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
Paul Abi-Mansour, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Darlene Mead, OCT, Chair
Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT
Pauline Smart
BETWEEN: ) Christine Lonsdale, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for Ontario College of Teachers, ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) Litigation Paraprofessional
– and – )
PAUL ABI-MANSOUR ) Paul Abi-Mansour, on his own (CERTIFICATE #515326) ) behalf, via videoconference
) Julie Maciura,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: January 17, 2013
DECISION AND REASONS ON PENALTY
On August 28, 2012, the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) rendered a written decision finding Paul Abi-Mansour (the “Member”) guilty of professional misconduct.
In its written decision of August 28, 2012, the Committee found that based on the clear, cogent and convincing evidence presented during the five-day hearing, the Member committed acts of professional misconduct by exhibiting a lack of respect for his students in both the language he used and his manner, demonstrating intolerance of his students’ requests and failing to demonstrate care, commitment or respect for students with special needs.
The Committee found that these facts supported a finding of professional misconduct pursuant to the Ontario Regulation 437/97, being more particularly breaches of subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15) and 1(18). Following deliberations on subsection 1(18), the Committee determined that the acts of the Member did not reach the level of disgraceful or dishonourable, but would be regarded as unprofessional by members of the profession.
The Committee reconvened the hearing on October 29, 2012 to hear submissions on the issue of penalty. At that time, the Member requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow him more time to prepare his submissions on penalty, given that he had just received notice on October 25, 2012 of College Counsel’s position on the penalty being sought and the fact that he was self-represented. Considering the basis for the request and the fact that College Counsel did not oppose the adjournment provided an agreeable hearing date was set immediately, the Committee granted the Member’s request for an adjournment on the following terms:
The date of the penalty hearing, as agreed upon by the parties, will be scheduled for January 17, 2013;
The penalty hearing will proceed on January 17, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Toronto, with the proviso that the Member be allowed to participate via videoconference from Ottawa;
There will be no further adjournments granted.
The Committee reconvened the hearing on January 17, 2013 with the Member participating via videoconference.
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
College Counsel submitted that the appropriate penalty would be a reprimand, terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration and publication of the findings and Order including the Member’s name in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Counsel also submitted that the Member be required to successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management with particular emphasis on the use of appropriate language in the classroom environment.
College Counsel argued that the root problem of the Member’s difficulties results from his lack of classroom management skills. College Counsel prompted the Committee to note that the exhibits provided by the Member referred to teacher education training and courses that occurred prior to the time in which the incidents leading to the allegations occurred. College Counsel pointed out that previous course work did not address the situation and a course aimed at remedying the focus of the concerns – classroom management and language – was essential.
College Counsel submitted that the Member’s inexperience is a mitigating factor for the Committee to consider in determining the penalty. College Counsel proposed a penalty at the lower end of the scale, aimed at being remedial, even though there were many allegations against the Member over a short period of time. According to College Counsel, publication with the name serves the principle of transparency and the facts of this case warrant publication of the Member’s name.
College Counsel presented three cases within the range of the penalty being sought in this case.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE MEMBER
The Member presented three exhibits including his transcript from the University of Ottawa, verifying his teacher education training in planning for and working with special needs students, and certificates verifying his completion of the Tribes Programme and the ETFO Planning and Programming Course.
The Member submitted that the Committee should exercise its discretion and that there should be no penalty.
The Member further stated that, if the Committee were to impose a penalty, the appropriate penalty should be a counsel from the Discipline Committee. The Member stated that his teaching expertise is in high demand and that there should be nothing on the public Register regarding professional misconduct. The Member stressed that he preferred a suspension of a maximum of 21 days over the requirement to take a course due to the financial hardship that a course would incur. The Member submitted that if a course was ordered, the College of Teachers should cover the cost of that course. The Member stressed that publication of the Member’s name is reserved for very serious cases and should not apply to his situation, which is at the lower end of the scale and involves a first year teacher.
The Member outlined the mitigating factors he felt the Committee should consider, in particular the fact that this was his first offence within his first year of teaching, the events did not continue or reoccur, he was teaching a challenging grade 7/8 class, and he was teaching a subject that was not his area of expertise.
