no wrong, we will immediately change our opinion but until then, I will keep to my opinion as it stands at this present time.

What can be learned from the Alan Eagleson fiasco with reference to giving out awards, is to make sure that the person being honoured is conducting herself or himself in a manner that justifies the giving of the award that is to be given to the recipient.

The question that is pertinent in this reply to my reader with respect to the principal of the troubled C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute is; should she have been honoured for her ‘courageous contribution to the education of black children’? Those are the words of the organization that it said of her when they gave her the award.

What did the Falconer Report on the School Safety Community Advisory Panel say after they investigated the principal and her school? The report was partly based on discussions with students, teachers and people from the North York community in Toronto.

It said that besides theft, bullying and beatings, the panel found three main problem areas at the institution including: students loitering in the hallways and student-teacher relationships which were strained. This is on top of the fact that the principal was allegedly warned about the sexual attacks being brought upon the Muslim girl in one of the school’s washrooms and the principal didn’t do anything about reporting it to the authorities as expected. Further, teachers at C.W. Jefferys came forward saying the school had appalling safety conditions that were ignored by the school's administration.

Now whisper it in my ear that this principal ran her school in a manner that can be construed as bringing to her school a ‘courageous contribution to the education of black children’. How could this woman contribute to the education of black children if (as alleged) she had little or no control of her school?

My reader asked me;

"What do you know about the career of Charis Newton Thompson, which makes you think yourself qualified to judge, her worthiness for the award?"

That same question can be asked as to what did I know about Alan Eagleson that made me think that he was guilty of theft before he was tried for the crime in court. I didn’t know the man personally and I certainly wasn’t a member of the investigation team that looked into his criminal activities but after hearing what was said on TV and after reading about him in the media, I had a pretty good idea in my mind that that man had taken money from the players for his own personal use. As it turned out, my opinion and the opinions of thousands of others was shared by the court.

I think that the former principal of the C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute did wrong if she didn't report the incident to the proper authorities if she was informed of the abuse and I am convinced in my own mind that many other people in Canada concur with my own thoughts.

My reader also asked;

"Have you Read the Falconer Report on School safety or heard of his finding that a culture of silence permeates all levels of the TDSB (Toronto District Scool Board)and that the case in question in not an isolated case, but common throughout the TDSB system?"

I read a summary of the Report and although there is a culture of silence in the school board, that doesn’t mean that a principal of a school has the right to remain silent if she has been informed that one of her students is being sexually molested by other students in her school.

The next question my reader put to me was;

"Who specifically does the Act require to report? What specific facts (do) you have to suggest that Charis Newton Thompson and the Vice principals that you named were in possession of reportable information under the Child and Family Services Act?"

That is a very valid question. I am not however convinced that that Act applies in this situation. Let me quote Section 72.(1) of the Act that is pertinent to my reader’s inquiry. It says;

"Despite the provisions of any other Act, if a person, including a person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children, has reasonable grounds to suspect one of the following, the person shall forthwith report the suspicion and the information on which it is based to a society:

1. The child has suffered physical harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
i. failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
ii. pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.

2. There is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
i. failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
ii. pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.

3. The child has been sexually molested or sexually exploited, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child."

As you can see, the Act only applies to reporting abuse of a child committed by someone in charge of the child. The students who sexually abused the student victim weren’t in charge of the student who was sexually abused. This Act would apply only if the person in charge of the child was a parent or guardian or a coach or instructor etc.

The written law must be interpreted in the way that a reasonable person would interpret it. That being so, I don’t see how the Act would apply in a case such as this one. I have spoken to my former law professor who taught me family law and he agrees with me that it doesn’t appear on the surface that this Act applies in this particular case. If the three administrators satisfy the court that they did not know that the Muslim student was continuously being sexually assaulted by other students, the Act certainly wouldn't apply.

Ordinary citizens are not legally required to report crimes to the police. They often refuse to do this because of the fear of reprisals. However, people who have the responsibility of having the care and/or control of children, for example, principals, teachers, instructors and coaches etc., have a responsibility to report crimes against children to the police or the Children’s Aid if they become aware of the crimes or crime committed against a child. This also applies doctors and nurses, psychologists, members of the clergy, social workers or family counselors, etc. If they choose not to act in accord with that responsibility, then they could be charged with criminal negligence and be subjected to a civil trial in which they may end up having a huge financial award issued against them for damages if it turns out that their silence resulted in the child being further harmed after the professional learned of the abuse and did nothing to stop it or alternatively, report it.

