DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Fabel, 2010 ONOCT 12

Date: 2010-04-30

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against William Johan Fabel, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers

PANEL: Ted Coulson, OCT, Chair Don Cattani, OCT Lynne Mastin

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Jane Langford & Heather Meredith, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Jennifer Robinson, Law Clerk

• and -

WILLIAM JOHAN FABEL (CERTIFICATE N0. 185036) David Bloom, Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP, for William J. Fabel, assisted by Philip Abbink

Johanna Braden & Christopher Wirth, Stockwoods LLP, Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: October 26, 2005, November 7, 2005, March 7, 8 & 9, 2006, May 23, 2006, November 22 & 23, 2006, March 7 & 8, 2007, July 4, 5 & 6, 2007, September 27 & 28, 2007, October 23 & 24, 2007, April 15, 16 & 17 2008, April 22, 23 & 24, 2008, July 16, 17 & 18, 2008, and September 4 & 5, 2008

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

This hearing began before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on October 26, 2005 at the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) at Toronto. The hearing took place over a three-year period, continuing on for a further 28 dates (as shown above), ending on September 5, 2008.

The Member was in attendance throughout the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

At the outset of the hearing, the College sought and obtained leave from this Committee to withdraw certain allegations and particulars. The remaining allegations against William Johan Fabel (the “Member”) in the amended Notice of Hearing dated January 19, 2004 (Exhibit 1) are as follows.

IT IS ALLEGED that William Johan Fabel is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in section 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”) and /or is incompetent as defined in section 30(3) of the Act, in that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) he abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically, and/or emotionally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) he failed to comply with the Act and the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) and (d) thereof or the Regulations made under those Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14) and (15);

(d) he committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and

(f) he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or a disregard for the welfare of students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. William Johan Fabel (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member was employed by the Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board (“the Board”) from in or about September 1989. At all times material hereto, the Member taught [XXX] at the Grade 9 through 12 levels at [XXX] School (“the School”).

3. From as early as 1997, and continuing through to October 2002, the Member made denigrating comments to and about students, staff and parents, including sexual remarks and remarks of a racist nature. The Member also made demeaning comments about the School administration and staff in the presence of students, fellow teachers and staff members at the School and made overt threats to students and staff respecting their potential disclosure of his behaviour to parents, the School and/or Board administration, respectively.

4. On numerous occasions throughout 2001 and 2002, the Member made denigrating comments about the Roman Catholic religion that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

5. [XXX] was a female student in the Member’s [XXX] class during the academic year commencing September 2001 and was a student in his [XXX] class commencing September 2002.

6. [XXX] was a female student in the Member’s [XXX] classes, the last of these being the 2002/2003 academic year.

7. [XXX] was a female student in the Member’s [XXX] class during the 2002/2003 academic year.

8. [XXX] was a female student in the Member’s [XXX] class.

9. [XXX] was a female student in the Member’s [XXX] class in the second semester of 2002.

10. [XXX] was a male student in the Member’s [XXX] class during the 2001/2002 academic year.

11. [XXX] was a female student in the Member’s [XXX] class and then again in his [XXX] class.

12. [XXX] was a male student at the School and one of the students in the Member’s wife’s [XXX] class during the second semester of the 2002 academic year.

13. [XXX] was a female student at the School during the 2001/2002 academic year.

14. [XXX] was a male student at the School during the 2001/2002 academic year.

15. [XXX] was a female student at the School.

16. [XXX] was a female student at the School. She was in a class taught by the Member’s wife.

17. [XXX] was a female student at the School.

18. [XXX] was a male student at the School.

19. [XXX] was a female student in the Member’s [XXX] class.

20. [XXX] was a female student in the Member’s class in 1997.

21. The Member made sexual, racist, demeaning and denigrating comments, including but not limited to the following:

(a) that he was a leg man and liked girls in kilts;

(b) that he had a hidden camera under all the girls’ desks so that he could look up their kilts;

(c) on one occasion when she was wearing suede boots, the Member felt up and down [XXX]’s legs while saying “Nice boots, nice legs”;

(d) that students who chew on their pencils are sexually frustrated and girls who suck on popsicles are exhibiting penis envy;

(e) spoke about his own sexual activities and encouraged his students to share their sexual experiences. On one occasion, the Member told his students that he had three children and that there was nothing happening in his bedroom;

(f) asked the boys in class, when discussing a student-created website which listed two female students who would make it in Playboy - “How many of you guys would sleep with these two girls for a million dollars?”

(g) would read “pick-up” lines from the Internet to his male students and would provide them with pointers for “how to get into girls’ pants”;

(h) said to the class about [XXX] - “someone that wide and that poorly dressed cannot be missed”;

(i) spoke to his students about his own bar experiences and how he would pick up women. When questioned by the students about the fact that he had a wife and children at home, the Member responded that it was a different area code;

(j) asked a quiet, shy male student, [XXX] – “Are you going to be a serial killer?” and suggested to the class “This is the kind of kid we have to worry about”;

(k) told [XXX] - “You are going to be an axe murderer” and told her where she could purchase an axe;

(l) referred to [XXX] as a “retard from the sticks”;

(m) referred to the principal as “Big Bird”, and to the three vice-principals as “The Three Stooges”;

(n) said to [XXX] – “If you want to laugh, picture [the female Principal] naked”;

(o) made fun of the female staff, saying that they did not know what they were doing, and questioned their qualifications;

(p) asked the girls in his class whether they could picture a male teacher in a thong;

(q) referred to the classes of a teacher of religion as a waste of time and commented that this teacher, a nun, “doesn’t get any”;

(r) stated that two female teachers were strippers and suggested to his male students that they go downtown to check out one of these teachers going down the pole;

(s) referred to the teachers’ retreat as a waste of time;

(t) commented about “the assholes at the Board who put on the leadership program because that’s where this whole f***ed up mess stems from”;

(u) made comments about his ex-wife, including that “she should be in the zoo with the other rhinos or hippos”;

(v) advised his students that they were not required to take religion classes in order to graduate;

(w) commented to his students that “I’m not here to blow sunshine up your ass”;

(x) told his students that he did not believe in God and asked the students what God had ever done for them;

(y) told students that there was no room in the world for gay and lesbian people;

(z) threatened the students in his wife’s class by stating that they would have to answer to him if they gave his wife any problems;

(aa) threatened [XXX] on one occasion who he found guilty of a uniform infraction – “I never forget a face. Next time I see you out of uniform, I’ll burn you so bad you’ll wish you died as a child”;

(bb) said to the mother of two students at the School at the beginning of a parent-teacher interview – “Who do you want to talk about first? Dumb or Dumber.”

The numbering of the paragraphs in 21 above has been changed to reflect the fact that on November 7, 2005, counsel for the College advised that the College would not be calling evidence with respect to certain particulars in this paragraph, previously numbered 21. (d), (e), (f), (h), (l), (m), (n), (s), (gg), (hh), (ii), (jj), (kk), (ll), (mm) and (nn). These particulars have been removed from paragraph 21 above.

22. The Member warned his students that anything that happens in the classroom must stay in the classroom and once became very angry when he learned that he had been reported by one of his students. On one occasion, the Member said to [XXX] and a group of [XXX]’s friends: “Which one of you shit talkers was talking about me? If I ever find out which one of you shit talkers was talking shit about me, I’ll make sure you burn in hell.”

23. The Member told his students that if they made reports about him to their parents, that he would lie and they would not be believed because he was their teacher. The Member stated that he could ruin their future lives; that he could gain access to their bank accounts and student codes at the school, and that he knew how to break into any computer. The Member spoke often and at length about his military experiences, about weapons, hunting, and guns. On at least one occasion in class, the Member described in detail how to slit someone’s throat. Many of the Member’s students were frightened by the Member’s comments.

24. On one occasion, shortly after the Columbine shooting incident, the Member came into his class, pretended to be a gunman and had his students cower under their desks.

25. The Member, following one parent-teacher interview, remarked to a student that the student’s mother was an ‘m. i. l. f.’, meaning ‘mother I’d like to f***’.

26. A number of the female teachers at the School were fearful of the Member. These female teachers were afraid to report the Member’s behaviour for fear of reprisal by the Member, which fear included fear for their physical safety.

OVERVIEW

At all material times, the Member was employed by the Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board (“the Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (“the School”). During the 2001 and 2002 school years, the Member taught [XXX] at the Grade 9 through 12 levels. The case concerned the Member’s verbal interactions with students, colleagues and parents.

The specific issues for the Committee to consider were whether or not the Member engaged in inappropriate communication by making denigrating and demeaning comments, including sexual and racist remarks to and about students, staff, parents and the Roman Catholic religion, and whether this conduct amounted to professional misconduct.

After hearing all the evidence and considering the submissions of counsel for both parties and the onus and standard of proof, the Committee found that the Member committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18), in that he made derogatory comments about his ex-wife in class, stating or implying that she was overweight.

The other incidents alleged by the College either were not proven on a balance of probabilities, or were proven but were not found by this Committee to constitute professional misconduct in all the circumstances.

ONUS AND STANDARD OF PROOF

The onus of proof was on the College. The standard of proof applied by the Committee was the balance of probabilities, using clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

EVIDENCE

The Committee had the benefit of the transcripts of the evidence, and very detailed written submissions from counsel. The Committee has carefully reviewed and considered those written submissions in making its decision.

(a) Background

The general background to this matter is not contested. The Member has many academic qualifications (BA, MA, BEd, MEd) and is currently in a Doctoral Program at OISE, University of Toronto. [Exhibit 2 and Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 6, l. to p. 7, l. 18]

The Member was employed primarily to teach [XXX] by the Board from 1989 until his employment was terminated in November 2002. He was never disciplined by the Board.

In October of 1997 there was a political protest against the Ontario government. The Member crossed the picket line, and thus came into conflict with many staff members. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 103, l. 24 to p. 104, l. 2]. Following this incident, the Member was allocated a classroom in a part of the school away from his Departmental area and the other Department members. [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2006, p. 66, l. 10-19]

In a letter of support dated April 2000, Darlene Kennedy, then the Principal of the School, wrote the following about the Member in his application for a departmental headship: Bill is “very well respected and admired by his students” and “most co-operative, congenial and most dependable”. [Exhibit 12]

The Member went to Principal Kennedy in Semester 2 of 2001-2002 about the conduct of some of his colleagues that was producing conflict, specifically the playing of loud music in teacher preparation areas and the disturbance of his research materials. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 113, l. 2 to p. 114, l. 7]

Teresa Georges was assigned to be Principal of [XXX] for 2002-2003. On August 26, 2002, the Member sent an e-mail to Georges where he reiterated the concerns raised with Principal Kennedy. Georges testified that “by the tone of the letter, I deduced that he was somewhat frustrated, that staff members have made his prep time uneasy. They have intruded on his work space”. [Transcript of Evidence, March 7 2006, p. 48, l. 1-3; Exhibit 3, Tab 14]

Georges met the Member the next day and stated “I was very impressed with Mr. Fabel's enthusiasm for teaching. He appeared to be very concerned about doing his job.... But I did assure him as is my habit ... I would address the issue of respecting each others’ spaces, and using their prep period to do just that, prepare for teaching.” [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2006, p. 49, l. 25 to p. 50, l. 1-2, 12-14]

These issues were addressed by Georges at the staff meeting held at the end of the first school day of the 2002-2003 school year.

In September and October of Semester 1, 2002-2003 the following events occurred.

