'Standards same today as in 1972'
Registrar says kids come first
Susan Lazaruk, The Province
Published: Friday, October 20, 2006

It was just as unethical for teachers to have sex with their students 30 years ago as it is today, the head of the B.C. College of Teachers said yesterday.

College registrar Marie Kerchum testified yesterday at former Prince of Wales teacher Tom Ellison's trial.

Ellison's charged with 16 counts of gross indecency and indecent assault against teen female students at the school for a decade beginning in 1972.

A single charge of sexual assault was changed yesterday to indecent assault.

Kerchum, college registrar for three years and deputy registrar for 17 years, also taught high school in B.C. from 1972 to 1978.

She said sexual activity between a teacher and student would breach the teachers' published code of ethics. The code states a teacher recognizes he has a privileged relationship with students and "refrains from exploiting that relationship for personal gain," she said.

Kerchum said that would also apply to a consensual relationship "because the relationship is unequal; the teacher has all the power."

Kerchum said the standards would apply on or off school property and if the student was no longer in the teacher's care.

Asked whether standards are different today from the era between 1972 and 1982, she said: "The standards would be exactly the same. The rules haven't changed. The kids come first."

Under cross-examination by defence lawyer Bill Smart, Kerchum admitted teachers, unlike lawyers and other professionals, aren't required to take university courses solely dedicated to professional ethics, but said they were included in other courses.

Also testifying yesterday was the final student witness, known only as Complainant 11. She appeared without the public and media present.

A transcript of her testimony is to be made public this morning.

Judge Mark Takahashi yesterday ruled that Complainant 11 would endure "undue hardship" if she were to testify in public.

Takahashi said he would provide a written copy of his ruling Tuesday when court resumes with the opening of the defence's case.

Smart is expected to challenge the constitutionality of the gross indecency charge, which was replaced by the more clearly defined sexual assault charge in 1983. He has also said he will argue the concept of whether his client's behaviour was a "marked departure" from the community standards of the day. Ellison may testify.

slazaruk@png.canwest.com