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 Enoch Edusei, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Danny Anckle, Chair
Christine Bellini, OCT
Annilee Jarvis, OCT
BETWEEN: )
) Eli Mogil,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Bev Hodsdon,
) Law Clerk
-and- )
) Enoch Edusei was not
) present, nor was he represented
ENOCH EDUSEI )
(CERTIFICATE #205324) )
) Rebecca Durcan,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: February 13 and 14, 2013
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on February 13, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated December 13, 2011 was served on Enoch Edusei (the “Member”), requesting his presence on January 16, 2012 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for February 13, 2013.
Enoch Edusei was not in attendance nor was he represented.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Enoch Edusei (the “Member”) in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Enoch Edusei is guilty of professional misconduct and/or is incompetent as defined in subsections 30(2) and 30(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers 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 his students verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he failed to comply with the Act and the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) (a), (b) (c) and (d) thereof or the Regulations made under those Acts, 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);
(e) he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or a disregard for the welfare of his students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations;
(a) he failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to Section 13 of the Regulation made under the Teaching Profession Act made pursuant to Section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter T2, as amended;
(f) he failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to Section 14(f) of the Regulation made under the Teaching Profession Act, made pursuant to Section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter T2, as amended.
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Enoch Edusei (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. The Member’s certificate is currently suspended for non-payment of fees.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board and its predecessor the Scarborough Board of Education (the “Board”) and taught [XXX] at a number of schools of the Board, including, [XXX] ), [XXX] , and [XXX] ).
Between September 1995 and January 31, 1999, while teaching at [XXX] , the Member:
(a) used intimidating language and a loud voice with students, parents, colleagues and the school administration;
(b) failed to make an appointment to meet with his Principal, despite having been requested to do so;
(c) on or about December 1, 1995, attempted to videotape an interview with a female student, Student #1 and her mother, during which he insulted and intimidated them both;
(d) on or about May 2, 1997, failed to attend a meeting as he had been requested to do by his Vice-principal, with a special education teacher, Student #2 and Student #2’s parent, in order to resolve a conflict;
(e) on or about November 27, 1998, yelled at his Superintendent and his Principal in the main office area, pointed his finger in the Superintendent’s face and accused both the Superintendent and the Principal of being racist, biased and prejudiced.
On or about February 8, 2000, while teaching at [XXX] , the Member refused to follow the student evaluation policy of the [XXX] Department at the school.
During the 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 academic years, while teaching at [XXX] , the Member:
(a) acted in an angry, uncaring and disrespectful manner towards his Grade [XXX] [XXX] and [XXX] students;
(b) was intolerant of the questions asked in class by his Grade [XXX] and [XXX] students, and/or failed to provide clear instructions for tasks, and/or unfairly assessed their work;
(c) in or about November 2003, exhibited a belligerent and uncooperative attitude towards his Principal;
(d) during the 2005/2006 academic year:
(i) returned students’ tests late;
(ii) failed to check student homework;
(iii) was dismissive in his treatment of students;
(iv) gave vague explanations when questions were asked of him;
(v) was unclear in his communication to students regarding his assessment methods and his evaluation of their work;
(vi) was rude, impatient and uncooperative;
(e) failed to meet the standards of instruction, care and safety of students;
(f) failed to work collaboratively with his professional colleagues.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was neither present nor represented by counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations as set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.
THE EVIDENCE
The College called five witnesses: Karen Gravitis (Goggins), Jeffrey Farber, Dr. Stan Shapiro, Beverley Ohashi and Elizabeth Thompson.