September 9: The Member came into conflict with a teacher, Deanna Piazza Chittaro, regarding an incident where he followed a disobedient student, who was out of uniform, into Piazza Chittaro's classroom. Piazza Chittaro talked to Principal Georges several times in September regarding the classroom incident above. She did not wish to speak to the Member directly “because he's made me feel uneasy” and she also did not want Georges or the staff representative to act as a mediator. It was at this point that Georges suggested that communication in writing was a possibility. [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2006, p. 55, l. 17 – p. 56, l. 7]

September 16: Piazza Chittaro wrote a letter to the Member (copied to Georges) and complained that the Member’s conduct undermined her authority. [Exhibit 3, Tab 15]

September 16: The Member responded by letter, giving his version and asserting no disruption was intended and that he had not initially seen Piazza Chittaro on entering the classroom. [Exhibit 3, Tab 15]

September 17: Piazza Chittaro responded by letter indicating that if the Member entered her classroom uninvited and without consultation, administration intervention would be requested. [Exhibit 3, Tab15]

September 17 to September 30: [XXX], a student at the School, came to Principal Georges and provided a letter she had written containing information about a number of alleged incidents of which she had indirect knowledge. [Exhibit 3, Tab 16]

Marisa Lipari admitted to discussing her concerns regarding Mr. Fabel with Piazza Chittaro in the fall of 2002. [Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2007, p. 93, l. 1-8]

Principal Georges reported in a letter to Janet Ouellette, Superintendent, that she had concerns about the Member as the result of information from some staff and students of [XXX].

On October 15, 2002, Marisa Lipari, as tennis coach, was driving two students ([XXX] and another student) to a tournament. She overheard the two students having a discussion regarding the Member. Lipari wrote a report about what she had overheard and left the unsigned report on Principal Georges’ desk. [Exhibit 3, Tab 2] A few days later, Lipari provided additional records to Georges. [Exhibit 3, Tab 2 (a) & (b)]

On October 16, 2002, Deanna Piazza Chittaro provided a letter to Principal Georges with information about the Member that students had discussed in her class. [Exhibit 3, Tab 30]

On October 17, 2002, the Member was summoned to Principal Georges’ office where he was informed, over the phone, by Superintendent Berthiaume that he was suspended. [Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2006, p. 272, l. 21 to p. 274, l. 3]

On October 23, 2002, the Board informed the College of the Member’s suspension and requested that the College conduct an investigation [Exhibit 9]. This hearing is the result of that investigation.

The College called 27 witnesses. The Member called nine witnesses and also testified on his own behalf.

(b) The Contested Incidents

In written and oral submissions, College Counsel asked the Committee to make findings of fact with respect to 61 incidents of what the College maintains is professional misconduct on the part of the Member.

The Member admitted to some of these incidents, although denied that any of them – whether viewed in isolation or as a whole – constituted professional misconduct. The Member denied that other alleged incidents ever took place. There were conflicts in the evidence, which required the Committee to make an assessment of credibility. In doing so, the Committee relied on the criteria set out in Re Pitts and Director of Family Benefits Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services (1985), 1985 CanLII 2053 (ON HCJ), 51 O.R. (2d) 302 (Div. Ct.).

The Committee makes the following factual findings with respect to each alleged incident. They are numbered here according to the numbers assigned in College Counsel’s written submissions.

#1 [XXX]: “... I'll burn you so bad you'll wish you died as a child”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to establish that the Member made this specific statement to [XXX].

The Committee finds that the Member did incorporate the phrase “I’ll burn you” in the context of an implicit warning regarding further consequences for uniform infractions to [XXX]. This incident was dealt with by school administration.

[XXX] testified that the Member stopped her for a uniform violation in the hallway one morning before classes. [XXX] said that she rolled down her pants as requested by the Member and then was reprimanded by the Member using the words, “I never forget a face, and the next I see you out of uniform I'll burn you so bad you'll wish you died as a child”. [Transcript of Evidence, March 9, 2006, p, 426, l. 20 to p. 427, l.14]

[XXX]'s first period class was with teacher Melissa Tellier. Tellier became aware of the incident after asking [XXX] why she was so quiet. Tellier asked if [XXX] wanted to report the incident. [XXX], [XXX] and Tellier went to the office where [XXX] spoke to Vice-Principal Celestino and made a written statement. [Transcript of Evidence, March 9, 2006, p, 432, l. 24 to p. 433, l.10]

Under cross-examination [XXX] testified that she did not know she needed to have her uniform in order until classes started. [Transcript of Evidence, March 9, 2006, p, 440, l. 15-25]

[XXX] was present when the incident occurred and corroborated [XXX]'s testimony of what happened in the hallway. [XXX] reported this incident in a letter to Principal Georges in the fall of 2002. [March 9, 2006, p. 466, l. 8 to p. 467, l. 5; Exhibit 3, Tab 23; Exhibit 3, Tab16]

[XXX] was upset and [XXX] shocked by the Member's comments. Both students testified they did not think the Member was joking.

Melissa Tellier's evidence of the incident is different. Tellier testified that she became aware of the incident from another student who asked her to come out of the portable classroom. Tellier testified that she found [XXX] crying on the steps and that [XXX] said the Member had called her into his classroom from the hallway and that she knew why and started to unroll her pant legs. Tellier testified that she went to the office with [XXX] (only) and reported the incident to Principal Kennedy. The next day Tellier learned that Celestino had dealt with the matter by giving [XXX] a detention for the uniform violation. [Transcript of Evidence, July 4, 2007, p. 90, l. 8 to p. 92, l. 15; p 94, l. 15 to p. 96, l. 1]

The Member denied that he made the statement, “I’ll burn you so bad you’ll wish you died as a child” to [XXX]. He did not recall the students involved in this incident because he had disciplined students for uniform infractions “hundreds” of times. The Member admits that he used the phrase “I’ll burn you with a detention” in order to warn students. The Member said that his only recollection of the statement, “I’ll burn you so bad you’ll wish you had died as a child” is that it came from the movie Good Morning Vietnam, which the Member had shown to a class. The students had asked the Member to repeat the statement, which he had. According to the Member, it took on “almost myth-like proportions in the school” through the rumour mill. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 186, l. 19 to p. 187, l.6; p. 172, l. 18 to p. 173, l. 12; p. 160, l. 20 to p. 161, l. 10]

#2 [XXX]: “I am going to burn you for that ... you'll wish you weren't born”

The Committee finds that the evidence on this point was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to establish that the Member made this specific statement to [XXX].

[XXX] testified that the Member made the statement to her while she was walking with a friend in the wrong hallway. [XXX] testified that the Member yelled and did not appear to be joking. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 197, l. 7-13; p. 198, l. 11-17]

The Member testified that he had no memory of the incident, but it was possible he admonished students for being in the wrong wing of the school. The Member denied using these words. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 187, l. 14 to p. 189, l.5; p. 160, l. 20 to p. 161, l. 10]

The Committee again finds that the Member did incorporate the phrase “I’ll burn you” in the context of implicit warning regarding further consequences for uniform infractions, but is not clear that the Member used the exact phrase indicated above.

#3 [XXX]: “Which of you shit talkers is talking shit about me ...I'm going to burn you in hell so much you'll wish you died as a child”

The Committee finds the evidence on this point was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to establish that the Member made this statement to the student [XXX]. The evidence called by the College was inconsistent and contradictory.

[XXX] testified that the Member made this statement in the cafeteria to him while he was sitting with several friends, including [XXX]. [XXX] said that he made a verbal and a written report of the incident to Vice-Principal Conte. Marisa Lipari recorded an incident in her journal but the facts are not the same and [XXX] testified that he never told Lipari of this incident. [Transcript of Evidence, March 9, 2006, p. 490, l. 7-11; p. 492, l. 16 to p. 493, l. 18; p. 512, l. 12-25]

Conte testified under cross-examination he did not recall the incident and the written report was not produced. Conte also stated in the circumstances that had something like this occurred, he would have informed the Principal and she would investigate. [Transcript of Evidence, July 4, 2007, p. 11, l. 8 to p. 13, l. 6]. There was no evidence that such an incident ever was reported to the Principal or the Principal ever investigated such an incident.

[XXX], who [XXX] testified was present, did not recall observing any exchange between the Member and [XXX]. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 287, l. 18-24]

The Member denied the incident happened. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 46, l. 25 to p. 47, l. 7]

In the circumstances, given the conflicts in the evidence from the College’s own witnesses, the Committee cannot find that the incident occurred as alleged.

#4 [XXX]: “If you keep treating my wife like this you'll wish you had died as a child”

The Committee finds that the evidence did not establish that the statement was made by the Member.

[XXX] was a former student at the School and had been in Michelle Fabel’s class. Michelle Fabel is the Member’s wife. [XXX] testified that the Member came to Michelle Fabel's class, at her request. The Member took [XXX] and a couple of buddies out into the hallway after they were misbehaving, and told them that if they kept treating his wife like this, “he'd make sure we died as a child – wish we died as a child.” The Member took the students to the office and Vice-Principal Celestino gave them a detention or suspension. [XXX] testified that he told Celestino about the threat, but Celestino didn't believe him. [Transcript of Evidence, November 23, 2006, p. 338, l. 3-7; p. 340, l. 20-25]

Michelle Fabel testified that she called the Member to assist her with disruptive students because no administrator was available. Ms. Fabel did not witness the incident in the hallway. She thought that the other students were [XXX] and [XXX]. [Transcript of Evidence, April 15, 2008, p. 36, l. 21 to p. 40, l.12; p. 41, l. 1-9]

[XXX] testified that he remembers the Member coming to the class at the request of the Member’s wife, but he does not recall the incident. [Transcript of Evidence, November 23, 2006, p. 325, l. 19 to p. 326, l.23]. [XXX] did not testify.

The Member testified that he had dealt with the boys at the request of Ms. Fabel, but he had no recollection of having used the words alleged by [XXX]. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 47, l. 21-24]

The Committee, in finding that the College failed to establish that the Member made the statement attributed to him by [XXX], relied on the fact that [XXX] was unable to corroborate [XXX]’s testimony. Further, [XXX] testified that Celestino did not believe him at the time of the incident. No other witness was brought forward regarding this incident.

#5 Using “I'll burn you so bad” as a stock phrase in classroom discipline

The Committee finds that the balance of the evidence is that the Member did use the phrase “I’ll burn you so bad” or something similar, as a way of implying further consequences for misbehavior. The Committee does not find that this fact is sufficient to support a finding of professional misconduct.

In all, nine student witnesses, including three defence witnesses, testified that they heard Mr. Fabel speak the words, “I'll burn you so bad you'll wish you'd died as a child” or a similar phrase. In addition to the evidence discussed above, the evidence on this point was as follows.

[XXX] testified that he heard the Member use the threat more than once to get the “class in line”. He testified this was one of the “stock phrases” of the Member. Under cross-examination, [XXX] testified that he was shocked the first time he heard the phrase, but he did not take the phrase literally. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 286, l. 12 to p. 287, l. 1; p. 293, l. 16-19; p.293, l. 25 to p. 294, l. 15]

[XXX] agreed that she remembered hearing the Member say, “I'll burn you so bad you'll wish you'd died as a child” and remembered it as one of the Member's stock phrases. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 64, l. 3-22]

[XXX] testified that she heard the Member say words to the effect of “burn you so bad you'll wish you were never born” or “burn you so bad you'll wish you'd died as a child” in the context of uniform infractions. She took this to mean the offender would get a detention. [Transcript of Evidence, October 23, 2007, p. 14, l. 1-16]

The Member explained the students’ testimony by saying they must have heard the alleged rumour of him speaking the threatening phrase. The Member testified that he cannot remember using that phrase, but did remember using “burn”, as in, “I’ll burn you with a detention”. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 202 l. 6 to p. 202, l. 16 and p. 204, l. 2 to p. 205, l. 1-19]

The Committee finds the comment to be graphic, but not literal. There was no cogent evidence presented which indicated that the Member contemplated the immolation of students or that students feared that result.

#6 Unknown student: “I'll cut off your neck and shit down your throat”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to establish that the incident occurred.

