Ontario College of Teachers v Narine, 2012 ONOCT 31

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Narine, 2012 ONOCT 31 Date: 2012-10-04

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

Deoraj Narine, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT, Chair

Danny Anckle

Hanno Weinberger, OCT

BETWEEN: ) ) Shane D’Souza,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Bev Hodsdon,

) Law Clerk

• and – )

DEORAJ NARINE ) Deoraj Narine,

(CERTIFICATE #215785) ) on his own behalf

) Julie Maciura,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: June 13 & 14, 2012

REASONS FOR DECISION, DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) on June 13 and June 14, 2012 at Toronto.

Two Notices of Hearing, both dated March 21, 2011 were served on Deoraj Narine, (the “Member”) requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers on May 3, 2011 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for June 13 and June 14, 2012.

The Member was in attendance for both hearing days.

College Counsel filed an Affidavit of Beverley Hodsdon, (Exhibit 2) Law Clerk, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, in anticipation of the Member requesting an adjournment of all matters related to both Notices of Hearing. The Affidavit outlined communications between the Member and the College and College Counsel. The Affidavit confirmed that these matters were originally scheduled to be heard in December 2011 and that College Counsel had consented to adjourn the matters to June 2012, at the request of the Member. Subsequently, the Member contacted College Counsel requesting that the June 13 & 14, 2012 hearing dates be adjourned.

College Counsel opposed the adjournment on the basis that one adjournment had already been granted, in August 2011, with the stipulation that the College would not consent to any further adjournment requests. At the request of the Member at that time, the matter had been scheduled for June 2012. The Member has had ample opportunity to prepare his case and has known since April 3, 2012 that the hearing was scheduled for June 13 & 14, 2012. Counsel indicated that they were ready to proceed and that there were three witnesses present and ready to testify.

In requesting the adjournment, the Member stated he anticipated having spinal surgery which might possibly take place in December 2012. He stated that he had just arrived in Toronto from Malaysia on June 11, 2012 and that he had not been able to contact witnesses in the two days prior to the scheduled date of the hearing. The Member stated that he would use this adjournment to take care of his medical issues, contact witnesses and obtain legal representation. The Member proposed that the hearing be adjourned until the end of December 2012 following his operation.

The Committee considered the Member’s request for an adjournment but denied the request on the following basis: that the Member had previously requested an adjournment for the same reasons in August 2011; it was the Member who had requested the June 2012 dates; the Member did not present any compelling evidence that was new or novel; the Member had several months to prepare; and another adjournment would result in further delay. In addition the Member was requesting a December 2012 date which would coincide with surgery that he was planning to have in the same month. The Member stated that he was unclear exactly when or where the surgery would occur but indicated that it could take place in either Canada or India. This would further delay the proceeding. The Committee also took into account the fact that College Counsel did not consent to an adjournment and had three witnesses that were present, ready and willing to testify.

THE ALLEGATIONS

College Counsel requested that both matters proceed together and there was no objection from the Member.

The allegations against Deoraj Narine in the first Notices of Hearing, (Exhibit 3) dated March 21, 2011 are as follows:

Complaint #1 – Exhibit 3 – Incident April 30, 2008, [XXX]. School

IT IS ALLEGED in Notice of Hearing #1 (Exhibit 3), that Deoraj Narine 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, 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, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, 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).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Deoraj Narine (the “Member”) was, at all times material hereto, an employee of the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) and was a Grade [XXX] [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.

On or about April 30, 2008, the Member made comments to an [XXX] year old [XXX] female Student, which included:

(a) that she was “a shit head”;

(b) criticized her family for allowing her to continue her [XXX];

(c) criticized how she would [XXX];

(d) said that if she had listened to him, she “would have had it taken out”;

(e) that her [XXX] would cost him money as a taxpayer;

(f) said to her – “I feel sorry for you anyways because it’s [the [XXX]] going to [XXX] in a world of violence and shit”;

(g) said to her – “You go sexing around and you know shit, and fucking around”;

(h) used the expression “Fuck guy” when speaking to her.

Member’s Plea

The Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 3).

Overview

Deoraj Narine is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. At all material times, he was employed by the Toronto District School Board as a Grade [XXX] [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School. The case concerned alleged inappropriate comments made by the Member to an [XXX] year old [XXX] female Student on April 30, 2008.

