Summary
The Supreme Court restored a schoolteacher’s termination following a departmental inquiry into sexual harassment of adolescent students. Two inquiry members wrongly withheld conclusions because criminal cases were pending and they feared contempt. Departmental and criminal proceedings have different purposes and standards of proof. On the evidence and fair procedure in this case, management could rely on the convenor’s findings rather than repeat the inquiry.
Issues
- Whether pending criminal cases prevented the departmental inquiry from reaching a decision.
- Whether management could terminate service on the convenor’s findings in these circumstances.
Held
- Departmental proceedings differ from criminal trials in purpose, standard of proof and approach. Proceeding independently on these serious allegations did not constitute contempt merely because criminal prosecutions were pending. The two members’ refusal to decide on that basis was unsustainable. (¶ 14)
- Sexual-harassment allegations require sensitivity and assessment of the whole material and broader probabilities, rather than insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities. (¶ 15)
- Management had informed the authorities, acted through a school-committee resolution and constituted an appropriate inquiry committee which heard twelve witnesses, including five students. Where two members withheld a clear decision for the erroneous contempt concern, reliance on the convenor’s conclusions was fair and justified on these facts. (¶¶ 14, 16–17)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. Tribunal and High Court decisions set aside; termination under the management’s resolution of 26 September 2014 affirmed.