Marisa Lipari testified that she overhead these words screamed from the hallway when she was in her classroom. She looked out to see the Member and a student. The Member and the student left the hallway and Lipari did not ascertain the identity of the student. The incident was mentioned to Principal Kennedy but no written report was filed because Lipari testified that she feared what the Member might do. [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2007, p. 132, l. 2-11; p. 133, l. 3-6; March 8, 2007, p. 101, l. 1-3]

The Member denied the incident and added that if he had screamed in the quiet hallways during classes, the entire hallway would have heard it. [April 16, 2008, p. 106, l. 21 to p. 107, l. 5]

Marisa Lipari testified that she did not see the Member while the remark was purportedly made. Principal Darlene Kennedy did not testify and any notes she may have possessed regarding the incident as reported by Lipari were not offered as evidence. Students in the hallway and adjacent classrooms, who might have been expected to hear the incident, were not called as witnesses.

#7 Unknown student: “Those are tits I do not want to see”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to find that the incident occurred.

Marisa Lipari testified that she overhead this comment from the hallway when she was inside the door of her department head's classroom (Mr. Rovers). She looked out to see the Member and a student. The student left the hallway and Lipari tried to follow but did not find the student to ascertain her identity. [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2007, p. 130, l. 8 to p. 131, l. 15]

The Member denied the incident occurred. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 104, l. 14-18]

The Committee notes that the purported incident was not seen by Lipari, nor did she report it to the school administration. The student involved remains unknown and Martin Rovers was not called to testify whether or not he heard the comment as reported by Lipari. Further, there is no evidence that this incident was reported to administration by either student or parent.

#8 [XXX]: “You'll be dead fucking kids.”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to establish that the statement was made by the Member.

[XXX] was a former student at the School. He testified that the Member came into Mr. Marquis' [XXX] class. Marquis was teaching the class while Michelle Fabel was on maternity leave. [XXX] testified that the Member warned the students not to “screw around when my wife comes back, then you'll all be dead fucking kids.” [Transcript of Evidence, November 23, 2006, p. 309, l. 8, 9]

[XXX] was in that same class, but could not confirm the statement; he testified that he heard yelling and left the classroom. [Transcript of Evidence, November 23, 2006, p. 324, l. 19 to p. 325, l. 9]

Mr. Marquis was certain this never did occur. [Transcript of Evidence, November 23, 2006, p. 356, l. 25 to p. 357, l. 6]

The Member testified he never made this statement. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 46, l. 8-16]

There was no corroboration of the incident. In fact, two individuals ([XXX] and Marquis) could not confirm the statement.

#9 [XXX]: “You'll have to answer to me.”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to establish that the incident occurred.

[XXX] was a student in Mr. Marquis’ [XXX] class, before Michelle Fabel returned from maternity leave. She testified that students took advantage of Marquis and the class was out of control. [XXX] testified that prior to Michelle Fabel returning from maternity leave, the Member came into Marquis' [XXX] class, before Marquis arrived, and told the students that if they gave his wife any trouble, they would have to answer to him. [Transcript of Evidence, March 9, 2006, p. 355, l. 24 to p. 356, l. 8]

The Member testified he never attended the class. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 214, l.3-11]

Marquis contradicted the testimony of [XXX]. He denied that the incident occurred and testified that [XXX] characterization of the class was false. Other students present were not called to corroborate the incident. [Transcript of Evidence, November 23, 2006, p. 363, l. 25 to p. 364, l. 5]

#10 To unknown student “This isn't Ho High”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to establish that the statement was made by the Member.

Jennifer Roy was a teacher at the School. She testified that one term she taught across the hall from the Member and heard him reprimand a student for a uniform violation during class change. The Member said, “unroll your skirt. This isn't Ho High.” Roy testified the student was in violation of the uniform code and looked embarrassed as she became red in the face. Roy did not identify the student or speak to the student about the incident.

Roy testified she did not report the incident to administration because she was a new teacher. As a result, she felt intimidated and was unsure of what action to pursue. She did not speak to the Member because she said he wasn't somebody you could easily approach about something like that, but offered no evidence to support that view. [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p. 92, l. 1-6; p. 93, l. 7-11; p. 94, l. 21 to p. 95, l. 15]

The Member denied making this statement, but offered a possible explanation. He testified that another high school, St. Joseph's, had a bad reputation for students wearing uniforms that were sexually suggestive. The Member suggested that St. Joseph's was shortened to St. Joe's and by the students to St. Ho's and that Roy may have misheard him because of the noise in the hallway during class change time. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, P. 220, l. 11 to p. 223, l. 20]

No student witnesses were called with regard to this incident. Roy was not questioned regarding the possibility that she misheard the Member's wording.

In these circumstances, given the conflicts in the evidence and the possibility that Roy could have misheard the Member since the alleged incident occurred during class change, the Committee is unable to find that the Member said the exact words “Ho High”.

#11 [XXX]: What are you, retards from the sticks?”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to prove that the incident occurred.

[XXX] was a student at the School. She testified that the Member made this comment to her and two other students, when the Member challenged them as to why they were in an out-of-bounds area during the lunch period. [Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 151, l. 19 to p. 152, l. 8]

[XXX] testified that she told Teresa Georges about this incident. However, Georges’ notes from [XXX]’ interview do not record this incident. [XXX]' testimony is not confirmed in Georges' notes, but rather [XXX] testified to a different classroom incident than the one she told Georges about and that Georges recorded. [Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 164, l. 2-22]

The Member testified that the word “retard” was not one he would use. [April 17, 2008, p. 51, l. 22 to p. 52, l. 1] In cross-examination, the Member admitted that he did not know [XXX] and he may have disciplined her for this incident in the hallway, but again denied the use of the term “retard”. [April 22, 2008, p. 224, l. 15-17]

The evidence of [XXX] is confusing. There was no record of the “retard” incident in Georges’ notes even though [XXX] testified she told Georges. Georges records different facts than [XXX]' testimony about a classroom incident. The two other students who were with [XXX] when the incident allegedly occurred were not called to corroborate the use of the word “retard”. Given the inconsistencies in the evidence, the Committee cannot find that the Member called [XXX] and the other two students “retards from the sticks.”

#12 “Being unduly harsh in the enforcement of the uniform code”

The Committee finds that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the Member was “unduly harsh” in a manner that would constitute professional misconduct.

The Member was variously described as yelling, screaming, or using a loud forceful tone to indicate a uniform code violation that the students should correct. [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2007, p. 176, l. 3-6; May 23, 2006 p. 126, l. 11-17; September 28, 2007, p. 63, l. 23 to p. 64, l. 2]

Janet Ouellette, Superintendent of the Board, testified she would not see yelling as disciplinable. [Transcript of Evidence, July 6, 2007, p. 67, l. 22-24]

The Member admitted that he had a “purposeful stride”, that his deportment reflected his military training and that he knew how to use his voice to command. The Member agreed he was strict in enforcing the uniform code. [Transcript of Evidence April 22, 2008, p. 233, l. 5 to p. 234, l. 5 and p. 228, l. 4-20]

The Committee notes that it is the duty of teachers to be present in the hallways to ensure student safety and to maintain discipline. There was no evidence to suggest the Member went beyond this expectation.

#13 In-class criticism of the attire of female teachers

The Committee finds that the balance of the evidence was that the Member did participate in class-room discussions that were critical of the attire of some of the female teachers at the School.

[XXX] testified that the Member made comments about young female teachers, “what they were wearing was like saran wrap, and you know – it does not leave anything to the imagination”. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 210, l. 11-18]

[XXX] testified that the Member said some female teachers dressed inappropriately, “too short skirts for a teacher, too tight of a blouse ... very inappropriate for teaching in a catholic high school.” [Transcript of Evidence, September 27, 2007, p.174, l. 16- 20]

[XXX] testified that the Member disapproved of the way some female teachers dressed suggestively. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 68, l.23 to p.169, l. 6]

[XXX] testified that the Member felt the dress was inappropriate, not proper business attire. She also confirmed [XXX]'s testimony “like saran wrap ... the way these women dressed left little to the imagination”. [XXX] also confirmed [XXX]'s testimony that the Member stated some of these teachers wore skirts that were too short, and shirts that were too tight. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 53, l. 15-18; p. 55, l. 6-18]

The Member testified that at least one class discussion occurred regarding the uniform code and staff dress, although he claimed it was initiated by students. He could not recall any of these comments specifically, but suggested that “saran wrap” would be a poor example and agreed in hindsight that such statements would be inappropriate. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 92, l. 11-24; April 22, 2008, p. 36, l. 18 to p. 37, l. 15; p. 43, l. 8-12]

The Committee finds the class discussion of the topic of “teachers’ dress” was handled poorly in that the Member should not have offered personal views about how female teachers at the School were dressed. This action on the part of the Member does not, in our view, constitute professional misconduct as there was evidence presented which showed that the reference to clothing took place in the larger context of a discussion regarding student attire. The Committee is unable to establish whether the reference was initiated by the Member or by a student.

#14 In-class criticism of the qualifications of other teachers

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to prove that the incident occurred.

[XXX] testified that she complained to the Member that she felt her teacher was not qualified to teach nursing. The Member responded to [XXX]'s persistence by “telling us that there was a website where you can go to check the qualifications of your teachers.” [Transcript of Evidence, September 27, 2007, p.141, l.10-23]

[XXX] confirmed that the Member taught the class to look up teacher qualifications. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 58, l. 13-20]

[XXX] testified that the Member gave them the website where teachers’ qualifications could be checked. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 170, l. 23 to p. 171, l. 12]

The Member admitted teaching the use of public databases, specifically the Ontario College of Teachers website. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 112, l. 4-19]

There was no evidence submitted indicating that the Member directed students to search the qualifications of a specific teacher. General use of the Ontario College of Teachers website and reference to databases present on that site is an acceptable practice.

#15 In-class criticism of the Guidance Department

The Committee finds that the balance of the evidence is that the Member made some comments about the Guidance Department at the School, but there was no evidence the comments were detrimental to the relationship between the Guidance Department and students.

Student [XXX] testified that the Member did not refer to anyone specifically but “made general remarks that guidance wasn't really doing its job.” Under cross-examination, [XXX] testified that she could not say those were the Member's specific words. [Transcript of Evidence, September 27, 2007, p. 16, l. 15-20: p. 51, l. 13-17]

Student [XXX] responded under cross-examination to the question of whether the Member didn’t think the Guidance Department was very competent. [XXX] replied that the Member indicated that the guidance department was “incompetent” or “along those lines” or “maybe they weren't helping out students as much as they should have been.” [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 170, l. 8-20]. [XXX]’s response was twice qualified to the point that the Committee can only give credence to the second qualifier – the Member indicated the Guidance Department maybe wasn’t helping out students as much as they could have.

Student [XXX] testified that she had spoken to the Member regarding a difficulty with a guidance counselor. Under cross-examination she confirmed that the Member was not critical or insulting in that circumstance and that she could not recall a general discussion on the guidance department. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 10, l. 18-25; p. 65, l. 1-10]

Karen McCarthy (a member of the Guidance Department at the School) testified that, when she paged the Member's classroom to request that certain students attend the Guidance Department for an interview, she felt the Member responded to her in a condescending tone which was detrimental to the relationship she had with students. [Transcript of Evidence, July 4, 2007, p. 158, l. 15-25]. However, there was no evidence of specific comments which would substantiate McCarthy’s testimony. The Committee is not prepared to base a finding upon one person's interpretation of the tone of the Member’s response.

The Member testified that often students who had written appointments to attend for a guidance session did not want to attend and refused to go. On a few occasions, the Member did not allow students to attend because of class assessments (tests or presentations). [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 5, l. 14-18, and p. 6, l. 6-9]

The Member testified that he may have been critical of the guidance department when he dealt with student queries in a one-on-one situation, but he had no long-standing problem with some of the decisions the guidance department made. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 73, l. 9 to p. 76, l. 18]

#16 In-class criticism of the Religious Education Department

The Committee finds that the balance of the evidence is that the Member made some comments about the subject of religion, but the comments did not constitute criticism of the Religious Education Department.

Student witnesses for the College - [XXX], [XXX], and [XXX] - all testified that the Member made statements about religion and challenged them to examine their beliefs. [XXX] and [XXX] also testified that the Member said they did not need to take religion. [Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2006, p. 300, l. 10; May 23, 2006, p. 29, l. 24 to p. 30, l. 16; November 22, 2006, p. 212, l. 7-11]

Student witnesses called by the Member, [XXX] and [XXX], testified that the Member indicated religion was not a requirement for graduation from high school in Ontario. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 51, l. 23 to p. 24, l. 7; October 23, 2007, p. 20, l. 14-22]

[XXX] testified that the Member said in response to a question on taking religion courses, “it’s a good mark booster anyway, take it”. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 111, l. 4-11]

The Member testified that a religion course was an easier credit because it lacked the “academic rigor” of, for example, chemistry or mathematics and didn’t have a heavy “homework load.” The Member admitted there was a turf war going on between the heads of the religion and social science departments over the offering of courses. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 146, l. 20 p. 147, l. 17]

It was clear this “turf war” had no direct impact on the Member. According to Karen McCarthy, guidance counselor at the School, the Member was a very popular teacher. “He could have taught all day and all night. He was very popular teaching that course. The students loved it. We always had a waiting list in each of the semesters.” [Transcript of Evidence July 4, 2007, p. 163, l. 1-4]

The Committee finds the Member was critical of Board policy which mandated that students achieve a credit in religion in each year of high school. According to the Member, this policy had a detrimental effect on some students’ attempts to meet academic requirements for admission to some post secondary programs. The Member’s conduct does not constitute professional misconduct.

#17 In-class mimicking and name calling of Principal (“Big Bird”), Principal is in “la la land”, Vice Principals and Principal and the “Three Stooges”, administration could be doing a better job

The Committee finds that the Member did use the nickname Big Bird to refer to Principal Darlene Kennedy and that the Member may have on occasion used the nickname “three stooges” to refer to the school administration.

[XXX] testified that the Member often told the students that Principal Kennedy was in “la la land, doesn't know what she was doing”. Students [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], and [XXX] all confirmed the Member used the term “Big Bird” with respect to Kennedy. [XXX] testified the name was common among the students and [XXX] said she learned the name immediately on entering the School. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 209, l. 13-15]

[XXX] testified that the Member referred to the vice-principals as the “three stooges”, but knew the Member thought of Vice-Principal Celestino as a good guy. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 165, l. 9-13]

John Paul Bondy's testimony was that the Member referred to the administration as “Big Bird and the Three Stooges” on more than one occasion. According to Bondy, this comment was made if the Member's class was interrupted by an announcement or he spoke about an unpopular decision by administration. [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p. 108, l. 22 to p. 109, l. 19]

[XXX] and [XXX] both testified that the Member implied that the administration of the school could do a better job. [Transcript of Evidence, September 27, 2007, p. 57, l. 23 to p. 58, l. 3; October 24, 2007, p. 165, l. 17-21]

The Member testified under cross-examination that his use of the nickname “Big Bird” was not intended to offend and he believed Kennedy had acquired the nickname “Big Bird” before she came to [XXX]. Further, she herself had used the nickname on at least one occasion. The Member admitted this teasing of administration was open to misinterpretation by the students. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 55, l. 17 to p. 57, l. 4; p. 66, l. 17-23]

The Member denied under cross-examination that he used the term “three stooges” in reference to the vice-principals. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p.68, l. 19 to p. 69, l. 5]

The Member agreed under cross-examination that he might have used words to the effect that the administration could have done a better job. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 69, l. 17 to p. 70, l. 12]

While not condoning the use of nicknames, which may be interpreted by some as derogatory depending on the context, the Committee finds that the Member’s actions in this case do not rise to the level of professional misconduct.

#18 In-class discussions of disputes with colleagues

The Committee finds that the balance of the evidence establishes that the Member did talk to his students about his disputes with his colleagues at the School but that these actions did not constitute professional misconduct.

[XXX] responded “yes” under cross-examination when asked if the Member told her that there were others at the school who didn't like him. [XXX] stated that the Member said he crossed a picket line and that was why a lot of people disagreed with him. [XXX] could not remember all of the facts that she had relayed in an interview in the fall of 2002 (when she was in [XXX]). This was some time after she had courses with the Member in the fall of 2001 ([XXX]) and 1999-2000 ([XXX]). [Transcript of Evidence, September 27, 2007, p. 48, l. 23 to p. 48. l. 10; p. 52, l. 2-8; p. 103, l. 11-18]

[XXX] agreed under cross-examination that the Member had said “some of the teachers in the school didn't like his views ... didn't agree with the position he had taken on the teachers' strike.” [XXX] could not remember the context for the comment, but recalled no teachers’ names were mentioned. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 59, l. 13 to p. 60, l. 5]

[XXX] agreed under cross-examination that she thought she heard that some teachers did not like the Member's views because of the position the Member had taken on the teachers' strike. No context was given for what she remembered. [Transcript of Evidence, October 23, 2007, p. 43, l. 24 to p. 44, l. 6]

The Member agreed under cross-examination that he may have discussed his actions in crossing the picket line in the context of discussing sanctions and making people conform and the resulting tensions that ensue. The Member testified that he may have given specific examples of events that happened to him after the political protest ended. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 128, l. 12 to p. 129, l. 19; p. 134, l. 4-23]

The Member personalized the curriculum when he talked about the general views of some colleagues and the actions that some took towards him for not conforming to the larger social group. There was no evidence that the Member identified any colleagues.

#19 Karen McCarthy: Intimidating a female colleague in her office

The Committee finds that the Member did not intimidate Karen McCarthy.

Karen McCarthy testified that one day the Member entered her guidance office without knocking and closed the door. While standing at the door and blocking her way out, he asked a series of questions related to an anonymous phone called he had just received. The Member said the male caller had accused him of harassing female teachers and had also threatened him. The Member asked McCarthy if her husband had called, and she responded “no”. McCarthy then told the Member that he had never harassed her and the Member responded that could change and he left abruptly. McCarthy recognized the Member’s comment as a joke or an attempt to lighten the moment. As a result of her fear, she explained what had happened to her department head and then to Principal Kennedy. She called and spoke to her family and warned them, in case something happened to her, because she felt the Member had access to guns.

In cross-examination McCarthy testified that the Member did not verbally threaten her or her husband, but she felt there would be retribution. Her fear of guns in the Member's possession was based on the fact that another teacher had told her she believed he had guns at school during the Days of Protest and because of his connections to the military. McCarthy stated she was confident that Principal Kennedy would deal with it appropriately. [Transcript of Evidence, July 4, 2007, p. 177, l. 4 to p. 180, l. 13; p. 181, l. 17 to p. 186, l. 18]

The Member testified that he received a harassing phone call in the main office on his prep time. He went to McCarthy because she was a senior female staff member and he thought she had a finger on the pulse of the females on staff. The Member stated he had never harassed McCarthy and did not intend to when he approached her. The Member also spoke to two other people about the incident but does not recall their names. He acknowledged that there was no complaint or concern over this incident from school administration. [April 16, 2008, p. 82, l. 18 to p. 84, l. 22]

The Committee finds that the Member acted hastily in meeting with McCarthy in her office and did not fully appreciate the effect he might have on his colleague. The Member did not verbally threaten McCarthy, but his physical stature and positioning in the office may have made his colleague feel uneasy. There was no further interaction between the colleagues on this issue.

#20 Melissa Tellier: “With tits that size you'll be a horrible mother one day”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to find that the incident occurred.

Melissa Tellier testified that during literacy testing (early in the second semester of 2001) in the school gymnasium, she was bent over to help a student when she heard the comment: “with tits that size you'll make a horrible mother one day”. The student looked up with a very “quirking” look on his face and didn't understand. She said several other students heard the remark but “shook it off”. Tellier turned around to see if she could determine who had made the comment, then shook her head and walked away. She had no idea who the person standing behind her was at the time. She testified under cross-examination that she did not identify the Member as the person she thought had made this comment until June, when she looked in the school yearbook after the [XXX] incident. Tellier spoke of the incident to colleagues in the prep room, but said she would not report it when they urged her to do so. A couple of them asked if they could document the incident. Tellier said, “Sure, but I am not going to say anything. [Transcript of Evidence, July 4, 2007, p. 100, l. 7-8; p. 102, l. 1-24; p. 123, 9-13]

Under cross-examination Tellier confirmed that she had told Lipari about the incident, using the same words that she testified to at this hearing, and that Lipari's recording of the words allegedly said by the Member (which was different than what Lipari testified to) was inaccurate. Tellier denied telling Lipari that she would be doing something about this, although that is what Lipari’s notes record. Tellier also testified that she had never told anyone since the event the exact words that were spoken. She affirmed to the school board and College counsel that a negative comment had been made about her “tit size”. She did not tell them that Lipari’s written notes were inaccurate. [Transcript of Evidence, July 4, 2007, p. 135, l. 17 to p. 136, l. 25; p. 137, l. 13 to p. 140, l. 3]

The Member testified that the incident did not occur and could not recall anything to do with Tellier at the School. Under cross-examination the Member again stated that he did not make the comment, or any comment that might be misinterpreted, and he had no history of run-ins or difficulties with Tellier. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 15, l. 4-17; April 23, 2008, p. 74, l. 10 to p. 75, l. 7]

The comment was alleged to have been made during literacy testing. Tellier testified that the comment came from behind her and that she was only able to identify who she thought made the comment some months later through a yearbook photograph. Tellier testified that several students appeared to have heard and reacted to the alleged comment. No student offered testimony regarding this alleged comment.

The alleged incident was not reported to the school administration for investigation at the time it occurred. The administration first became aware of the alleged incident through the notes of Marisa Lipari – over a year later. The alleged comment, as transcribed by Lipari, differed from the comment as testified to by Tellier, a difference that was not resolved at the hearing.

It is difficult to accept that this allegation would be made by Tellier with no basis in fact or in a purposefully mendacious manner. The Committee suggests neither. Rather, the Committee finds that there is insufficient proof to establish that the Member made a comment to Tellier and, if so, what the comment was.

#21 Marisa Lipari: “Shut the fucking radio off”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent or convincing to establish that the incident occurred.

Lipari reported that the Member on four occasions requested that she shut off the radio, the last time using the expletive above. [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2007, p. 118, l. 22 to p. 121, l. 11] Lipari recorded the incidents in a journal on her computer within a couple of days of the event. [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2007, p. 124, l. 7, 8] Lipari spoke to her union representative but did not report the incident to school administration or attempt to determine if there was a school policy on the playing of radios. [Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2007, p. 52, l. 19 to p. 53, l. 15]

Lipari testified that her computerized journal was a documentation of events, consisting of a series of paragraphs between February 2002 and June 2002 that she merged. She testified that the purpose of the journal was to help her vent and for her husband if anything happened to her. [Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2007, p. 46, l. 6-15]

The Member could not recall any incident involving a radio in Lipari's classroom and did not recall that her classroom was adjacent to his classroom. [April 16, 2008, p. 95, l. 15 to p. 96, l. 3] The Member did recall that a number of staff played music in the prep area.

The Committee finds that, even if the Member used the adjective “fucking” to describe Lipari’s radio, it would not constitute professional misconduct, particularly as the alleged incident, according to Lipari, occurred before classes when no students were present. Lipari’s own testimony indicates that the volume level of her radio presented some difficulty to the Member on three prior occasions.

#22 “Demonstrating a lack of respect for the Vice-principal by refusing to bring students to him for discipline”

The Committee finds there is no basis for finding that the Member demonstrated a lack of respect for Conte.

The College alleges there was an incident where the Member brought a student to the Vice-Principals’ office to be disciplined by Vice-Principal Celestino. Celestino was not there, but Vice-Principal Conte was. The Member left, saying something to the effect of “he does not see Conte, but Celestino only”'. [Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2007, p.180, l. 6, 7] The Member was not challenged by Mr. Conte about this comment then or later.