Evidence of Karen Gravitis (Goggins)
Karen Gravitis (Goggins) was the Associate Superintendant of the family of schools which included [XXX] in the Scarborough Board of Education. Ms. Gravitis described [XXX] as a very diverse, large multi-ethnic school consisting of a mix of high-achieving and low-achieving inner city students. She testified that the Member was a “frustrating individual” who did not understand that he was obliged to accommodate a wide variety of learners and to function in situations that had authority figures. The Member was not willing to work with colleagues and did not recognize the authority of department heads. The witness stated that the Member demonstrated a disdain for students who he felt did not demonstrate a willingness to achieve. The witness gave evidence that the Member set his own standards of achievement, disregarding Department protocols and practices. Ms. Gravitis testified that the Member did not return phone calls from parents and at one point, attempted to videotape a parent-teacher interview without prior consent. Ms. Gravitis gave evidence regarding an incident in October 1998, where the Member was involved in a verbal altercation with a student which was witnessed by the Vice-Principal. In a letter dated October 30th, 1998 (Exhibit 4, Tab 7), she described how the Vice-Principal attempted to diffuse the situation in an effort to prevent the Member from uttering inappropriate and unprofessional comments aimed at the student. Following the incident, the Member, the Vice-Principal, the Principal, the Member’s O.S.S.T.F representative and Ms. Gravitis met to discuss the incident. Ms. Gravitis stated that she gave the Member one day off with pay in order to complete a full investigation of the incident. Ms. Gravitis’s letter reminded the Member that in February 1998, he had been cautioned about similar situations and provided with a framework and expectations to foster appropriate communication skills. At that time, the Member was advised that future major difficulties may lead to disciplinary action. Following the October meeting, the Member was given a suspension without pay of three working days, with the understanding that upon his return he would access any resource/support that he might need to fulfill his responsibilities as a teacher. Ms. Gravitis testified that the student was removed from the Member’s class.
Ms. Gravitis recalled another incident in December 1998, where the Member began yelling aggressively at her and the Principal “in the main office area” and pointing his finger in her face. In a memo to the Member dated December 15, 1998 (Exhibit 4, Tab 8), Ms. Gravitis wrote that, “Despite numerous attempts at intervention, education, mediation, negotiation, formal clarification of your duties and responsibilities, including formal discipline, you failed to respond to student concerns in an effective, timely manner.” She further wrote that this was not an isolated incident and that the Member had had numerous opportunities to modify his behaviour. Ms. Gravitis stated that the Member received a five day suspension without pay.
Following the Member’s return from his five day suspension, he was notified that effective February 1, 1999, he would be administratively transferred to [XXX].
Evidence of Jeffrey Farber
Mr. Jeffrey Farber, who was Principal at [XXX] from 1991 to 1997, gave evidence regarding the Member’s behaviour. In an inter-office memorandum addressed to the Member dated December 8, 1995 (Exhibit 5), Mr. Farber expressed concern over the fact that the Member attempted to videotape a scheduled meeting with a parent without his prior knowledge or consent, or that of the parent. Mr. Farber testified that the Member used a “sarcastic, intimidating, somewhat irrational” tone of voice in front of the parent when it was suggested that videotaping the interview with the parent was unnecessary. In the memo, the Member was reminded of his responsibility, as a teacher for the Scarborough Board of Education, to show courtesy and common decency to all parents and students. The Member was also advised that the consequences of any further inappropriate behaviour may include further action by supervisory personnel, suspension without pay, administrative transfer or termination.
Evidence of Dr. Stan Shapiro
Dr. Stan Shapiro was the Vice-Principal at [XXX] when the Member was transferred there in February 1999. He described [XXX] as a school which encouraged independent learning and was different to other schools. Students were required to wear uniforms, and expected to complete community service even before this was implemented by the Ministry of Education. Dr. Shapiro testified that almost from the beginning of the semester, the Member was sending many students to the office. When questioned, many of the students seemed confused about why they were sent to the office. Dr. Shapiro further testified that members from the Guidance Department informed him that many students were requesting transfers from the Member’s class. Dr. Shapiro’s evidence recounted an incident on parents’ night on May 6, 1999 when a parent and her daughter came to him dissatisfied with the results of their interview with the Member. Dr. Shapiro scheduled a follow-up meeting the next morning, with the Member’s knowledge, to address the parent’s concerns. Attending the meeting were the student’s family, the Principal, Dr. Shapiro and the Member, who arrived twenty minutes late. Dr. Shapiro testified that it was not a satisfactory meeting as the Member was “argumentative” and suggested that the family was “prejudiced.” As a consequence of his behaviour, the Member was asked to leave the meeting. To address the parents’ and student’s frustration, the student was moved to another [XXX] class. Dr. Shapiro recounted that he put suggestions in writing regarding teaching strategies and communication skills in order to help the Member and attempted to review them with him on May 12, 1999. At this meeting, the Member refused to review the suggestions and called Dr. Shapiro “prejudiced.”