The Member argued that the Committee could not rule on his lack of classroom management skills as this was not an allegation in the Notice of Hearing. The Member stated that he had no regrets regarding his teaching experience except for the fact that he did not know his rights at that time.
The Member presented ten cases to support his argument that his name not be published. The Member considered the conduct in the majority of these cases to be more grievous and the Members’ names were not published.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Member is to be counselled by the Committee and the fact of the counselling is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(i) the Member shall enroll in and complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar, regarding classroom management, with particular emphasis on the use of appropriate language in the classroom environment.
(ii) Within thirty (30) days of completion of this course, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written Certificate from the Course Provider stating that, prior to conducting the course, the course provider reviewed a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee and 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 Committee took into consideration the relatively short length of time that the Member had been teaching when the incidents that gave rise to the allegations occurred. The Member taught for six weeks at the School in the fall of 2008 prior to his resignation, and he had also taught for less than five months at another school with the same Board in the previous school year. Therefore, the Member had taught a total of less than a year altogether. Further, he did not complete the New Teacher Induction Program (NTIP), a process which is invaluable to new teachers, especially those with challenging classes or those experiencing difficulties. The Committee gave considerable weight to these mitigating factors. While the Member argued that the Committee had not made any findings about “classroom management”, the Committee disagrees and believes that the findings it made did in fact relate to classroom management and that phrase is simply a shorthand manner of describing the conduct engaged in by the Member.
The Committee further considered the fact that the Member was teaching in a subject area that he did not consider his area of expertise. As the Member explained, he had specialized in mathematics and computer science at the Intermediate/Senior levels during his Teacher Education Program, but his placement involved teaching Core French.
The Member stated that teaching the grade 7/8 class was extremely challenging and would be a difficult assignment even for an experienced teacher. The Member argued that he felt that he would be more successful teaching high school students than grade 7/8 students. The Committee gave little weight to this argument. The Member’s Certificate of Qualifications indicated that he was qualified to teach at the Intermediate/Senior level, which included grade 7 and 8, and he had accepted the teaching assignment at this grade level. The Member’s transcript (Exhibit1) indicates that he successfully completed courses in teaching at the Intermediate and Senior levels. As a result, the Committee submits that the Member should have acquired the foundations/methodology for dealing with these grade levels, but has been unsuccessful in putting this knowledge into practice in the classroom situation. From the perspective of the Committee, teaching high school students could present challenges as strong as, or stronger, than teaching grade 7/8 students, as it is very common for secondary students to oppose all forms of authority.
The Committee accepts that the allegations took place early in the Member’s teaching career and before he had the opportunity to acquire the appropriate skill set. In consideration of this, the Committee has determined to counsel rather than reprimand the Member for professional misconduct. Part of this counseling will include a strong recommendation that the Member show an improved willingness to seek out and accept constructive criticism from leaders and experienced colleagues in education. The Member needs to understand that he showed a lack of judgment in handling disciplinary matters in the classroom and that he did not implement acceptable classroom management strategies, especially when dealing with special needs students. The evidence makes clear that the Member does not tolerate opposition and is unwilling to accept constructive criticism from others. Until the Member acknowledges and accepts responsibility for his part in the difficulties he experienced in the classroom, rather than deflect blame on others, the same issues will continue to arise.
The course of instruction on classroom management, with particular emphasis on the use of appropriate language in the classroom environment, will serve to clarify for the Member why his conduct was unprofessional. Completion of this course will assist the Member with classroom management routines and his daily interactions with students. The Committee submits that a teacher in the Intermediate/Senior division must be prepared to work with students at any grade level in this division and deal with issues of opposition. The Committee has concerns about how the Member reacts to opposition and submits that completion of this course will fulfill a rehabilitative purpose.
The Committee has determined that publication without the name of the Member is appropriate in this case, due to both the Member’s relative inexperience and the fact that allegations are at the lower end of the scale. In consideration of the Member’s lack of experience and the minor nature of the misconduct, the Committee has determined that publication of the Member’s name is not warranted. Publication of the findings and order of the Committee acts as a general deterrent to members of the profession.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves to protect the public interest.
Date: January 28, 2013
Darlene Mead, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Pauline Smart
Member, Discipline Panel