The Member did not remember the specific incident and no information was presented about the circumstances of the comment. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 16, l. 5-13]

#23 Referring to the Board as “fucking ineffective” in the library in front of other teachers

#24 Referring to the administration as “the idiots who run this place” in the library in front of other teachers

#25 Calling the Vice-Principal “one of the three stooges” and an example of “the fucking administration that doesn't know what they're doing” in the library in front of other teachers

#26 Ranting about the Principal in the library in front of other teachers, stating that she was “someone who could not find her ass with her own two hands” in the library in front of other teachers

#27 Stating that the teachers in the school were ineffective and he was the “only person who was relevant or who taught relevance and prepared kids for university” in the library in front of other teachers

#28 Stating in reference to a religion teacher “here's another one who got in on the religion ticket, she probably has no qualifications, and all she does – all she's going to do is read from the fucking bible and show fucking videos” in the library in front of other teachers

#29 Stating as a teacher left the library “See we can get rid of the trash even without the cleanup help”

These relate to the same alleged incident. The Committee finds that the balance of the evidence establishes that the Member made some angry comments in the library about the Board and the School administration. It is not clear, however, that the Member made any of these comments to Lipari or about Liapri. Clearly, the Member’s conversation was loud enough that Lipari was able to hear him.

Marisa Lipari testified that on Monday April 2, 2001, during the support staff strike, the Member made the comments (incidents # 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27) while working at the computers in the library. She said the Member was very angry and loud and was hitting the computer as he made these comments. The Member was not making these alleged remarks to her. However, Lipari testified that the Member acknowledged her presence by non-verbal gestures (looking back at her), but she did not speak to him. [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2007, p. 110, l. 17 to p.111, l. 1, p. 111, l. 6-14; p. 112, l. 4-16]

The Member then got up and moved around behind Lipari where he looked at her books and made a comment (#28) about her teaching area. The Member did not talk to her directly or address her by name. Lipari testified that she was shocked and wanted to get out of there. Lipari packed her things and as she was walking out of the library the Member made a comment (#29). Lipari interpreted the Member as referring to her when he talked about “the trash.” [Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2007, p. 44, l. 4 to p. 45, l. 19]

Lipari testified that she had a brief meeting, the next day, with Principal Kennedy who suggested that Lipari document what had happened and contact her union representative (Marguerite Bastien).

The Member recalled that there was a circumstance where he was angry and agitated about administration during the time they were working in the library. His wife was pregnant and experiencing some health issues and she could not start her maternity leave early because the replacement had not been interviewed. The Member recalled that he had said negative things about the administration. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 93, l. 10 to p. 94, l. 10]

Under cross-examination, the Member stated he had conversations with his spouse and another teacher, Sam Cipparone, in the library during the support workers’ strike. These conversations were about current events, many things, and were above a quiet level as many other conversations were occurring. The Member stated that he may have made harsh comments about the Board in its handling of the support strike and that he was upset at the administration's response to his wife's health concerns. The Member denied swearing in his anger at the situation because his wife was already upset. The Member admits that Principal Kennedy made repeated announcements about her lost keys and others were laughing at the situation. He disagreed that he made uncharitable comments about her, but possibly made comical ones about the lost keys. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p. 17, l. 4 to p. 29, l. 16]

The Member denied making comment #28. The Member did not know Lipari at the time. The Member testified that he initially thought that Lipari was an English teacher as she had a novel from an English course when he observed her in the library. The Member did not recall making disparaging remarks about religious education teachers in the library during the support workers’ strike.

He denied referring to Lipari directly or indirectly as “trash”, but noticed others removing their waste from the library, as he did, when leaving. In cross-examination, the Member stated he may have made the comment about trash in connection with the support workers’ strike. He also agreed that it was possible that Lipari might have interpreted the comment as directed at her. [April 23, 2008, p. 29, l. 17 to p. 30, l. 18]

The Member denied making disparaging remarks about Lipari and stated that neither the school administration nor the union brought Lipari's concerns to his attention after Lipari's report to them. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 88, l. 5-15; p. 89, l. 11-13; p. 89, l. 23 to p. 90, l. 25; p. 94, l. 11-21]

Mr. Cipparone was not called to testify, nor were any of the other teachers who were present in the library on this date.

It is not clear the angry comments made by the Member in the library were made to Lipari or about Liapri. Clearly, the Member’s conversation was loud enough that Lipari was able to hear him.

The Committee is satisfied by the evidence that the Member did not direct the comment alleged in #28 (above), to Lipari. Further, the Committee is satisfied by the evidence that the Member did not intended to refer to Lipari when he made a comment alleged in #29 (above) about “taking out the trash”.

#30 Stating in the staffroom in front of other teachers that the Board hired people who were not qualified in certain positions and using a named teacher as an example

#31 Stating in the staffroom in front of other teachers that the Board's hiring policies were corrupt and reliant on nepotism

These allegations were related. The Committee finds that these events may have occurred, but are not sufficient to support a finding of professional misconduct.

Mary Beth MacDougall testified that the Member often would speak to no one in particular, while facing the computer screen at which he was working. His comments included statements about teachers not qualified in their area and remarks that the Board's hiring policies were corrupt and/or reliant on nepotism. MacDougall was sensitive to the Member's comments as her maiden name was the same as that of a superintendent, Janet Ouellette (no relation). [Transcript of Evidence, July 4, 2007, p. 38, l. 7-14; p. 40, l. 11-16; p. 41, l. 8-13]

Other staff was present but no discussion ensued on the topic. MacDougall made no written report and did not report the incident to school administration.

The Committee believes is not unreasonable to assume that discussions or comments regarding administration decisions are a frequent occurrence in staff rooms across the province. These discussions, like those in many workplaces, could concern hiring, assignment and promotion of staff. If an employee expressed an opinion which unduly criticized the employer, there are remedies available to the employer to sanction that employee. The College did not present evidence which indicated that the Member’s employer had ever sought such remedies. Further, if the College wished to pursue a finding of misconduct in this instance, the Committee finds that they would have to present evidence indicating that the Member’s alleged statements were false and/or malicious.

#32 Deanna Piazza Chittaro: Challenging a female teacher as to why she was chosen for a position without adequate competition and claiming that she was only chosen because she was “non-threatening”

The Committee finds that there is insufficient clarity in the evidence to support a finding of professional misconduct with regard to this allegation.

Piazza Chittaro recalled that the Member asked her, “Why did they choose you?”, and she responded, “I don’t know.” The Member asked again, and her response was “I don’t know. If you want to know, then go to administration and ask”. The Member responded, “I think they gave it to you because you’re non-threatening.” When asked how she felt about the exchange, she stated, “Embarrassed. In fact, I said to him, “You are embarrassing me in front of our colleagues. You’re being very unprofessional.” [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p. 7, l. 4 to p. 11, l. 9 and p. 10, l. 3-5]

In response to College counsel asking why she thought the Member was being unprofessional, Piazza Chittaro stated, “It wasn’t simply because he asked the question, it was just his demeanor and his tone, his attitude, as though I had to answer to him, that I found to be unprofessional, and also the fact that he said that I was non-threatening. Didn’t quite understand that so….” [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p. 10, l. 10-15]

Under cross-examination Piazza Chittaro was asked about the posting. She said she couldn’t recall the Member asking if it had been posted and to her knowledge it had not been posted. [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, page 44, lines 2-14]

The Member testified that he had asked Piazza Chittaro if the job had been posted as the Member did not recall it being posted. He wasn't intending to demean her or belittle her or anything like that. He was happy she got the job. What he remembers is Piazza Chittaro said to him it wasn’t posted here; it was posted somewhere else in the school. The Member testified he said, “You’ll make a good person in there, working in the special ed[ucation]. She said, why? I said you’re a very non-threatening person. You won’t scare the kids. You won’t upset the applecart.” [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 110, l. 14 to p. 111, l. 19]

Under cross-examination the Member admitted he had some issues with the Board for not posting jobs and there were a couple of incidents where they were either posted late or they were posted and they had either fallen off the board or somebody had removed them. The Member stated he had asked the question because “I just wanted to confirm whether or not the job had actually been posted. I might have missed it. It was just again, it was a much to do about nothing. It was just, was it posted? I didn’t see it.” [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p. 12, l. to p. 14, l. 7]

Piazza Chittaro did not recall the Member asking her if the job had been posted, but rather the question “Why did they choose you?” This appears to suggest the Member's admitted issues around job postings. The Member's claim that he was complimenting Piazza Chittaro when he stated that she was non-threatening to students is recalled merely by her as she was non-threatening. It might not be unreasonable for Piazza Chittaro to feel that the Member was not being complimentary, though we do not find that was the intent of the Member at the time.

The nuances of the discussion between the Member and Piazza Chittaro could support a finding that the Member simply wished to ascertain that the job had been posted and to state that Chittaro was a good choice for the job. Other witnesses who were present at the time of this incident were not called.

#33 Joking with a male teacher “Are you scared of me? Some of our colleagues are”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent or convincing to establish that the incident occurred.

Piazza Chittaro reported that the Member made this comment to an unidentified male colleague in the staffroom in close proximity to her. [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p. 21, l. 10-17]

Piazza Chittaro testified that she thought the comment was directed at her but did not ascertain the context for the alleged comment between her male colleagues.

The Member was neither examined nor cross-examined on the alleged statement. The “male teacher”, with whom the Member was alleged to have been joking, was not called as a witness.

#34 Undermining the authority of colleagues by barging into other teachers classrooms to discipline students, without invitation

The evidence indicates that the Member spoke to a student in Ms. Piazza Chittaro's classroom regarding a uniform infraction.

Piazza Chittaro [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p. 12, l. 6-16] and MacDougall [Transcript of Evidence, July 4, 2007, p. 35, l. 5-22] each described a single incident of the Member entering their classroom. The circumstances are very similar: the bell had not rung to signal the start of class and students were still arriving. In each instance, neither teacher had seen the student enter the classroom, but heard the Member proceed to discipline the student for a uniform infraction.

Principal Georges testified that Piazza Chittaro came to administration regarding the incident, but did not want to speak directly to the Member on her own or through a mediator such as Principal Georges or a staff representative (OECTA). [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2006, p. 55, l. 17 – p. 56, l. 7] As a result of Georges’ advice, communication by letter occurred between Piazza Chittaro and the Member.

Piazza Chittaro gave different evidence at this hearing. She testified that she was willing to discuss it at the administrative level. [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p. 18, l. 7-9] MacDougall gave no evidence that she informed anyone of this incident in her classroom.

Regarding the Piazza Chittaro incident, the Member said that he had attempted to reprimand a student in the hallway for a uniform code violation, but the student fled to a classroom. The Member followed where he was seen by Piazza Chittaro completing the reprimand from the doorway. The Member did not immediately see Piazza Chittaro, as she was assisting a student, and there was no interaction between the two staff members at the time. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 117, l. 9 to p. 118, l. 12, and p. 119, l. 20 to p. 120, l. 12 and April 23, 2008, p. 59, l. 9 to p. 60, l. 20]

The Member did not recall a specific incident with Ms. MacDougall or any other staff member. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 6, l. 21 to p. 7, l. 5 and April 23, 2008, p. 60, l. 21 to p. 62, l. 15]

There was no evidence presented regarding comments between the Member and student, or between the Member and Piazza Chittaro or MacDougall, to suggest the Member was attempting to undermine a colleague’s authority in their classroom.

#35 Deanna Piazza Chittaro: Stating within earshot of a female colleague “I'd like to ship her off to the Third World and have the boys take care of her”

The Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence that the comment was directed to Piazza Chittaro.

The incident is one of an overheard conversation and there was no interaction between the colleagues that suggests the Member made the comment about Piazza Chittaro.

Piazza Chittaro’s evidence was as follows.

