DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Wayne Norman Todd, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Ryan, OCT, Chair Mel Greif
Darlene Mead, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Caroline Zayid,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Litigation Paraprofessional
- and – )
WAYNE NORMAN TODD ) Howard Goldblatt,
(CERTIFICATE #421174) ) Sack Goldblatt Mitchell,
) for Wayne Norman Todd
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: November 8, 2011
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 8, 2011 at the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated February 11, 2010 was served on Wayne Norman Todd, requesting his presence on February 24, 2010 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 8, 2011.
Wayne Norman Todd was in attendance.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Wayne Norman Todd in the Notice of Hearing, (Exhibit 1) dated February 11, 2010 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Wayne Norman Todd 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 or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, or the Regulations made thereunder, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(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); and
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
At the hearing on November 8, 2011, College counsel sought to withdraw the allegation of professional misconduct in paragraph (c) above, namely that the Member breached Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). The Committee agrees that this allegation 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
Wayne Norman Todd (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 Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) and taught [XXX] classes at two schools of the Board in Scarborough, Ontario, namely [XXX] Public School (“[XXX]”) and [XXX] Public School (“[XXX]”), respectively.
During the 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 academic years, and while at [XXX], the Member made inappropriate comments and employed physical disciplining on a number of occasions. As a result of this conduct, the Member received two letters of discipline from the Principal at [XXX] dated January 28, 2005 and June 9, 2005, which provide details of the Member’s conduct. Copies of these letters are attached as Exhibits “B” and “C”, respectively. The Member was warned that any future incidents would result in disciplinary action.
During the 2006/2007 academic year, and while teaching at [XXX], the Member used inappropriate language and employed physical discipline with one of his male students, including:
(a) on or about November 2, 2006, saying to the student – “Why don’t you just run away?”, which comment he repeated to an emergency replacement teacher;
(b) saying to this emergency replacement teacher – “I wish that this were the real world and I could just quickly open the door and smack”;
(c) picking this student up under the student’s arm, which action resulted, when the student resisted, in the student falling and hitting his head.
The Member received a letter of discipline from the Principal at [XXX] dated December 6, 2006, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “D”, and pursuant to a recommendation to the Board, the Member’s employment was terminated effective February 1, 2007.
In June 2008, the Member’s employment with the Board was reinstated and he was returned to the classroom.
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 to 6 above (the “uncontested facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the uncontested facts referred to in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above, and the referenced Exhibits, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7 - verbal and physical abuse), 1(18 - unprofessional) and 1(19).
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 receive a reprimand, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;
(b) the Registrar to impose the following term or condition on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such term, condition or limitation to be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as it is fulfilled:
(i) the Member shall 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:
(ii) that he or she has received a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts, and Plea of No Contest marked as an exhibit at the hearing of this matter, as well as a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and
(iii) that the Member has successfully completed the course;
(c) 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 reference to the Member’s name, and submissions will be made to the panel on this issue.
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 Wayne Norman Todd committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7-verbal and physical abuse), 1(18- unprofessional) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 (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 paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above, and the referenced Exhibits, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7-verbal and physical abuse), 1(18- unprofessional) and 1(19). The Committee accepted the Member’s plea of no contest and the facts in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest.
The Member exercised unreasonable approaches to disciplining students in his care. The Member jokingly told a student “why don’t you just run away” which was an inappropriate comment to make to a young and impressionable student. Another teacher heard the Member say “I wish that this was the real world and I could just quickly open the door and smack”. The Member also picked up a student by reaching under the student’s arm and this action resulted in the student resisting and thereby falling and hitting his head. In a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest the Member agreed that this was indeed what had happened. The Member received three disciplinary letters highlighting his inappropriate comments and approach to discipline which are dated January 28, 2005, June 9, 2005 and a final letter dated December 6, 2006. The Member was subsequently terminated on February 1, 2007.
In so doing the Member committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7-verbal and physical abuse), 1(18- unprofessional) and 1(19).
SUBMISSIONS ON PUBLICATION
The Committee received submissions from Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member with respect to publication of the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
College Counsel took no position on the issue of publication with or without name and was content to leave the matter to the discretion of the Committee.
Member’s Counsel provided the Committee with some examples of case law which addressed similar situations where penalties were required. In the two cases presented publication occurred without name. Member’s Counsel took the position that publication without name in matters such as this satisfied a number of conditions. The Member has been assigned to a new school since September 2008 and has had two successful performance reviews since then. Member’s Counsel argued that publication is not required and may be detrimental to the Member as he had been demonstrating a positive rapport with his students and has maintained an atmosphere of trust, mutual respect and awareness of equity. Member’s Counsel also asked the Committee to take into account the fact that the behaviours under review took place very early in the Member’s teaching career and since that time the Member has acquired a new and appropriate attitude and set of skills.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Member is to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following term or condition on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such term or condition be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as it is fulfilled:
(i) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, within three (3) months of November 8, 2011, 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:
(ii) that he or she has received a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest marked as an exhibit at the hearing of this matter, as well as a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and
(iii) that the Member has successfully completed the course.
- 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 penalty is appropriate because it provides for a number of disciplinary expectations. There is a strong rehabilitative purpose as the Member will take a course where it is expected that he will gain the knowledge with which he may be able to address his approaches to discipline. This requirement and its intended purpose of remediation is reinforced by the Member’s current teaching assignment and his exercise of his current skill level in a new teaching location. The Member has successfully held this position for three academic years and appears to be well on the path to rehabilitation.
The reprimand provided a specific deterrent to the Member and publication of the matter without name serves as a general deterrent and reminder to the profession about the importance of employing at all times appropriate approaches to discipline, ones that do not do harm.
The penalties imposed on the Member, which have both a rehabilitative and a deterrent component, serve to protect the public interest and improve the profession.
Date: November 8, 2011
Robert Ryan, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Mel Greif Member, Discipline Panel
Darlene Mead, OCT Member, Discipline Panel