The specific issue for the Discipline Committee to consider was whether or not the Member, on one occasion, made the inappropriate comments as alleged to the Student.

The Evidence

The College called one witness with respect to this complaint, [XXX] the Student in question. The Member also testified before the Committee.

Evidence of [XXX]

[XXX] (now age [XXX]) gave evidence that she was a student in the Member’s grade [XXX] [XXX] class in 2008. [XXX] stated that she did not remember the entire incident or how it started, but did recall some details. [XXX] recalled that the Member was upset with her; she was [XXX], was keeping the [XXX] and had no education and no job. [XXX] testified that the Member said that her [XXX] was going to cost him tax money and he told her, “He did not want to pay the fucking taxes for my [XXX]”. [XXX] testified that she was scared and that the Member’s eyes “were really red and full of hatred” as he approached her with a rolled up piece of paper tapping it in his hand. She was afraid that the Member was going to hit her. [XXX] admitted that she initially accused the Member of poking her stomach during the incident but upon further reflection a few days later realized that in fact he had not touched her.

After the incident [XXX] left the class and went to the office where she spoke to a social worker and the Vice-Principal. She was advised to write down the specifics of this incident (Exhibit 8). [XXX] met with an investigator from the School Board and spoke to the police shortly after the incident. After [XXX] returned to the police and recanted her story clarifying that the Member had not actually touched her, the police did not pursue the matter any further. [XXX] confirmed to College Counsel that there were no other corrections to be made to her witness statement. [XXX] confirmed that she had attended the Hearing in response to a Summons to Witness and had not met with anyone from the College prior to receiving the Summons.

Under cross-examination by the Member, [XXX] responded that she did not recall asking to leave the classroom and spending the majority of the class time “trolling the halls”, neither did she recall getting a report from the doctor stating that her [XXX] was not harmed. In response to why no other students had reported the Member’s use of foul language, [XXX] stated that other students had become desensitized to the Member’s use of profanity.

The Committee finds [XXX] to be a credible witness. She displayed appropriate emotion when recounting the events. She gave a very clear description of the events which was supported by her handwritten note written on the day of the incident (Exhibit 8). Although [XXX] indicated that she did not want to be present at the hearing and attended because of a summons by the College, she gave her evidence in a clear, descriptive manner.

Evidence of the Member

The Member denied the allegations made by [XXX] and stated that he never previously had issues in [XXX] years of teaching. [XXX] was visibly [XXX] and would use this as an excuse to leave class. The Member told [XXX] that he wanted to speak to her about her absences from the class; he suggested to her that she attend classes regularly and be an example for her [XXX]. The Member denied giving [XXX] advice about getting rid of her [XXX]. The Member stated that [XXX] thought he was too harsh and too outspoken. The Member testified that in his role “in loco parentis” he should be able to comment on what he saw as wrong. The Member stated that he knows the consequences of using bad language and reiterated that [XXX]’s story was concocted. He denied to the Principal that he said these things and there were no other students or witnesses other than [XXX].

The Member testified that following this incident he was suspended and charged with assault but the charges were later dropped. The Member was subsequently transferred to [XXX] School.

Decision

The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof with which the Committee is familiar set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53. The standard of proof applied by the Committee in accordance with the McDougall decision, was a balance of probabilities. As in all cases the Committee looks for clear, convincing and cogent evidence.

On June 14, the Committee rendered the following decision orally:

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and by the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Deoraj Narine committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) and specifically as alleged in Exhibit 3, Notice of Hearing, paragraphs 2 (a to h).

Reasons for Decision

The Committee found [XXX] to be a forthright witness. Her testimony was substantiated by her handwritten notes (Exhibit 8), which were written the day of the incident. The Committee determined that based on the credible testimony and written evidence of [XXX], the Member did in fact make inappropriate comments to the student which included:

(a) that she was “a shit head”;

(b) criticized her family for allowing her to continue her [XXX];

(c) criticized how she would [XXX];

(d) said that if she had listened to him, she “would have had it taken out”;

(e) that her [XXX] would cost him money as a taxpayer;

(f) said to her – “I feel sorry for you anyways because it’s [the [XXX]] going to [XXX] in a world of violence and shit”;

(g) said to her – “You go sexing around and you know shit, and fucking around”;

(h) used the expression “Fuck guy” when speaking to her.