Dr. Shapiro testified regarding the [XXX] Department Evaluation Policy (Exhibit 6, Tab 5) under which a student’s lowest mark is always dropped from final calculations. One of the Member’s students informed Dr. Shapiro that he would have passed the course if the policy has been applied. The Member refused to apply the policy and adjust the mark. The Member was subsequently directed to do so by the administration. The Member was excused from a staff meeting in order to recalculate the mark. He did not comply, saying that he was ill at home. The mark was eventually adjusted by Dr. Shapiro and the Department Head who further discovered the policy had not been applied to any of the students in that class.
Evidence of Beverley Ohashi
Beverley Ohashi was the Principal at [XXX] beginning in September 2002. She described the school as being very large and “highly academic.” The school also included the [XXX] program serving approximately five hundred students. Ms. Ohashi testified that the Member was brought to her attention as a teacher requiring support in the way he treated students. Ms. Ohashi referenced thirteen letters she received from parents and students stating that the Member did not provide a positive learning environment. Ms. Ohashi commented specifically on two incidents regarding the welfare of students. In one incident, a female [XXX] student collapsed after the Member yelled at her in class. He did not attend to her and said that he had not noticed that she was on the floor and he felt that she was creating a scene (Exhibit 7, Tab 2). The second incident involved a student in the School’s [XXX] Program who missed lunch while preparing for a [XXX]. Contrary to accepted practice, the Member refused to allow the student time out of class to eat despite the student saying he felt ill (Exhibit 7, Tab 17). In a follow up phone call with the student’s parent, the Member accused the student of lying and became loud and argumentative with the parent. Ms. Ohashi stated that in a two year time period between January 12, 2004 and June 29, 2006, she had received thirty-one complaints from parents and students about the Member’s conduct and fifteen requests from students and parents to be transferred out of the Member’s class. Ms. Ohashi also received a letter signed by eighty-six students addressing the Member’s teaching style and the “uncomfortable and unpleasant” learning environment that he created.
Ms. Ohashi testified that the Member also had difficulty interacting with administrators and colleagues and recounted an incident on January 16, 2004. Ms. Ohashi referred to letters received from Ranjit Gill, Science Curriculum Leader and Douglas Cope, Staff Member, regarding a professional development presentation, during which the Member made several inappropriate and unprofessional comments about the competence of the curriculum leaders and other teachers in the science department (Exhibit 7, Tabs 5 and 6). At the end of the presentation, the Member stated that there was no need to follow the Ministry guidelines on assessment and evaluation.
On March 10, 2004, a letter was sent to the Member confirming the fact that he was suspended for ten days regarding “behaviour and interactions with others over the past few months.” The letter stated that a condition of the Member’s return to work was that he must undergo a psychiatric assessment.
Ms. Ohashi addressed several letters she received from parents and students recounting their negative interactions with the Member (Exhibit 7, Tab 7, 8 and 9). Ms. Ohashi testified about a copy of an adverse report she received from Guy Sutherland, a Science Curriculum Leader, describing an incident involving the Member in the science office. The report detailed a “rude, disrespectful and unprofessional exhibition” by the Member in front of six colleagues.
Ms. Ohashi gave evidence that the Member began teaching in the [XXX] department in September 2005. She noted that this was intended as an opportunity for a fresh start. Ms. Ohashi testified that by November 4, 2005, a meeting was set up with the Member, administration and a union representative, to discuss “formal complaints against Dr. Edusei from his current students and parents.” Issues addressed were “wrongful attendance recording, emotional rage, overt favouritism and selective discouragement, unprofessional marking and untimely returning of tests and assignments, over reaction to insignificant gesture and undue harsh standards” and teaching style (Exhibit 7, Tab 13).