I heard people entering the building. I turned to see who it was, and it was Mr. Fabel and his wife, who also taught at the school, and as I was trying to deal with this key issue, I heard him say: “I’d like to ship her off to the Third World and have the boys take care of her”, to which Michelle responded with a “shh” and he said, “I don’t care. She has an F’ing attitude.” He didn’t say “F’ing. [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2008, p. 20. l. 15-19]

The Member did not deny making the comment. However, he gave an explanation. He thought the reference related to comments made to his wife about a radio talk show in 2002, “when the Americans and the Canadians, the coalition, were beginning to get into areas that they now occupy in Afghanistan and Iraq”. He remembers being upset at the NDP position. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 124, l. 16 to p. 125, l. 23]

Cross-examination of the Member explored two aspects of his explanation. First, the Member agreed that his choice of remarks was harsh as he considered the commentary to which he was responding to be particularly harsh. On further questioning, the Member stated he encouraged people to hold their opinions and espouse them. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p. 34, l. 16 to p. 35, l. 19]

Second, the Member asserted that he was referring to the NDP defence critic, who he thought was Dawn Black, and not to Piazza Chittaro. In fact, Black was not the NDP defence critic at that time (2002), but did sit in Parliament prior to 1993 and after 2006 - the time the testimony was given. [Transcript of Evidence April 23, 2008, p. 33, l. 9-16, and p. 35, l. 20 to p. 36, p. 20]

The incident involves an overheard conversation between the Member and his spouse. There was no direct interaction between the Member and Piazza Chittaro, rather an allegation that the Member made the comment both with the purpose of alluding to Piazza Chittaro and with the intention of her overhearing it. This was not established by the College.

#36 “Standing in the corridor in a military stance, staring at female colleagues as they walked past as if patrolling their conduct”

The Committee finds the evidence was not clear, cogent and convincing to establish that the Member was “patrolling the conduct” of his female colleagues when he stood in the corridor.

The Committee notes that it is the duty of teachers to be present in the hallways to ensure student safety and to maintain discipline. There was no evidence that suggested the Member was going beyond this expectation.

# 37 “Forcing a female colleague to push him out of the way to get out of the school office”

The Committee finds no evidence that the Member either blocked or intended to block his colleague's path.

This allegedly occurred while both the Member and Piazza Chittaro were in the school office at the same time, attending to their mailboxes.

Piazza Chittaro's testimony is that she “had to move around him” and “he came close enough to brush my arm”. [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p.24, l.20, p.79 l. 11-13] The Member testified that no incident like that comes to mind. [Transcript of Evidence. April 26, 2008, p. 123, l. 15-16]

The Member did not recall the specific incident. There was no evidence presented which indicated that Piazza Chittaro had to push the Member out of the way nor was there evidence of any verbal interaction between the colleagues as they attended their mailboxes in the office. Piazza Chittaro herself testified that she intuited that the Member intended to impede her and, by doing so, intimidate her. The Committee did not find this evidence compelling.

#38 “Punching the door open and slamming chairs and books in a threatening manner”

The Committee finds that there was no evidence presented that slamming of doors, chairs and books was directed at any person.

Testimony from Piazza Chittaro and the Member indicated that the door to the room was “sticky” and required force to open. [July 5, 2007, p. 78, l. 22 to p. 79, l. 3 and April 16, 2008, p. 122, l. 19-25]

#39 Calling a physically disabled student "chicken legs”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding of professional misconduct.

Former student [XXX] testified the Member “made a comment saying like – I think he said like 'chicken legs'. It was along the lines of, like, look at your chicken legs.” [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 213, l. 19 to p. 214 l. 1]

[XXX] confirmed that the Member called [XXX] 'chicken legs' as “just part of their, sort of, general teasing back and forth”. [Transcript of Evidence, September 24, 2007, p. 71, l.23 to p.72, l.12]

The Member stated that he had attempted to make [XXX] feel better by referring to his “own chicken legs” because [XXX] was angry and upset about a reference someone else had made about her legs. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p.92, l. 2 to p. 193, l. 7]

The Member had a lapse in judgment when he attempted to joke with [XXX], a lapse that we find occurred despite the best of intentions.

#40 Calling a physically disabled student “gimpy”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to find that the alleged incident occurred.

[XXX] testified the Member also “once referred to me as 'gimpy' in the classroom and stuff – stuff that made me self-conscious.” [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 213 l.

The Member denied referring to [XXX] as “gimp” or “gimpy” but rather claimed that she called herself Gimpy. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008 p. 36, l. 10 – 18]

There was no corroboration from students in the classroom that the Member used the comment “gimpy”. In fact, [XXX] testified that [XXX] referred to herself as gimpy inside and outside the classroom. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007 p. 14, l. 14- 24]. Given these inconsistencies in the evidence, the Committee cannot find that the incident occurred as alleged.

#41 Singling out a female student and asking the class “How many of you would sleep with this girl for a million dollars?”

The Committee finds that the evidence was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to find that the incident occurred.

Former student [XXX] stated the Member made the above statement to a student identified as [XXX] and to herself. [Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 34, l. 7-12]

Former student [XXX] testified she did not recall any discussion regarding the movie “Indecent Proposal” or the Member making the alleged statement during class. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2008, p. 126, l. 24 to p. 127, l. 9; ibid p. 144, l. 12-19]

Similarly, [XXX] testified she did not recall any discussion regarding the movie or the Member making the statement during class. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 154, l. 4-20]

The Member testified the topic arose as a result of a student commenting about the movie “Indecent Proposal”. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 89, l. 21 to p. 90, l. 1] The Member denied making the statement. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p. 158, l. 8-23]

The Committee finds that the evidence presented by [XXX] was not sufficiently reliable to establish that the incident occurred. The testimony of [XXX] was not corroborated by testimony presented by [XXX] and [XXX]. The student “[XXX]”, identified by [XXX] as a co-recipient of the Member’s alleged comment, did not testify.

#42 Singling out a female student during a class discussion on social profiling and stating “This one will be an axe murderer because she is quiet.”

#43 Singling out a male student during a class discussion on social profiling and stating that because he had spiky hair and was wearing dark clothes and listens to a certain kind of music, he would be “suicidal”.

The Committee finds these examples, used to illustrate a lesson, may have constituted a lapse in judgment but they do not constitute professional misconduct. The Member could have more carefully selected his examples for illustrating the concepts of the lesson.

Former student [XXX] testified the Member made these two comments. She could not remember what was being discussed in class, but testified that it had nothing to do with serial killers, or anything of that nature. On cross-examination, [XXX] agreed that axe murders and serial killers were topics that might be discussed related to profiling. [Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2006, p. 293, l. 6-25; p. 297, l. 16-19; 321, l. 5-13]

[XXX] confirmed these comments were made in class. Her hand-written notes of the incident to Principal Georges confirmed the Member made the comments and stated “just kidding”. She could not recall the context of the comment. [May 23, 2006, p. 16, 1-4; p. 19, l. 25 to p. 20, l. 9; p. 21, l. 19 to p. 22, l. 13; Exhibit 3, Tab 28] ]

[XXX] testified that the term “axe-murder” was a hypothetical example used during a class exercise about social profiling. She did not think it was used inappropriately. On cross-examination, [XXX] agreed it was hypothetical about a student who she believed was [XXX]. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 100, l. 5-15; p. 120, l. 1-21]. [XXX] also testified there was a class discussion of “serial killers”, but could not remember him specifically teaching about psychological profiling. When asked about a “candidate to kill themselves”, [XXX] testified that she had no specific recollection of someone or “remember a specific incident”. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 120, l. 1-9 and p. 120, l. 24 to p.121, l. 18]

The Member described the context in which the comments were made as an introduction to the lesson in the [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] class.

#44 Asking parents at a teacher-student interviews in reference to their children “who shall we talk about first, dumb or dumber”

The Committee finds that this conduct does not amount to professional misconduct as alleged.

[XXX] was the mother of two students at the School. She and her husband attended a parent-teacher conference with the Member. She testified that after introductions, the Member asked “if we wanted him to talk about dumb or dumber first”. [XXX] stated that “[she] didn't hear another word through the whole process of how the children were doing or anything”. [XXX] admitted that the Member was not calling her children dumb, but that it was an irresponsible, arrogant statement. There were no calls home from the Member and [XXX] did not recall negative comments on assignments or report cards that indicated that the Member had a negative assessment of her children as students. [Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 109, l. 18-25 and p. 115, l. 21 to p. 117, l. 18]

The Member testified about this incident, “it’s been so long ago. I may have used that.” He identified both [XXX] children as A-average students and admitted he may have used the phrase for the purposes of humour and irony. There was no trouble with either student and he didn't see why he would deliberately put them down and antagonize the parents. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 81, l. 20-23 and p. 82, l. 2-5]

Mr. [XXX] did not testify and no effort was made by the parents to report the Member to the school administration.

The Member erroneously assumed that Mrs. [XXX] would have tolerance for this type of humour.

#45 Telling his students in class that he is a “leg man”

The Committee finds that while the Member did personalize the curriculum with this example, the evidence would not support a finding of professional misconduct.

[XXX] testified the Member said he was a “leg person” and made comments like “nice legs” when students were wearing kilts. [Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 36, l. 20-25]

[XXX] testified that the Member said his wife was an Irish Dancer and he was a leg man. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 36, l. 8-18]

[XXX] testified that the Member referred to himself as a leg man as an example of the way different people find other people attractive. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 103, l. 14 to p. 104, l. 3]

[XXX] testified that “it rings a bell” that the Member indicated he was a leg man. [Transcript of Evidence, October 23, 2007, p. 36, l. 10-17]

[XXX] testified that the Member referred to himself as a leg man in the context of discussing his wife's legs in class. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 50, l. 10-21]

[XXX] testified she believed the Member said he was a leg man and it’s possible he talked about his wife's legs. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 152, l. 6-20]

The Member testified his statement came about as a result of students urging him to state his preferences when the topic of dating and courtship was presented. [April 17, 2008, p. 90, l. 2-12]. The Member reflected in cross-examination that in hindsight he might have avoided describing his own preference. [April 23, 2008, p. 161, l. 5-11]

The Committee finds that evidence was insufficient to establish that incidents cited by [XXX] occurred as no other witness corroborated her testimony. The Committee finds that the Member did indicate to his students that he was a “leg man” to describe his attraction to his wife, a Highland dancer.

#46 Telling his students in class that “I have three children – there is nothing going on in my bedroom”

The Committee finds that evidence presented was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to establish that the incident occurred as alleged by the College.

[XXX] testified the Member said “There's nothing going on in my bedroom. I'm a father of three children”. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 2002, l. 14-17]

[XXX], a classmate, specifically denied hearing that particular comment. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007 p. 51, l. 12-16]

The Member testified spousal relationships over the life of a marriage were discussed as part of the [XXX] course. The Member denied that he used humorous remarks to deflect questions about his personal life. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008 p. 142, l. 25 to p.143, l. 9]

The Committee finds that evidence was insufficient to establish that incident cited by [XXX] occurred as her testimony was not corroborated by other students in the class.

#47 Advising his students about how he used to go with his friends to bars and try to pick up girls using particular pick up lines that he shared with the class, such as “Come home with me, Princess”.

The Committee finds that the balance of probability is that the Member did make comments to students about pick-up lines and dating, however, there was not clear evidence as to what exactly was said. The Committee is unable to find that the Member did anything other than make general warning comments about dating.

[XXX] testified that the Member related specific experiences about going to bars to pick up women. There was no corroboration from other students in the class. [Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 36, l. 10-15]

[XXX] on cross-examination testified that she did not remember the Member sharing his own experiences, just general warnings towards dating. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 35, l. 6-19]

The Member testified to speaking about pick-up lines in the context of the dating and courtship scene. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p.91, l. 13-21] He denied that he personalized the information, but that it was drawn from fact he was young once. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p. 155, l. 13-15]

#48 Telling his students sexual jokes taken from the internet. For example, in reference to Thanksgiving, “Spread the legs and stuff it in”, “How long before you can pull it out”, I didn't know all these people would come at once”.

The Committee finds that the Member did repeat jokes with sexual innuendo related to the topic of Freud but those facts would not support a finding of professional misconduct.