Section 219.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to criminal negligence states in part;

"Every one is criminally negligent who in omitting to do something that is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."

In my opinion, if it is established that the principal was informed of the sexual assaults of the young Muslim girl in her school and didn’t takes steps to prevent further abuse by the students, which it was her duty to do so, then she would have omitted to do her duty and would have displayed wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of the girl. That of course would only apply if she didn’t immediately after learning of the assaults, take steps to protect the girl. There is no evidence that I know of that she didn’t take steps to protect the girl once she became apprised of the sexual assaults against the girl by the students. Now obviously, if the child was being abused elsewhere and the principal couldn't personally intervene, there would still be a duty to report it to the authorities if she knew of the abuse so that they could intervene.

There doesn’t seem to be any provincial or federal law in Ontario that covers a situation like this one where the students were the abusers. If the principal and the vice principals are acquitted of the charges they are facing because of that anomaly in the Child and Family Services Act, then it will be time to change the law with respect to the issue of abuses against a student by another person who isn’t responsible for the care of the child, such as parents or guardians who are responsible.

My reader asked me another interesting question which I wish to share with you. She asked;

"If the Court fails to convict Charis Newton Thompson and, or the others charged for failing to report, would you consider yourself prepared to face a libel or Defamation of Character suit? In your opinion, would such a suit be defendable?"

I will answer that question by quoting from a decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada. In Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd., 1978 CanLII 20 (S.C.C.), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067, Justice Dickson adopted the statement of the main principles relating to the defence of fair comment from the authors Duncan and Neill on Defamation (1978), at pp. 1099-1100, setting out the requirements to satisfy that defence:

(a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest;
(b) the comment must be based on fact;
(c) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must
be recognizable as comment;
(d) the comment must satisfy the ‘objective test’: (such as) could
any man honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?
(e) even though the comment satisfies the objective test, the
defence can be defeated ‘if the plaintiff proves that the
defendant was actuated by express malice’.

Fair Comment, as described elsewhere, absent malice, is also available as a defence where the following elements have been proved:

i. The words are comment and not a statement of fact;

ii. There is a basis of fact for the comment contained or referred to in the manner complained of; and

iii. It is a matter of public interest.

In Raymond E. Brown’s ‘The Law of Defamation in Canada’ (of which I have a copy) Vol. 1, Chap. 1, page 35, fair comment is described this way:

"Fair comments made honestly and in good faith on matters of public interest are protected against an action for defamation, unless they are made maliciously. The statement must be one of comment and not of fact, and in order to be fair, it must be an honest expression of opinion on facts which are true and known to the persons to whom the comment is made. Where the comment imputes evil, base or corrupt motives, it must also be shown that such imputations are warranted by the facts, and could be drawn by a reasonable person. The public interest may be shown by the importance of the person about whom the comment is made, or because of the interest generated by the event, occasion or circumstances giving rise to the comment."

I have never libeled anyone. Any time that I have published a written form of chastisement, it has always been written as fair comment and without malice of any form. This applies in the blogs I also write and publish on the Internet.

I am still of the opinion that the principal and the vice principals would be wrong if they knew about the assaults aforehand and chose not to report the abuses brought upon their student by other students to the authorities, notwithstanding the fact that I can’t find any legislation that specifically says that they were required to report the offending students to the authorities.

I am grateful to my reader for sending her message to me. I hope you enjoyed reading my reply as much as I did preparing it.

As this matter proceeds to trial, I will keep you informed if there are any new developments.

NOTE: On April 7th, the charges were dismissed because the charges were not laid within six months after the authorities became aware of the neglect of the principal and her cohorts. I will let you know later if they are permitted to remain employed in the school system.

December 12, 2008
The province of Ontario will introduce legislation next spring making it mandatory for teachers and school staff to report "serious incidents" between students to the principal who will in turn report the serious incidents to the police.