Ms. Ohashi provided testimony to support her letter of February 22, 2006. She summarized her comments and recommendations from two previous meetings with the Member that had been held to address the above-mentioned issues. The letter reiterated that the Member had expressed willingness to address the concerns and follow the recommendations. The letter also stated that administration was aware that some students enjoyed his class, but that with repeated complaints from parents and students, it would be difficult to change his reputation at this point. Ms. Ohashi stated that this letter was provided to the Member on the advice of the Area Superintendant, Elizabeth Thompson (Exhibit 7, Tab 15A).
Despite the somewhat positive nature of the February 22, 2006 letter, Ms. Ohashi testified regarding an e-mail she sent six days later to the Superintendent of Employee Services and the Coordinating Principal of Negotiation and Contract Administration stating that she had received fifteen requests from students and parents to transfer from the Member’s class. The e-mail stated that these student transfers would result in exceeding negotiated class sizes for other teachers, which was a contravention of the Collective Agreement. Ms. Ohashi recommended an administrative transfer since the strategies attempted to date had been unsuccessful. Ms. Ohashi stated that “the [XXX] students and parents have suffered enough of over 6 years of complaints” (Exhibit 7, Tab 15B).
As the school year continued, additional complaints were made to administration about the Member’s teaching methods, communication style and demeanour which resulted in a second ten day suspension commencing September 5 and ending September 18, 2006. The Member was also advised in a letter dated June 29, 2006 that any further incidents of this nature would result in termination (Exhibit 7, Tab 20).
Ms. Ohashi testified that she had no further interactions with the Member following a letter of reprimand from Kathy Owen, Senior Manager Secondary Teaching, dated February 8, 2007. The letter stated that the Member was suspended without pay immediately and that a recommendation for dismissal would be taken to the next meeting of the Board of Trustees (Exhibit 7, Tab 21).
Evidence of Elizabeth Thompson
Ms. Thompson was the Superintendent of Education NE-1 for the Toronto District School Board. [XXX] School was within her family of schools from 2003 to 2007. Ms. Thompson testified that she recalled the Member as being the subject of a number of e-mails and phone calls of concern from administrators at the [XXX] School. Ms. Thompson stated that she received communication of this type regarding teachers “very infrequently.” Ms. Thompson further testified that she had met with the Member and a Federation representative “on at least one occasion.”
Ms. Thompson referred to a letter sent to the Member dated February 16, 2004 in which she placed him on a ten day suspension without pay. The witness testified that this was because of recurring incidents and behaviours that administration had previously tried to address. Ms. Thompson stated that the suspension imposed was part of the progressive discipline policy in place at the Board. The witness also wrote that “this matter will also be referred to the Ontario College of Teachers” and that next steps might include recommendation for termination of employment (Exhibit 8, Tab 2).
Ms. Thompson gave evidence that she received an e-mail from the Acting Principal, Roberta Anderson, dated March 4, 2004 stating that the Member returned from his ten day suspension “more belligerent and offensive in his actions than he was before the suspension” (Exhibit 8, Tab 3). Ms. Thompson reiterated in her testimony that the ten day suspension had not had the anticipated effect on the Member’s behaviour.
The Exhibits:
Exhibit # 1 Notice of Hearing dated December 13, 2011
Exhibit # 2 Affidavit of Service dated December 21, 2011
Exhibit #3 Affidavit of Beverley Hodsdon sworn February 7, 2013
Exhibit #4 Document Brief of Karen Gravitis
Exhibit #5 Interoffice Memo from Mr. Farber to Dr. Edusei dated
December 8, 1995
Exhibit #6 Document Brief of Stan Shapiro
Exhibit #7 Beverley Ohashi Document Brief
Exhibit #8 Document Brief of Elizabeth Bewley Thompson
Exhibit #9 Registration Information of Enoch Edusei
SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING- COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE
Counsel for the College submitted to the Committee that it needed to consider the timeframes during which the allegations occurred and apply the relevant legislation. Counsel submitted that there were three discrete time periods to consider:
1995 to 1999 [XXX];
1999 to 2000 [XXX]; and
2003 to 2006 [XXX].