[XXX] testified that the Member read a number of sexual jokes with a Thanksgiving theme and not related to anything they were studying. [Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2006, p. 299, l. 3-7, 10-13, l. 17-23]

[XXX] testified the Member read Thanksgiving jokes he had found on the Internet. [Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 31, l. 1-25]

[XXX] testified the Member told jokes of sexual innuendo when discussing Freud. [XXX] could not remember any specific jokes, or confirm the Thanksgiving jokes were told in class. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 68, l. 20 to p. 69, l. 16]

[XXX] testified she could not remember any specific joke, or confirm that sexual jokes, jokes from the internet or Thanksgiving jokes were told in class. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 150, l. 15 to p. 152, l. 2]

[XXX] testified that she recalled jokes of sexual innuendo on the topic of Freud and that she would have remembered any jokes with vulgarity, but she did not. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 69, l. 2-16, p. 101, l. 7-11]

The Member testified that Freud and Freudian slips were curriculum topics and he used examples from textbooks. The Member had no recollection of Thanksgiving or turkey jokes. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p. 152, l. 9 to p. 153, l. 20]

#49 In-class joke about a teacher “Sister Monica is a nun who don't get none”

The Committee does not condone the remark but finds that it does not rise to the level of professional misconduct.

Sister Monica was a nun who taught religion at the School. Evidence presented indicated that the Member made comments about her, including “Sister Monica is a nun who don’t get none” [from [XXX]; see Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 29, l. 2-5] and Sister Monica “was mad because she didn’t get none” [from [XXX]; see Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2006, p. 300, l. 2-4].

[XXX] testified that he could not remember any specific remarks, but the Member talked in a negative way about Sister Monica. [Transcript of Evidence, March 7, 2007, p. 17, l. 25 to p. 18, l. 2]

[XXX] testified that she thinks she heard “the one about her being a nun not getting none” from Mr. Fabel and from students. [Transcript of Evidence, October 23, 2007, p. 21, l. 21 to p. 22, l. 1]

The Member admitted he made the comment on one occasion. He said he was attempting to explain the concept of celibacy to a student, and the student was having a hard time understanding the meaning of the word until the Member used this example.

On cross-examination, the Member denied joking about Sister Monica and said he was attempting to explain the concept of celibacy by referring to nuns in general.

[Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 67, l. 15 to p. 68, l. 17, April 22, 2008, p. 104, l. 9 to p. 105, l. 22]

The Committee finds that the Member’s comment showed a lack of sensitivity but did clearly explain the word “celibacy”. The allusion to a colleague’s vow of celibacy was not seen by the Committee as a condemnation of that colleague’s life choices.

#50 Removed from Notice of Hearing Pursuant to Order of November 7, 2005

The College’s written submissions referred to an alleged incident that had been previously withdrawn from the particulars in the Notice of Hearing, at College Counsel’s request. In her closing submissions, College Counsel indicated that the College was not pursuing this allegation.

#51 Failing to discipline male students who were teasing another student and referring to his mother as a “MILF” ['Mother I would like to fuck'] and repeating the statement “MILF” in class

The Committee finds that the Member acted appropriately in these circumstances, given the conflicts in the evidence, and the fact that John Paul Bondy, who testified to this allegation, did not witness the later interaction between the Member and the students.

John Paul Bondy was an educational assistant in the Member’s classroom. He testified that a group of boys were teasing another student, [XXX], by referring to his mother as a “MILF”. Bondy testified that the Member did stop the discussion between the boys, but did not tell them it was inappropriate. Bondy also testified the Member repeated the term “MILF”, but did not refer to [XXX]'s mother as a “MILF”. [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p. 113, l. 7 to p. 114, l. 21]

The Member testified he observed the interaction between the students at the beginning of the class, he ascertained what was going on and he told the students the discussion was now over. The Member testified he spoke to the boys later and explained that it was inappropriate. The Member denied using the word “MILF”. On cross-examination the Member again denied the use of the term. He reiterated that he spoke to the boys, but could not recall if he assigned detentions but thought he had referred the matter to the office. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 70, l. 7 to p. 73, l. 18; April 23, 2008, p. 174, l. 1 to 176, l. 2]

There was no corroboration from students in the class.

#52 In-class discussions about orgasms in [XXX] class

The Committee finds that the Member allowed students to have an “open session” at the beginning and/or end of class during which students could ask questions regarding issues not directly related to the class. These open sessions may have included questions and discussion of sexual and reproductive issues, but we find that the College did not provide convincing evidence that the Member was guilty of professional misconduct in this instance.

Former student [XXX] testified that the Member “often spoke about the female system, reproductive system, things like that, orgasms, not in the context of any [XXX] lesson”. [XXX] indicated that general discussions took place at the beginning and end of class and this involved questions from students regarding issues that were not directly related to the class. [Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 123, l. 5-8 and p. 134, l. 2-9]

The Member denied having a lesson on this topic but stated it may have arisen during the first five or last five minutes of class where students often asked questions. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 78, l. 22 to p. 79, l.15]

The Committee is not clear whether the allegation of professional misconduct stems from participation in a discussion of a particular topic or from failure to end discussion of a topic introduced by students. Frank discussion of sensitive issues does not, in and of itself, constitute professional misconduct. Indeed, many educators and parents would hold an opposite view. Further, a teacher cannot be held responsible for anything a student might ask or say.

[XXX]’s testimony stated clearly that the Member “often spoke about the female system, reproductive system, things like that….” The Committee finds that there was insufficient evidence presented showing that, even if these topics arose, it was the Member initiating the discussions or allowing them to continue unabated. Lastly, if, as [XXX] alleges, this occurred “often”, why was her testimony uncorroborated?

# 53 In-class discussions about his past drunken experiences

The Committee finds that the balance of evidence is that the Member highlighted the dangers of drinking with a personalized example but that no professional misconduct occurred.

[XXX] testified the Member talked about drinking while in the army, but could remember no specifics beyond that he would be working so long and on his time off would go and drink and do “something” when drunk. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 202, l. 8-13] The “something” was “like he would drive his tank into the ditch, or something like that – as a joke and – because he had been drinking”. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 203, l. 23-25]

[XXX] testified that when highlighting the dangers of drinking, the Member related a story about himself with a moral. The Member had drunk to excess when younger and ended in a ditch next to some water. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 15, l. 5-11]

[XXX] testified to recalling the same story. The Member shared this story after a student brought up a drunken night. She understood the point of the story was not to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, bad things happen. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 19, l. 21 to p. 20, l. 9]

[XXX] also testified about the same story in different classes with the Member, and understood the Member to be saying it was silly that kids always wanted to get drunk all the time. She remembers the story as not being a promotion for drinking but highlighting the potential dangers. [Transcript of Evidence, October 24, 2007, p. 93, l. 1-13 and p. 144, l. 2-11]

#54 Failing to curb class discussions on drinking and sexual experiences of the students

The Committee finds that the evidence was not clear, cogent and convincing to establish that the Member failed to curb these discussions.

[XXX] testified that students would talk about their weekend activities and the Member “let us keep talking” and also offered some of his own experiences. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p.201, l. 8-21] [XXX] testified that sex in the context of marriage and family did come up in the class discussions. [XXX] also testified the Member did not discuss his own or student sexual activities. On cross-examination, [XXX] testified that she did not remember any discussion of weekend activities involving student drinking experiences and student sexual experiences. [Transcript of Evidence, September 28, 2007, p. 13, l. 25 to p. 14, l. 14 and p. 34, l.14 to p.35, l. 5]

The Member confirmed that these topics did occur during the first few minutes of class and also in discussions related to the curriculum. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 38, l. 2-17] The Member testified that he deemed topics that related to weekend “escapades” and matters of a sensitive or personal nature to be inappropriate and shut them down. [Transcript of Evidence, April 22, 2008, p. 24, l. 11-22]

The Committee notes the apparent discrepancy between the testimony of [XXX] and the testimony of [XXX] and the Member. [XXX] gave general examples of topics discussed but did not identify specific, detailed incidents. This could be consistent with the Member’s assertion that discussion may have ventured into sensitive or personal areas but were then stopped. This would also be consistent with the recollections of [XXX].

This allegation relates to the Member’s practice of letting students have a few minutes at the beginning of class to discuss general issues, not necessarily connected to the class. This was admitted to by the Member. The Committee finds that this practice would only be objectionable if the Member failed to curb discussions once they became inappropriate.

#55 Instructing his under-age students on how to drink safely – for example telling them to drink lots of water, sleep on their side and bring a designated driver

The Committee finds that Member attempted to highlight the potential dangers of drinking and no evidence was presented to establish the Member went beyond this intention.

[XXX] testified that the Member gave advice on how to drink safely during a class discussion on drinking habits of teenagers. [XXX] stated that while the students talked about the 'fun' part of drinking, the Member would “tell us more about the dangers” and the advice was given because the Member realized that the discussion on the dangers would not stop underage drinking. [Transcript of Evidence, September 17, 2007 p. 128, l. 16 to p. 129, l. 25]

The Member admitted that these discussions occurred in class and that his sole intention was not to encourage drinking, but to ensure the safety of the ones who did indulge in this behaviour. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p. 146, l. 1-18]

#56 Making inappropriate jokes about people who are overweight, including referring to his ex-wife as a “whale”, “ugly”, “fat cow”, “Hippo”, “Jabba the Hut”, “Fat” and “Rhino at the zoo”

The Committee finds that the Member’s use of language when discussing the size of his former wife does constitute professional misconduct.

There were two categories of evidence offered in support of this allegation. First, there was evidence that the Member made jokes and comments about Weight Watchers and fast food restaurants. [XXX] testified that the Member “joked” how he noticed that people leaving Weight Watchers would go straight to Baskin Robbins. [Transcript of Evidence, March 8, 2006, p. 297, l. 22-25]

[XXX] testified that the Member “joked” about fat people: they'd go to Weight Watchers; they'd work out, but they were never able to lose weight because Baskin-Robbins is right next door. [Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 23, l. 7-10]

The Member testified that he made these observations while he ate dinner with his family in a restaurant. The Member discussed the issue of obesity with his class and was trying to show the irony or insensitivity of placing a particular agency that tries to prevent people from over indulging right in the middle of an area with fast food restaurants. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 65, l.17 to p. 67, l. 11]

The Committee finds that these comments, in these circumstances, would not constitute professional misconduct.

Other evidence from three student witnesses for the College, five student witnesses for the defence, and one staff member of the School indicated that the Member used a variety of terms and examples to specify his ex-wife was fat or overweight. The terms allegedly used by the Member to describe his ex-wife included “humungous”, “whale”, “fat cow”, “hippo environment at the local zoo”, “fat”, “Jabba the Hutt”, and “rhino section at the zoo”.

The Member testified that curriculum topics included marriage and divorce and that people have strong feelings about this. The Member didn't recall using the specific terms attributed to him, but he agreed that he may have been uncharitable in the use of his examples to illustrate a point. He testified his intent was not to insult or demean. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 70, l. 3-6]

#57 Telling his class that his ex-wife had cheated on him

The Committee finds on the balance of probabilities that the Member did indicate that the cause of the failure of his first marriage was infidelity on the part of his spouse. The Committee finds that this does not rise to the level of professional misconduct.

[XXX] and [XXX] both testified that the Member, in discussing marriage, stated his ex-wife cheated on him. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 204, l. 7-12 and September 28, 2007, p. 38, l. 2-8]

Two witnesses for the defence, [XXX] and [XXX], both testified they did not hear the Member make this comment. [Transcript of Evidence, 10/23/07 p.84 l. 19-22 and 10/24/07 p. 51 l. 21-24]

The Member testified that in discussions regarding divorce he may have said the reason for his own divorce was infidelity. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p. 137, l. 17-21]

Testimony indicated that the comment made by the Member in this regard was not widely known among his students. The Committee therefore concludes that this allusion was not frequent and, indeed, may have occurred only once, unlike the comments outlined in #56 (above). Notwithstanding, comments like this should not occur in a classroom setting.