Accordingly, the Discipline Committee finds that the Member made these inappropriate comments to an [XXX] year old [XXX] female student, and in doing so failed to maintain the standards of the profession, abused a student verbally, psychologically or emotionally, breached s. 264(1)(c) of the Education Act, engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, and in conduct unbecoming a member.

Complaint #2 – Exhibit 1 – Incidents between September and November, 2009, [XXX] High School

IT IS ALLEGED in Notice of Hearing 2 (Exhibit1), that Deoraj Narine 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, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1 (7);

(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).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Deoraj Narine (the “Member”) was, at all times material hereto, an employee of the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) and was a Grade [XXX] [XXX] teacher at [XXX] High School (the “School”) in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario.

2. Between September and November 2009, the Member:

(a) treated students in a disrespectful manner, yelling at them and telling them to “shut up” on more than one occasion;

(b) employed ineffective classroom management strategies that raised safety concerns;

(c) On November 5, 2009, said to a male Student, in the presence of his classmates – “Shut the fuck up”.

Member’s Plea

The Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1).

Overview

Deoraj Narine is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. At all material times, he was employed by the Toronto District School Board as a Grade [XXX] [XXX] teacher at [XXX] High School. The case concerned allegations that between September and November 2009, the Member treated students in a disrespectful manner, yelled at them, told them to shut up, told one student to “shut the fuck up”, and employed ineffective classroom management strategies.

The specific issues for the Discipline Committee to consider were whether or not the Member treated students in a disrespectful manner, yelled at them, told them to shut up and employed ineffective classroom management strategies.

The Evidence

The College called four witnesses with respect to this complaint, the Student (“[XXX]”), the Student’s mother (“[XXX]”), Grace Christie (“Ms Christie”), an Educational Assistant (EA), and Linda Lake (“Ms. Lake”) (Vice-Principal). The Member also testified before the Committee.

Evidence of [XXX]

[XXX] is a [XXX] student identified as [XXX] ([XXX]).[XXX] identified the Member sitting in the Hearing Room and gave evidence that he was a student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class in 2009 at [XXX] High School.

[XXX] recalls that the classroom environment was hectic and very noisy and some students did not pay attention. [XXX] testified that the Member would get nervous and “pranced around the place”, was sometimes helpful with students but would raise his voice when he got angry. [XXX] also testified that the Member would get himself “overwhelmed”, would tell students to “shut up” and would call students a “moron”. Specifically, [XXX] testified that the Member called him “a bastard” and used the “F” word to “me”.

[XXX] testified that on November 5, 2009, which was a regular day, he was asked to take a different seat. The Member was getting angry because [XXX] kept distracting the class. Eventually, the Member “exploded” and yelled directly “at me using the “F” word”.

[XXX] said he felt that a teacher should not be speaking to him this way and in order not to forget what the Member had said, he wrote it down on a piece of paper. College Counsel produced a copy of the handwritten note (Exhibit 5) that [XXX] had made on November 9, 2009 in support of his testimony concerning the Member’s comments to him. [XXX] identified Exhibit 5 as a copy of that note. [XXX] testified that when he got home and explained to his mother what had happened, she requested he bring the note home the next day. [XXX] stated that a couple of days following the incident he spoke to administration and others at the school regarding the incident. [XXX] did not return to the member’s class at the request of his mother.

On cross-examination by the Member, the student agreed that he was making noises and disturbing the class at the time of the incident. When asked if others in the class would have heard the Member’s comments, [XXX] stated that the class was very noisy, hectic, and there was a lot of interaction going on with a lot of other distractions.

On re-examination by College Counsel regarding the use of the “F” word, [XXX] confirmed that the Member used the words “fucking” and “bastard”.

The Committee found [XXX] to be a credible witness. [XXX] was able to identify the Member in the Hearing Room; he had a good recollection of the events of that day and his report of the general classroom routine was consistent with other reports and evidence presented at the hearing. He was honest in that he freely admitted to causing classroom problems on the day in question, distracting the class and making fun of the Member during the class. [XXX]’s handwritten note (Exhibit 5) also confirmed his account of the events of that day.

Evidence of [XXX]

[XXX] is the mother of [XXX] She confirmed that her [XXX], [XXX], was in the Member’s class at the time of the alleged incident. She testified that [XXX] came home on several occasions reporting concerns over what had occurred in the Member’s classroom. On one occasion [XXX] reported that the Member told him to “shut the fuck up” and called him a “fucking bastard” in front of the class. [XXX] identified the note (Exhibit 5) as a copy of an original document that [XXX] told her he had made during class and brought home to show her. As a result of this incident, [XXX] contacted the school Vice-Principal by telephone, followed by e-mail, expressing her concerns and requesting that [XXX] be removed from the Member’s class. This is verified by the telephone message transcript (Exhibit 10) and the e-mail (Exhibit 6) in which [XXX] stated, “It is completely unacceptable that a teacher abuse his/her power to degrade and humiliate a student before his/her peers in an educational environment”. The reply e-mail (Exhibit 6) indicates that the Vice-Principal was aware of the issue and that the school had involved officials at the Board in the investigation. College Counsel produced the impact statement from [XXX] and [XXX] (Exhibit 7) and made reference to [XXX]’s feelings as a result of what happened in the classroom. Counsel made specific reference to, “….well, I think you had a lot of hate towards me. You were really rude to me at certain points in class. And you yelled at most of us and that kind of freaked us out a lot. I think if you work with kids you should be nice to them and not call them names anymore.”

During cross-examination by the Member, [XXX] stated that she did not know if [XXX] had problems with other teachers at the school.

The Committee found [XXX] to be a credible witness. She answered questions clearly and succinctly and her account of the incident was corroborated by other witnesses, [XXX] and the Vice-Principal. [XXX] presented as a concerned parent who was addressing issues regarding inappropriate interactions between a teacher and students with [XXX]. [XXX] presented an impact statement (Exhibit 7) which was written at the time of the alleged incident. The impact statement was an historical background of [XXX]’s journey and her account of the challenges parents face when dealing with children with [XXX].

Evidence of Christie

Ms Christie gave evidence that she was an Educational Assistant (E.A.) at [XXX] High School since 2005 and had been assigned to the Member’s class in 2009. She testified that teaching students with [XXX] ([XXX]) can be very challenging and stressful. The teacher must provide a very structured classroom environment with very little free time. Ms Christie testified that a great deal of planning is necessary to keep the students engaged at all times; unfortunately this was not the case with the Member’s class. She stated that the class was unstructured with a lot of free time which allowed students to become disengaged. Ms Christie stated that the Member was new to the school and did not seem prepared for his teaching assignment; the atmosphere in his classroom was stressful, noisy and chaotic, “not a positive place to be”. She further stated that the Member exhibited a poor comprehension of how to deal with students with [XXX]. Ms Christie confirmed that the Member yelled at students on many occasions and got into verbal exchanges with individual students regularly. Due to the excessive noise level in the classroom, you could not always hear everything the teacher said. She stated that the Member did not apply appropriate rules and protocols for students to follow. He did not consistently enforce what rules there were, such that there was always a power struggle between him and male students for control of the classroom. In her opinion, his classroom management skills were weak. She stated that there were also safety issues in the classroom with male students getting involved in physical altercations (fights) and throwing chairs, etc. The Member did not intervene, forcing her to do so at times. Ms Christie accompanied these same students to other teachers’ classes during the school day and the same behavioural problems were not evident there. Ms Christie stated that she was not in the classroom when the alleged incident with [XXX] occurred.

Under cross-examination Ms Christie’s role was challenged by the Member who suggested that all she did was sit down in a chair and do nothing. He stated, “you sit at the back of my room and never get out of your chair”. Ms Christie strongly denied the Member’s allegation. When queried by the Member as to why she did not make suggestions to him, Ms Christie’s response was, “You told me that unless you are a teacher, do not question what I am doing”. The Member questioned Ms Christie regarding her educational qualifications as an E.A. She responded that she has a high school diploma and had been employed as an E.A. since 2005. Ms Christie made it very clear that she had no desire to attend the hearing and did so only because she had received a Summons to Witness from the Ontario College of Teachers. She stated that she had not spoken to anyone from the College prior to the hearing.

The Committee found Ms Christie to be a credible witness. She was an experienced Educational Assistant who was held in high regard by the Vice-Principal. Ms Christie answered questions honestly, succinctly and in a forthright manner. Her account of the classroom milieu was the same as described by other witnesses. Even though Ms Christie indicated that she did not want to be present at the hearing and attended because of a summons by the College, her responses did not reflect any animosity or hostility towards the Member.

Evidence of Lake

Ms Lake confirmed that she was Vice-Principal at [XXX] High School in 2009. She testified that the Member was new to the school, having been transferred there in the fall of 2009. She testified that the Member appeared to be having trouble with his classroom management skills. Ms Lake began to notice the problems at the beginning of October and started documenting concerns and conducting “walk-bys” and classroom “walk-throughs”. During these informal visits, Ms Lake observed a lot of noise, students not on task, students in the hallway and students out of class without proper permission. In conversations with the students they indicated they were not happy with the Member; he yelled at them a lot. On one classroom visit she asked the Member for a copy of his lesson plan and noted that it was for students at a Grade [XXX] academic level whereas, the students he was teaching in this class functioned at a Grade [XXX] level. It appeared to Ms Lake, that the Member did not recognize that the students were all identified as [XXX]. Ms Lake testified that administration had made attempts to help the Member improve his classroom management and lesson preparation. A teacher mentor spent time during the Member’s classes providing informal feedback, however the Member was not responsive to concerns expressed to him and often seemed to deflect rather than absorb constructive criticism. Ms Lake introduced various documents, all signed and dated, in support of her evidence. Exhibit 9 is notes of a meeting with Ms Christie, at the E.A.’s request, indicating that the students’ behaviour in the Member’s class was “out of control” and that proper classroom management strategies were not being used. Ms Christie raised the concern of safety issues in the Member’s classroom. The E.A. indicated that she works with these same students in other classes, where, with proper support by their teachers they were doing well. College Counsel showed Ms Lake Exhibit 10, the transcription of the telephone message from [XXX] dated November 9, 2009. Ms Lake confirmed that this was the telephone message that she had received. Exhibit 11 is a note by Ms. Lake indicating that she interviewed various students in the Member’s class where they confirmed that the Member yelled at students, belittled students and swore in class. Exhibit 12 is Ms Lake’s notes of interviews with two students who confirmed hearing the Member yell at students. One of the students stated that the Member didn’t use the full “f” word, but said, “Shut the ‘f’ up”. Exhibit 13 is Ms Lake’s notes of an interview with [XXX] indicating the Member called him “stupid”, maybe “fool” (“stupid fool”), used the “f” word with the “ing” at the end calling him an “f’ing” “bastard”. [XXX] stated to Ms Lake that other students may have heard this. College Counsel presented to Ms Lake a Class List with handwritten notes (Exhibit 14) which she verified as her notes highlighting problems with another class that the Member was teaching. Similar classroom management concerns were identified. College Counsel then presented Ms Lake a set of notes taken at a meeting between the Member and administrators at the school (Exhibit 15) which Ms Lake confirmed as her notes. Ms Lake stated that the meeting was with regard to the Member’s issues with classroom management and allegations of him swearing in the class. The Member denied some of these allegations and rationalized the others.

College Counsel presented to the Committee a copy of a letter of reprimand (Exhibit 16) issued by the Board on the completion of their investigation, which was placed in the Member’s file. The Board concluded that the Member did treat students in a disrespectful way, often yelling at them and telling them to “shut up”; that concerns of safety existed in his classroom due to apparent ineffective classroom management and that on Thursday, November the 5th he swore at a male student in class, in front of his peers, telling him to “shut the fuck up”. This was the second letter of reprimand to be placed in the Member’s file for a similar incident. The letter also indicated that the Member would receive a ten-day suspension and that a report would be made to the Ontario College of Teachers.

Under cross-examination by the Member Ms Lake stated that she did not recall the circumstances surrounding the Member’s transfer to the School. Regarding the Board investigation, the Member asked the question, “How many of the EA’s did you interview?” To which Ms Lake answered only one, Ms Christie because only she had information relevant to the investigation.

When questioned by the Member with regards to the fact that no adult reported witnessing any swearing and the credibility of the students as witnesses Ms Lake confirmed that there were a lot of concerns about the professional conduct of the Member and he was aware that he was being watched by administration. Ms Lake testified that she did not believe that all of these [XXX] students could come up with these concerns acting in collusion: there was consistency in the various reports from the students and staff.

The Committee found Ms Lake to be a credible witness. She indicated that she routinely documented meetings that she had with staff and in this case she came with notes that she had written in her various discussions with and about the Member. Ms Lake’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. She was forthright and succinct upon cross-examination by the Member.

Evidence of the Member

The Member denied all the allegations in the Notices of Hearing both dated March 21, 2011.

The Member testified he was born in British Guyana where he attended high school and university and obtained his undergraduate degree. The Member stated that he has a PhD in Chemistry from Dalhousie University and a B. Ed. from the University of Toronto. The Member began teaching in Toronto in 1992 and stated that he had taught without any problems until the incidents in 2008 and 2009. He retired from the Board in January 2010. After incident #1 the Member requested a transfer to another school. He was advised at the time that he could pick the school and was subsequently transferred to [XXX] High School. When the Member learned that the School was a [XXX] community for students with [XXX], he indicated that he did not want to be placed in this school. Since he had no experience or training in teaching students with [XXX], he contacted both his union and school administration and was advised he had no choice over the matter. The Member stated that he was very frustrated with the situation, as it unfolded.

The Member admitted that the class was very chaotic for the first month. He was not prepared for the student behaviour in class (i.e. talking across class, getting up and moving without permission, not paying attention, not following directions of teacher, etc.). The Member testified that he sought assistance from peers and was told he was teaching at too high a level. The Member stated he started gathering up puzzles and word searches to use in class. After about one month the Member felt things were improving and that he was making progress in most classes. The Member denied that he knew school administration was keeping an eye on him and that he was under surveillance. He believed the Vice-Principal was there to help, not supervise. The Member questioned the statements of Ms Christie saying that unless she was a teacher she should not talk about lesson plans. The Member did remember speaking to [XXX] telling him to “shut up, please shut up”, but he denied calling [XXX] a “bastard” or using the term “fucking”. He stated that [XXX] could have written the note (Exhibit 5) at any time. The Member questioned how the students could determine he was yelling at them, if the class was so noisy. The Member suggested that there could be collusion between [XXX] and other students with regard to the Member swearing during class. The Member expressed concern that more students and EAs should have been called as witnesses and inferred that the reason they were not called was because their testimony would not support the events in question.

The Member consistently denied the allegations but presented no evidence to support this denial.

Cross-Examination of Member by College Counsel

Under cross-examination regarding Complaint #2, Exhibit 1, the Member testified that he was frustrated that he had been placed in [XXX] High School as he had not selected this school when he was transferred. He indicated he did not have any previous experience teaching students with [XXX]. When asked by College Counsel if he had made any preparations over the summer prior to the transfer, the Member indicated that he had not. The Member described the classroom upon his arrival. He stated that he had previously seen isolated incidents where children were loud, but he had never seen students behave in that manner consistently. The Member indicated that the first month in his class at [XXX] School was chaotic but he thought it had improved thereafter. In response to questions from College Counsel, the Member stated that he felt Ms Christie could not comment on the structure of his lessons; however he admitted she was qualified to talk about classroom management, noise and chaos.

The Member recalled incidents from the day in question. The Member indicated he had a good relationship with [XXX] and denied calling him a “bastard”. The Member said he had seen the note written by [XXX] but he implied that [XXX] could have written the note at anytime. Counsel pointed out to the Member that when [XXX] and [XXX] were on the stand, he could have challenged their evidence as to when the note was written, but did not do so. Counsel pointed out that many students were interviewed as part of the Board’s investigation and all testified to the Member yelling and most testified to the Member swearing. The Member said he felt that if he was yelling, then all of the students should have heard him. He questioned why only one student, [XXX], had made a complaint. College Counsel asked the Member if he had any letters of support from any of the other Educational Assistants to which the Member responded, “No”. Counsel reiterated that the Member had ample opportunity to collect letters of support but he had not done so. The Member maintained he didn’t swear in the classroom, that it is not part of his vocabulary but did admit to telling [XXX] to “shut up”.

College Counsel then cross-examined the Member with respect to Complaint #1, Exhibit 3. Under cross-examination the Member agreed that [XXX] was [XXX], showing at the time and that the discussion between them occurred in front of other students.

Re-examination of the Member

The Member advised the Committee that he was not an expert in “interrogation techniques” and that any lapses were due to inexperience. He reinforced that swearing was not part of his vocabulary. He commented that the Vice-Principal did not complain to him about his lessons being inadequate and he was not aware that he was “under surveillance”.

Closing Submissions:

Submissions of College Counsel

College Counsel reminded the Committee that there were two separate sets of allegations which had to be proven independently by the College. He indicated he believed there was clear, cogent evidence from several witnesses, transcripts of relevant interviews and notes, some of which were written on the day the incidents occurred, and that this was sufficient evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities the allegations.

With regards to Complaint #2, Exhibit 1, College Counsel submitted that the particulars had been proven. The Member admitted that he was inexperienced in teaching [XXX] students and asked that he not be transferred to [XXX] School. The Member also admitted to being frustrated that he been sent to this school; he knew where he was being transferred to before he arrived and the type of students he would be teaching. Throughout the summer and during the first months, the Member was not prepared and admitted he was lost. [XXX] testified that the “classroom setting was hectic”. This observation was corroborated by the Educational Assistant and Vice-Principal. College Counsel noted that although the Member was challenging the E.A.’s qualifications, that in fact she had ample experience to comment on the Member’s classroom management and had more experience than the Member in this type of setting. Further she worked with the same students in different classrooms with different teachers and there were no problems. College Counsel stated that the Vice-Principal at [XXX] High School first heard of issues in October 2009 and started paying close attention, meeting with the Member to assist him in his transition into the new school. She would drop into the Member’s classroom from time to time. College Counsel indicated that the Vice-Principal had sufficient education and experience to provide first hand evidence of the Member’s ineffective classroom management as a result of her observations. The Member admitted to telling students to “shut up” on more than one occasion, including [XXX] The Member’s yelling was witnessed by the E.A. and [XXX]

College Counsel pointed out that there are two main witnesses, [XXX] and the Member. With respect to credibility, [XXX] is a young but credible teenager who was forthright about things that he recalled and things that he did not. [XXX] was not coached, had no “agenda” and his answers were reasonable. [XXX]’s note (Exhibit 5), which the Committee found was written on the day in question, is key to resolving the credibility question, and its authenticity was not challenged by the Member. College Counsel stated that the Member was aware of the serious allegations facing him and did not seek corroboration from other potential witnesses to discredit any of the evidence and testimony before the Committee even though he had ample time to do so. College Counsel submitted that “you do not need legal training to seek corroboration of your argument to contradict evidence presented.”

With regards to Complaint #1, Exhibit 3, College Counsel indicated there were two versions of the events and that credibility was a big factor. [XXX] is a smart, young university student and a reluctant participant in the hearing, two years post incident. The witness was [XXX]-years old when this traumatic incident occurred. She was emotional at times during the hearing and could not face the Member when testifying. It was clear that there was an exchange between [XXX] and the Member. However there is sufficient evidence (exhibit 8), a hand written note made by [XXX] at the time of the incident, to support [XXX]’s version of the events. Upon reflection, [XXX] voluntarily went to the police shortly after the event and corrected her statement to indicate there was no physical contact. College Counsel asserted that there are no allegations of physical abuse at this hearing.

Member’s Closing Submission

With regards to Complaint #2, Exhibit 1, the Member made reference to the note (Exhibit 11) written by the Vice-Principal regarding her interview of students and the E.A. He pointed out the discrepancy i.e. the note stated that [XXX] was called a “bitch” by [XXX] but this was not part of [XXX]’s testimony. The Member stated that the Vice-Principal spoke to other E.A.s but did not take notes. He indicated that notes taken by the Union rep are substantiated, although none were presented, and notes taken by the Vice-Principal are not substantiated. The Member indicated that he sent many students to the office thereby confirming that he was meting out discipline. The Member pointed out that although there were five other E.A.’s, only Ms Christie was called to be a witness. The Member claimed that [XXX] had other problems in the school.

The Member indicated that he spoke to the Principal of [XXX] School in the spring before arriving and she did not suggest any preparation for September. The Member admitted that as a result, his classes were chaotic at the beginning. The Member denied using swear words, stating they were fiction and did not happen.

With regards to Complaint #1, Exhibit 3, the Member stated that no poking took place with [XXX] and that she was probably upset with what he said to her.

Reply Submission

College Counsel commented that the Member was deflecting his responsibility to prepare for his transfer to [XXX] High School to the Principal. College Counsel indicated that the Vice-Principal had interviewed several students, including [XXX], but took [XXX]’s statement at face value. Counsel stated that the handwritten notes tendered in evidence by the Vice-Principal were those that were relevant to this hearing. College Counsel stated that although there were other potential witnesses, those called to testify had presented sufficient evidence to prove the allegations.

Decision

The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof with which the Committee is familiar set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53. The standard of proof applied by the Committee in accordance with the McDougall decision, was a balance of probabilities. As in all cases the Committee looks for clear, convincing and cogent evidence.

On June 14, 2012, the Committee rendered the following decision orally:

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and by the Member, the Committee finds that the fact support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Deoraj Narine committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) and specifically as alleged in and substantiated in Exhibit 1, Notice of Hearing 2, paragraph 2 (a to c).

Reasons for Decision

Having heard the two differing accounts of the events of November 5, 2009, the Committee prefers the testimony of the College’s witnesses for the following reasons:

-All of the witness testimonies were consistent in describing the Member’s classroom milieu and his interactions with students.

-The College’s witnesses all gave succinct and forthright responses when examined and cross-examined.

-Witnesses, with one exception, provided notes written at the time of the alleged events which supported their testimonies.

The Committee found that between September and November 2009, the Member treated students in a disrespectful manner, yelled at them and told them to “shut up” on more than one occasion; employed ineffective classroom management strategies that raised safety concerns; and on November 5, 2009, said to a male Student, in the presence of his classmates – “Shut the fuck up”. The Committee took into consideration that the Member had previously received two letters of reprimand for similar incidents and had been suspended by the Board for a period of ten days.

By these actions, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, verbally abused students, breached s. 264(1)(c) of the Education Act, engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, and in conduct unbecoming a member.

Submissions on Penalty

College Counsel submitted that the Registrar suspend the Member’s Certificate for three months commencing on the date of this Order and the fact of the suspension be recorded on the Register. Further, Counsel for the College submitted that prior to returning to the classroom, the Member should enroll and complete two courses of study namely, classroom management and sensitivity training. The Member must provide proof of successful completion of both courses within one year from the date of the Order.

With regards to publication, College Counsel seeks publication with the name of the Member in the College’s magazine Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

College Counsel stated that the penalty is reasonable in the circumstances, is not punitive but rather is rehabilitative and serves as a deterrent. He further stated it is important that transparency occur in cases before the Discipline Committee. The College takes the issues of professional decorum and classroom management seriously. College Counsel denounced swearing in the classroom setting and more specifically stated that terms like “shut-up” are also unacceptable when talking to students. He also reminded the Committee that the allegations involved two vulnerable students (a [XXX] teenager and a student with [XXX]), and both incidents occurred within a relatively short period of time.

The Member made no submission.

Penalty Decision

On June 14, 2012, the Committee rendered the following decision orally:

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three (3) months from June 14, 2012 and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;

2. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms and conditions and limitations to be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as they are fulfilled:

(i) that the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, two courses of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar, one regarding classroom management and one regarding sensitivity training.

(ii) within one year from June 14, 2012, the Member shall provide to the Registrar written certificates from the course providers stating that the Member has successfully completed the courses;

3. the Committee directs that there be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

Reasons for Penalty Decision

The penalty order takes into account the conduct of the Member with respect to the findings made in relation to both Notices of Hearing.

The Committee determined that the suspension is appropriate based on the serious nature of the Member’s conduct and serves as a specific deterrent. The suspension also serves as a general deterrent to the profession reminding them that using abusive and disrespectful language when speaking to students under any circumstance is unacceptable.

Classroom management and sensitivity courses will provide the Member with training that will address the issues which gave rise to the misconduct.

Publication of the findings and order of the Committee, in summary, with the name of the Member, in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession provides both a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to the profession while advising and serving the public interest. It assures the public that the College will not tolerate such behaviour and will ensure that this type of misconduct is dealt with seriously.

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.

Date: October 4, 2012

______________________________ Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

Danny Anckle

Member, Discipline Panel

Hanno Weinberger, OCT Member, Discipline Panel