Counsel reminded the Committee that in light of the historical nature of the conduct, the Notice of Hearing was drafted in a way to ensure that only those provisions that were in force at the time were being alleged against the Member. Ontario Regulation 437/97 applies to events that occurred after January 1, 1998. However, in light of the fact that certain amendments have been made to the Regulation since its proclamation, the language of the applicable sections reflects the language that was in force at the time of the conduct. Counsel submitted that the College was only proceeding on allegations of verbal abuse for all three schools under Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).
Counsel further stated that the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1990 applies to events involving this Member from 1995 to 2006.
Counsel submitted that there was significant evidence of verbal abuse to students, teachers, administrators and Board representatives. Counsel drew as an example the testimony provided by Ms. Gravitis regarding the incident involving the Member wagging his finger and yelling at her. Counsel recounted the testimony of Ms. Ohashi regarding the professional development day incident in which the Member disrupted a training session, derided his colleagues and dismissed Ministry and Board policy.
Counsel submitted that the Member repeatedly showed disdain for colleagues, students, and all forms of authority. He offered as one example the Member’s lack of participation in the Discipline process at the College.
Counsel submitted that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession by not providing students feedback on homework, tests or assignments, not attending parent-teacher interviews, refusing to comply with both Ministry and Department assessment policies and demanding to have meetings video or audiotaped.
Counsel stated that the Member’s manner of addressing students in class constituted verbal abuse. He gave examples of the Member calling students “liars” and telling students to “shut-up.” In addition, he recounted the incident involving an [XXX] student who collapsed in the Member’s classroom that the Member did not assist. Counsel stated that this also constituted abuse.
Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional by his actions toward parents and students. Counsel stated that the Member’s refusal to return parent phone calls and attend interviews, and his refusal to follow Board policies constituted unprofessional behaviour. Counsel reminded the Committee that this type of behaviour occurred in all three schools. Counsel highlighted the letter/petition signed by eighty-six students of the Member as “unusual and compelling evidence.”
On the issue of incompetence, Counsel submitted that “capacity” was not at issue for the Member. The Member exhibited knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy. Counsel stated that the Member’s skill and judgment were lacking as evidenced by his yelling and name-calling. Counsel further stated that the Member lacked skills to work in a professional environment and did not acknowledge that the classroom was not his “personal fiefdom.”
Counsel submitted that the Member’s behaviour did not uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession. He cited the Member’s behaviour with the Board and the incident on a professional development day as examples.
Counsel further submitted that the Member failed to concern himself with the welfare of his students while under his care. He referenced the incident involving the [XXX] student who collapsed and another incident where the Member refused to let a student eat lunch despite his having missed lunch due to his involvement in a school [XXX].
DECISION
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct and incompetence. In particular, the Committee finds that Enoch Edusei committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15) and 1(18).
The Committee also finds that Enoch Edusei failed to strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards of the teaching profession, contrary to Section 13 of the Regulation made under the Teaching Profession Act, made pursuant to Section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter T2, as amended.
The Committee finds that Enoch Edusei failed to concern himself with the welfare of his pupils while they were under his care, contrary to Section 14(f) of the Regulation made under the Teaching Profession Act, made pursuant to Section 12 of the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter T2, as amended.
In addition, the Committee further finds that Enoch Edusei is incompetent as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (1996). In particular, the Committee finds the Member to be incompetent in that he displayed a lack of judgment and a disregard for the welfare of his students.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee heard evidence from five credible witnesses about incidents that occurred in three different schools over a span of eleven years. The witnesses consistently described a pattern of conduct that was aggressive, unprofessional, insubordinate and uncaring. All five witnesses provided documentation that corroborated their testimony. The Committee finds that the witnesses provided factual evidence that was not embellished and the witnesses did not appear to be emotional in giving their evidence. The Committee finds that the witnesses were forthright and the information that they provided was organized and sequential. The witnesses’ evidence was presented in a manner that was fair and unbiased to the Member. The witnesses provided examples of his strengths as a teacher and acknowledged that some students enjoyed his classes.
