DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Chauvin, 2012 ONOCT 9
Date: 2012-11-28
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Paul Chauvin, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair
Vicki Shannon, OCT
Louis Sloan, OCT
BETWEEN: ) )
) Christine Lonsdale,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for Ontario College of Teachers
– and – ) Danielle Leon Foun Lin,
) Nelligan O’Brien LLP,
PAUL CHAUVIN ) for Paul Chauvin
(CERTIFICATE #199564) )
) Paul Marshall,
) Emond Harnden LLP,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: November 6, 2012
REASONS FOR DECISION, DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 6, 2012 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A Notice of Hearing, dated December 12, 2011, was served on Paul Chauvin (“the Member”) requesting his attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on January 12, 2012 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for November 6, 2012.
The Member was in attendance at the hearing.
ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Paul Chauvin in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated December 12, 2011, are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Paul Chauvin is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”) in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, section 1(5);
(b) he abused one or more students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, section 1(7.1);
(c) 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, section 1(18); and
(d) he displayed conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, section 1(19).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Paul Chauvin is a member of the College.
At all material times the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire de district des écoles catholiques du Sud-Ouest as a teacher.
During the 2008-2009 school year, the Member was teaching at [XXX] in Windsor.
On March 6, 2009, the Member’s conduct demonstrated a lack of professionalism in that:
(a) he was unable to control his anger when disciplining [XXX], a [XXX] year-old student;
(b) he wrestled with [XXX] in an effort to confiscate from him a sweatshirt that was not part of the school uniform; and
(c) he pushed [XXX] against the lockers in the school hallway.
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2).
The Agreed Statement of Facts and Plea of No Contest provides as follows:
Paul Chauvin is a member of the College.
At all material times the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire de district des écoles catholiques du Sud-Ouest as a teacher at [XXX] in Windsor.
The Member confronted Student “A” when disciplining him, after confiscating from him a sweatshirt that was not part of the school uniform. During the altercation, the Member entered into physical contact with Student “A”, who fell against the lockers in the school hallway. The confrontation with Student “A” was captured on the school’s electronic surveillance system.
Counsel for the College submitted a videotape of the incident at the hearing.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
The Member does not contest the accuracy of the facts and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, sections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(18) and 1(19).
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, c. E. 23, as amended, for the purpose of this proceeding under the College of Teachers Act, S.O. 1996, c. 12, as amended, 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 aforementioned uncontested facts and the Plea of No Contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find that the Member’s actions constitute professional misconduct.
DECISION
In the matter of Paul Chauvin, based on the submissions made by counsel and the exhibits filed, and upon the consent of the parties, the Committee accepts the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest.
The Committee acknowledges that the submissions support the allegations that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, and in particular, Ontario Regulation 437/97, sections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee accepts the facts described in the Statement of Uncontested Facts.
The Committee found that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct in that he physically abused a student. The Member wrestled with a student when disciplining him, in an effort to confiscate from him a sweatshirt that was not part of the school uniform.
During the altercation, the Member entered into physical contact with the student, who fell against the lockers in the school hallway. The confrontation with the student was captured on the school’s electronic surveillance system. The Committee finds that the force used by the Member against the student was excessive and constitutes an element of misconduct. The Committee therefore acknowledges that the submissions support the allegations that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, and in particular, Ontario Regulation 437/97, sections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(18) and 1(19).
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 this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand to be recorded on the register;
direct that the Registrar impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(i) that within one year of the date of this order, the Member, at his own expense, enrol in a course in anger management that is pre-approved by the Registrar. Within 30 days of the completion of the course, the Member must provide the Registrar directly with proof of successful completion of the course.
- direct that there be publication of the findings and order of the Committee in summary form in the next regular issue of the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
The parties failed to reach agreement, and made submissions to the Discipline Committee, as to whether or not the publication is to include the full name of the Member.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty and makes the following order as to penalty:
the Discipline Committee directs that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter and be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand to be recorded on the register;
the Discipline Committee directs that the Registrar impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(i) that within one year of the date of this order, the Member, at his own expense, enrol in a course in anger management that is pre-approved by the Registrar. Within 30 days of the completion of the course, the Member must provide the Registrar directly with proof of successful completion of the course.
- the Discipline Committee directs that there be publication of the findings and order of the Committee in summary form in the next regular issue of the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/ Pour parler profession, including the Member’s name as it appears on the public register.
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty for the following reasons.
The Committee considered the fact that the penalty is intended to protect the public interest, uphold the standards of the teaching profession and promote public confidence in the teaching profession. The Committee found that the Member’s use of physical force against a student on March 6, 2009 makes him guilty of professional misconduct.
The reprimand that is to be administered to the Member by the Committee will act as a specific deterrent for him, and is intended to persuade the Member of the seriousness of his actions which are unprofessional because of the use of physical force that does not fall within the framework defined by the profession.
In handing down its decision, the Committee received no evidence to suggest that the Member’s actions were the response of a teacher in imminent danger from a student whose conduct was explosive.
The Committee therefore considered it appropriate to direct the Member to enrol at his own expense in a course on anger management that is pre-approved by the Registrar. This course will give him an opportunity to reflect on the conduct that is acceptable for a teacher in a confrontation with a student.
As a teacher, it is the Member’s duty to be aware of his responsibilities to the students and learn to manage a potentially explosive situation more effectively, without losing control of his emotions.
In the Committee’s opinion, the Member’s penalty must serve as a deterrent to the other members of the teaching profession against using physical force, that is, conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, section 1(19). For this reason, it is important that a summary of the findings and order of the Committee be published, including the Member’s name as it appears on the public register.
The Committee finds that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and that it serves and protects the public interest.
Date: November 28, 2012
Robert Gagné,
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________,
Vicki Shannon, OCT,
Member, Discipline Panel
Louis Sloan, OCT,
Member, Discipline Panel