DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Page, 2011 ONOCT 24
Date: 2011-11-14
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
Richard Bruce Page, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair Danny Anckle
Irene Dembek, OCT
BETWEEN: ) David Leonard,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Litigation Paraprofessional
- and – )
RICHARD BRUCE PAGE ) Victoria Réaume,
(CERTIFICATE #300549) ) Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton
) McIntyre & Cornish LLP,
) for Richard Bruce Page
) Richard Steinecke,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: November 1, 2011
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 1, 2011 at the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated December 21, 2010 was served on Richard Bruce Page, requesting his presence on January 11, 2011 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 1, 2011.
Richard Bruce Page was in attendance.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Richard Bruce Page in the Notice of Hearing, (Exhibit 1) dated December 21, 2010 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Richard Bruce Page is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1 (7.1);
(c) he abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1 (7.2);
(d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(e) 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); and
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
At the hearing on November 1, 2011, College counsel sought to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), namely that the Member breached Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), (18) and 1(19). The Committee agrees that these allegations shall be withdrawn.
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Richard Bruce Page (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Simcoe County District School Board (the “Board”) and was a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Barrie, Ontario.
On May 14, 2009, while on supervisory lunch duty, the Member entered the portable classroom in which Student #1, a male [XXX] student at the School was present, together with other of his classmates. On seeing that students’ shoes were not placed against the wall of the classroom as he had previously instructed, the Member began to kick at the shoes, some of which landed outside the classroom. In doing so, the Member’s foot made contact with Student #1. Student #1 alleges that he fell and suffered some minor scraping to his mid-to-lower back.
The Member received a letter of discipline or expectations which, following a grievance, was removed from his personnel file in lieu of a verbal reminder to the Member that his conduct was disrespectful and inappropriate.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 - 4 above (the “uncontested facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the uncontested facts referred to in paragraph 3 above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the uncontested facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that depending on the penalty ordered by the Discipline Committee, the decision of the Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, may be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between his counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the uncontested facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
- The Ontario College of Teachers and the Member jointly submit that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in these matters would be that the Committee directs:
(a) that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to be counselled;
(b) that there be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. The parties have not agreed on whether or not the publication should include the Member’s name.
- The Member has completed a course in classroom management that is acceptable to the Registrar. Proof is attached at Exhibit “A”. Had the Member not completed this course, the joint submission on penalty would have included a term, condition or limitation on the Member’s certificate that the member enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, within three (3) months from the date of an Order of the Discipline Committee, a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, in classroom management, with particular emphasis on positive discipline strategies, and that the Member shall deliver directly to the Registrar, within thirty (30) days of completion of that course, a written certificate from the course provider stating that the Member has successfully completed the course.
DECISION
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Richard Bruce Page committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly a breach of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsection 1(5).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 (the “uncontested facts”) of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2). He acknowledged that the uncontested facts referred to in paragraph 3 above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleaded no contest to the allegation of professional misconduct, being more particularly a breach of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5). The Committee accepted the Member’s plea of no contest and the facts in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest.
On May 14, 2009, while on supervisory lunch duty, the Member entered the portable classroom in which Student #1, a male [XXX] student at the School was present, together with other classmates. On seeing that the students’ shoes were not placed against the wall of the classroom as he had previously instructed, the Member began to kick at the shoes, some of which landed outside the classroom. In doing so, the Member’s foot made contact with Student #1. Student #1 alleges that he fell and suffered some minor scraping to his mid-to-lower back. By these actions, the Member committed professional misconduct, being more particularly a breach of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
SUBMISSIONS ON PUBLICATION
The Committee received submissions from Counsel for the Member with respect to whether the fact of the penalty would be recorded on the Public Register, and with respect to publication of the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. College Counsel took no position on whether the fact of the penalty should be noted on the Public Register, and took no position regarding publication of the Member’s name.
Counsel for the Member conceded that while this was professional misconduct, it was at the lower end of the spectrum. The Member has been teaching for nineteen years and has been in good standing with the College since 1998. Counsel also noted that the Member has already been through a range of punishments and remedial efforts, including a letter of discipline and verbal reminder and that the Member completed a remedial behaviour management course in February 2010. Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member has insight and recognition that remedial efforts were necessary and this speaks to specific deterrence. As well, by pleading no contest, the Member spared student witnesses from having to testify and spared the College the expense of a full hearing. The Member recognized that he breached the College’s standards and agreed to be counselled by the Committee. Counsel stated that publication with name would not be necessary and would be harsh. A summary of the findings without the name of the Member provides general deterrence and there is no further value in publishing the Member’s name and noting the fact of the penalty on the Public Register.
PENALTY
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
1. The Member is to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to be counselled, and the fact of the counselling is not to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”); and
- The Committee directs that there be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form, without the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The Committee determined that counselling of the Member is an appropriate penalty. The Member has a nineteen year teaching history and has not previously appeared before the Committee. The Member has been in good standing with the College since June 1998. The Committee considered the minor nature of the incident and that the Member has already completed a course in behaviour management. The Committee also considered the Member’s plea of not contest and the fact that in doing so, he spared students from appearing as witnesses and saved the College the expense of a full hearing. The Member agreed to be counselled and the Committee is satisfied that this will serve as a specific deterrent. In deciding not to publish the Member’s name and not to publish the fact of the counselling on the Public Register, the Committee recognizes the minor nature of the conduct, the Member’s co-operation, the remedial steps already taken by the Member, and the counselling penalty.
Publication of the summary of the finding and order in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession addresses the issue of general deterrence and serves the public interest. The Committee agrees that there is no further value in publishing the Member’s name.
Date: November 14, 2011
______________________________ Hanno Weinberger, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Danny Anckle
Member, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel