Canadian Employment Law Today

6 | February 1, 2017 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2017 ployed by the school board. Lakhani claimed to be aware the student had some issues, but didn't know he had been disciplined or any- thing about his circumstances. In December 2012, Lakhani met the stu- dent in the boys' washroom, where the stu- dent told him he had "a big lineup of stuff." Lakhani commented on a pair of head- phones and the student told him he could get "anything you want at a cheap rate." e student later testified Lakhani gave him a list of things he wanted a few days later. According to the student, he sought out Lakhani on Jan. 15, 2013, with items to sell from "his uncle's warehouse." Lakhani 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, Lakhani's class was in the main classroom, which was visible through a window. Teacher introduced other teachers to student and his merchandise ey left the room together and met a math teacher in the hallway. Lakhani showed the other teacher the clothes he had bought and told him they came from a "wholesale ware- house. He led the teacher back to the science storage room, where the student showed more goods. e math teacher looked but left without buying anything. e next day, Lakhani met with the stu- dent again in the science storage room to view more clothing and brought along an- other teacher who had heard a student was selling clothing and asked Lakhani about it. Neither teacher bought anything but Lakhani's colleague asked about getting a pair of jeans in a different size. e day after that, Jan. 17, the student found Lakhani 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. ey went into the science storage room and Lakhani exchanged the shirt and bought two more items. He also called the other teacher about the jeans, which the teacher bought. Lakhani retrieved money for his pur- chases from his car and met the student by the library. Surveillance footage showed him looking briefly at others nearby, then point- ing to the library and taking the student inside. Lakhani later 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 Lakhani had purchased some from him. e child and youth worker also said she had learned Lakhani had given the student a list of items to obtain for him. School administrators began an investiga- tion, as did the police. Lakhani 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. e school board then sus- pended its investigation while they observed how the criminal case proceeded. An investigative meeting was scheduled for early May, where Lakhani told school ad- ministrators that he first learned of the stu- dent'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 stu- dent's family was struggling financially. Lakhani 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 Lakhani saw one, he looked at him and grinned. Lakhani also 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 super- intendent provided him with a letter indicat- ing 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 misappro- priated board supplies — lighters from the science room — to pay for the stolen goods. Lakhani was terminated effective June 4, 2013. e criminal charges were withdrawn the following month after Lakhani complet- ed 50 hours of community service, though he didn't admit guilt or accept responsibility for the alleged criminal conduct. e other teacher whom Lakhani intro- duced to the student and who bought cloth- ing was suspended for one day without pay and issued a disciplinary letter. Teacher likely knew items were stolen: Arbitrator e arbitrator found there was no evidence the student actually told Lakhani the goods were stolen, though there was reason for suspicion. Lakhani could have used the sci- ence storage room because it had a table upon which to display the goods — as he maintained — and he may have been se- cretive about paying the student because he was uncomfortable with exchanging cash with a student. However, put together, Lakhani's behaviour was suspicious, said the arbitrator. In addition, the arbitrator found it was likely Lakhani saw a security tag on an item of clothing. e student was firm in his ac- count 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 Lakhani first met with the student, as well as in the science storage room. "e most credible and convincing evi- dence presented at the hearing leads me to conclude that Mr. Lakhani 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 Mr. Lakhani learned of (the student's) clothing sales be- fore 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 Lakhani's introduction of the student to two other teachers — one who bought items and one who didn't — didn't constitute encourage- ment to view or purchase stolen goods — particularly since the second teacher asked to be introduced and stated Lakhani didn't influence his decision to buy. e arbitrator also found it was unlikely Lakhani 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. e arbitrator determined that Lakhani knowingly purchased stolen goods from a student and took school board property to help pay for them. is 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." "Mr. Lakhani as a teacher, indeed as an adult with his degree of knowledge and ex- perience in the community, should have tried to discourage (the student) from such activity and helped him to find a more posi- tive path," the arbitrator said. "Mr. Lakhani's actions therefore not only breached the trust relationship of the school board, it also breached the trust relationship with this stu- dent that is essential to his role as a teacher." For more information see: •York Region District School Board and OS- STF, District 16 (Lakhani), Re, 2016 Car- swellOnt 19244 (Ont. Arb.). Teacher denied seeing security tag « from TEACHER FIRED on page 1 Police charged the teacher with possession of property obtained by crime

• Cover