The action on the part of the Member in this specific instance could have been a singular lapse. Further, we have already indicated a finding of professional misconduct related to statements made by the Member about his former spouse (see #56 – above).

#58 Telling his students that women will “Marry you, get fat and take all your money”

The Committee finds that the College has not proved that the Member made this comment.

Evidence was given by John Paul Bondy, who testified the Member made this comment during class. [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p. 111, l. 7-10]

The Member denied making this comment, but acknowledged that a class discussion occurred about prenuptial agreements and marriage contracts. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p. 136, l. 9-18]

No students in the class were called to corroborate Bondy’s account of the incident.

#59 Telling his students that he had just disciplined a student for skipping class by stating that “something that wide and poorly dressed can't be missed”

The Committee finds that the Member did not make a derogatory comment about [XXX]’s size to his class, given the conflicts in the evidence.

[XXX] testified that the Member had disciplined some students in the hallway for a uniform infraction. One of the students was apparently [XXX]. The Member came into class and, when asked about the students he had stopped in the hallway, commented, “How can I forget someone so large and in charge.” One of the boys said, “[XXX]” and the Member agreed. [XXX] informed [XXX] of this incident. [Transcript of Evidence, May 23, 2006, p. 24, l. 8-19]

[XXX] testified that [XXX] had told her that the Member had made a comment in class about one of the students he had stopped in the hallway. [XXX]’s recollection was that [XXX] had said that the Member had said, “that something that wide and poorly dressed couldn't be missed.” [XXX]’s recollection, of the words [XXX] had used, was the same as the written statement of [XXX] (not a witness to the event) to Principal Georges. Those same words, “that something that wide and poorly dressed couldn't be missed”, were used.

[XXX] testified she went to the office to speak to the Principal and was directed to Vice-Principal Celestino. A conference was held with [XXX], Celestino and the Member, where the Member said there had been a misunderstanding about what he had said. [XXX] testified that she and the Member shook hands as the issue was resolved by the school administration. [Transcript of Evidence, March 9, 2006, p. 397, l. 5-12, p. 400, l. 6-20]

The Member confirmed the meeting in the office. He testified that his comment to the class about being in the hallway was, “don't draw attention to yourself, either by being out of uniform or making noise, “basically, like a large group will not go unnoticed.” This was explained to [XXX] in the meeting. [Transcript of Evidence, April 17, 2008, p. 55, l. 18 to p. 56, l. 20]

[XXX] was the only witness to testify as to what the Member said to the class. She seems to have said one thing at the hearing and another thing at the time to [XXX].

No other students from the class testified on this point. Vice-Principal Celestino dealt with the issue closer in time and did not testify.

The Committee has no notes or testimony from Celestino to dispute [XXX]’s testimony that they shook hands and the issue was resolved or the Member’s assertion that he did not make that exact statement.

#60 Referring to body parts blown up during war and referring to “someone's ass” of which there was not enough left to “poo stab”

The Committee determines that the evidence is not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to find the Member made this comment.

Although many of the former Member's students testified, the only evidence came from John Paul Bondy, an educational assistant, who testified the Member made these graphic comments to the class when discussing war. [Transcript of Evidence, July 5, 2007, p. 117, l. 7-14]

The Member denied knowledge of the phrase “poo stab”, and denied ever using the term. He mentioned knowledge of another, similar derogatory phrase which had reference to homosexuals. He denied having used either phrase. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 74, l. 1-17]

No students in the class were called to corroborate Bondy’s account of the incident.

#61 Inviting students to switch out of his class if they didn't like his graphic, offensive style of teaching, telling them that “what goes on in class stays in class” and telling them not to bother complaining about him because he would make them look like “fools”

The Committee finds that it was not proved on a balance of probabilities that the Member made these exact statements.

[XXX] testified that the Member told the class that “what goes on in class stays in the classroom.” She testified that after she told [XXX] what the Member had said about [XXX] (# 59 above), the Member was upset and demanded to know “who said what”. [May 23, 2006, p. 32, l. 7-15] No other student testified about this.

[XXX] testified that the Member warned them at the beginning of the semester that if they were to say anything, he would make them look like fools. [March 8, 2006, p. 301, l. 18 to p. 302, l. 1]

[XXX] testified that her mother complained, after the September 11th class, when there was a detailed and graphic discussion about the events of 9/11. [XXX] remembers the Member saying “we cannot talk about that anymore”. [Transcript of Evidence, November 22, 2006, p. 216, l. 10 to p. 217, l. 23] While the student ([XXX]) did not come to the Member regarding her concerns about the discussion of September 11^th, her mother did raise the issue and he did stop further discussions on the topic.

The Member testified that on the first day of classes he reaffirmed policies of the school, handed out the course syllabus and talked about his approach to the course. He described his approach to the curriculum and related current events as involving frank discussions and if students had problems with any of this they could come to him and if necessary switch to another class with his blessing. [Transcript of Evidence, April 16, 2008, p. 75, l. 19 to p. 77, l. 14]

The Member, during cross-examination, testified that this was a mechanism for students to use to approach him without any judgment on his part. He noted he was not really aware of students making use of this other than the two to three students who opt to make a course change at the beginning of a semester. [Transcript of Evidence, April 23, 2008, p. 107, l. 22 to p. 108, l. 18]

[XXX]'s version of what transpired in the Member’s class regarding the [XXX] incident and [XXX]'s testimony that the Member threatened to “make them look like fools” were uncorroborated by any of the other students who testified.

The act of inviting students to opt for another course should they be unhappy with their present one cannot constitute professional misconduct unless perhaps it is accompanied by an implication of negative consequences should a student opt to remain in the class. No evidence was heard to indicate this. On the contrary, [XXX] confirmed that the topic which upset her (9/11) was not discussed after her mother and the Member had spoken. There was no evidence presented which indicated she was either encouraged to leave the class or made to suffer any consequence as a result of her mother’s discussion with the Member.

Summary of Factual Findings

In summary, as to the 61 alleged incidents that are at the heart of this matter, the Committee finds that the following incidents occurred.

1. The Member used a phrase containing the phrase, “I’ll burn you”. He used it specifically with [XXX] following a uniform infraction on her part, and he likely used it on other occasions. The phrase was used to mean that if students did not obey the regulations, they would get further discipline (probably a detention). The students generally understood what the Member meant and did not take the phrase literally.

2. The Member made comments concerning the way that some female teachers dressed during a class discussion regarding the school dress code. The Member should not have offered his personal views.

3. The Member made comments in class about the guidance department but there was no evidence the comments were detrimental to the relationship between the Guidance Department and students.

4. Although the Member did not offer specific criticisms of the members of the religion department, or the teaching methods of the religion teachers, the Member was critical of the Board policy about taking religion courses because of the effect it had on students attempting to meet academic requirements for admission to post-secondary programs.

5. The Member used nicknames for School administrators in the presence of students (such as “Big Bird” for Principal Kennedy).

6. The Member personalized the curriculum when he talked to his students in general terms about how some of his colleagues did not like views he expressed. He did not name any names.

7. The Member acted hastily in meeting with the guidance counselor, Karen McCarthy. His physical stature and positioning in her office might have made McCarthy feel uneasy.

8. The Member made critical comments about the School and Board administration in the presence of other teachers.

9. The Member asked Piazza Chittaro if a position she had been chosen for had been posted, and had a conversation with her in which he suggested that the reason she had been chosen for the job was that she was “non-threatening”. Piazza Chittaro interpreted this as an insult, although the Member did not intend it as such at the time.

10. The Member once entered Piazza Chittaro’s classroom to discipline a student for a uniform infraction. This happened before the bell had rung to signal the beginning of class. The Member was not attempting to undermine his colleagues’ authority when he did this.

11. The Member attempted to joke with a disabled student by referring to her “chicken legs”. This attempted humour was a lapse in judgment.

12. The Member did a social profiling exercise in his [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] class in which he illustrated the concepts by suggesting that one student might turn out to be an axe-murderer because she was so quiet; and another student might turn out to be “suicidal” because of his dress and taste in music. These examples could have been more carefully selected.

13. The Member began a parent-teacher conference by saying to the parents of two intelligent, well-behaved children, “Who shall we talk about first, Dumb or Dumber?” This was a poorly-conceived effort at humour.

14. The Member, in the course of an in-class discussion about attractiveness, personalized the curriculum by revealing his own preferences, and saying that he liked legs, although he qualified this by indicating his spouse was a Highland dancer. The Member discussed pick-up lines and dating in general terms meant to warn students about dating.

15. The Member repeated jokes with sexual innuendo in class, related to a topic on Freud.

16. The Member used the phrase, “Sister Monica is a nun that doesn’t get none” or something similar. This was a regrettable choice of words.

17. The Member had brief “open sessions” typically at the beginning of class, where students could ask questions about issues not directly related to the class. These discussions sometimes involved sexual and reproductive issues, drinking alcohol and other social issues. The Member would sometimes personalize this with examples from his own past, meant to highlight the potential dangers of drinking. If the discussions became inappropriate, the Member would shut them down.

18. The Member gave advice in class to underage students about steps they could take to drink safely and responsibly, if they were going to drink.

19. The Member discussed his ex-wife with his students, using a variety of derogatory terms that stated or implied she was overweight (such as “humongous”, “whale”, “fat cow”, “hippo environment at the local zoo”, “fat”, “Jabba the Hutt” and “rhino section at the zoo.”

20. The Member revealed to his class that the reason for his divorce was his wife’s infidelity.

DECISION

Having considered the evidence and onus and standard of proof, the Committee finds the Member committed an act of professional misconduct when he made comments to his students which described the weight of his former wife in a derogatory manner. The Committee finds that these facts support a finding of professional misconduct pursuant to Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsection 1(18), an act or omission that, having regard to all circumstances, would be regarded by members as unprofessional.

REASONS FOR DECISION

(a) The Finding of Professional Misconduct

The Member testified that curriculum topics included marriage and divorce and that people have strong feelings about these topics. The Member admitted that he talked about his own divorce and his ex-wife. He didn't recall using specific terms such as “humungous”, “whale”, “fat cow”, “hippo environment at the local zoo”, “fat”, “Jabba the Hut”, and “rhino section at the zoo”. However, the Member admitted that he may have been uncharitable in his use of examples to illustrate a point during discussions. The Member testified that it was not his intention to insult or demean.

The Committee finds that the Member did personalize the curriculum when he made comments to students and staff about his former wife’s weight. These comments were insulting and demeaning not only to his former spouse but to all overweight people. The comments were varied and occurred over time, thus denying the Member consideration which a single unfortunate comment may have warranted. The Committee finds that the Member’s actions constitute professional misconduct as conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional.

(b) The Remaining Incidents

Some allegations were dismissed because insufficient evidence was presented to the Committee. Importantly, the Committee did not find on the balance of probabilities that the Member engaged in harassment or intimidation of any of his colleagues. Had the Committee made those factual findings, the result of the hearing would be different.

Other allegations made by the College, even if true, would not constitute professional misconduct. Some allegations should not have been pursued.

The Committee considered its factual findings, both individually and as a whole. Testimony given by witnesses for the College and for the Member portrayed the Member as a popular and dynamic educator whose classes were well subscribed. Notwithstanding, the Member was not perfect. There were times he could have chosen his words or topics more carefully. However, not every lapse in judgment or transgression of civility amounts to professional misconduct.

Having regard to all the circumstances, the Committee finds that the rest of the Member’s conduct as found by the Committee does not meet the level required for a finding of abuse, incompetence, failure to meet the standards of the profession, conduct unbecoming a Member, a breach of the Education Act, or conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

There were some incidents which required the input, advice or intervention of the school administration. The Committee finds that much of the alleged misconduct in this case may be characterized as the sort of conflict that can occur from time to time in a school setting. For the most part, school administration is far better placed to manage these issues without the intervention of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers. This is especially true of the interaction between adult colleagues.

Dated: April 30, 2010

____________________________________

Ted Coulson, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

____________________________________

Don Cattani, OCT Member, Discipline Panel