Despite many and varied attempts at remediation, the Member’s conduct did not improve and he was not deterred from his pattern of behaviour. In fact, the Member’s behaviour was described as being “more belligerent and offensive” upon his return from a ten day suspension.
The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct did not uphold the standards of the teaching profession because he failed to be respectful, caring and co-operative in his interactions with most members of the learning community. The Member’s behaviour was repeatedly described as aggressive, intimidating, inappropriate and unprofessional. In addition, the Member’s refusal to follow School, Board and Ministry policies and procedures (examples:[XXX] Department Evaluation Policy; Ministry Program Planning and Assessment Policy) demonstrates his disregard for professional standards.
The Committee finds that the Member abused the students verbally. The Committee accepted evidence that the Member used words like “liar” when speaking to students and also told students to “shut-up” (Exhibit 7, Tabs 3, 9 and 17 and Exhibit 8, Tab 1). Further, the Committee accepted the testimony of Ms. Gravitis, Superintendent of Schools, regarding an incident involving the Member and a student. This loud, verbal confrontation was in a public place and witnessed by the Vice-Principal who attempted to diffuse it.
Further, the Committee finds that the Member’s conduct had a negative impact on the students’ psychological and emotional well-being. Testimony given by Ms. Ohashi referenced two events in which the Member disregarded the physical and emotional welfare of his students. In one incident, an [XXX] student was attempting to communicate with the Member who yelled at her to bring the matter to the office. The student did not understand, broke down crying, began to hyperventilate, and eventually collapsed. The Member’s failure to recognize that the [XXX] student needed attention clearly had an impact on the student and her classmates. As a result, seven students wrote letters to the administration regarding this incident. In another incident, a student missed his lunch due to his involvement in a [XXX]. The student went to class and asked the Member if he could eat lunch and the Member denied his request. A while later the student told the Member he was feeling ill and asked to go to the washroom. Once again, the Member said no. The Committee accepted the testimony of Ms. Ohashi who stated that it was the accepted practice in the school that if a student missed lunch due to a school event, the student would be given time to eat lunch afterwards. In a letter to Ms. Ohashi from the student’s parent dated April 10, 2006, the student came home and told his parents that he was “hurt and embarrassed” that the Member accused him of being a liar about being ill, in front of other teachers.
The Committee accepts the testimony of witnesses that the Member was competent in his subject matter and presented suitable lessons when observed and evaluated. However, the Committee finds that the Member showed persistent lack of judgment over an eleven year period. The Member demonstrated disregard for the safety and welfare of his students. In communication with parents, the Member exhibited behaviour that was disdainful and dismissive of their concerns. Interactions with colleagues were marked by contemptuous comments and interjections which demonstrated a disregard for their qualifications and knowledge. When administrators attempted to give direction and assistance to the Member, his responses were rude and insolent. In addition, the Member refused to follow Board policies and procedures in his practice.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY-COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE
Counsel initially submitted that an appropriate penalty would be a reprimand and terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate requiring completion of three specific courses: classroom management; sensitivity training; and communication skills with administrators and colleagues. These courses would need to be completed and a written certificate from the course providers submitted to the Registrar prior to the Member’s return to the classroom. Counsel submitted that the penalty should include Publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form, with the Member’s name, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
Counsel assured the Committee that the penalty would address specific and general deterrence, remediation and protection of the public interest.
Counsel presented two cases deemed to be similar to the matter before the Committee. In one case, the Member had difficulty with communication with administrators and colleagues. The penalty ordered consisted of a reprimand and course work on positive communication skills with school administration and colleagues, and the appreciation and maintenance of professional boundaries. In the second case, the Member had two distinct incidents of disrespectful behaviour toward a limited number of students in two different schools. The penalty ordered consisted of a suspension and course work on classroom management and sensitivity training.
Counsel submitted that the proposed penalty protects the public interest by completion of appropriate course work. Counsel further submitted that the course work is remedial because it allows the Member an opportunity to return to the classroom. Publication is a general deterrent because it informs the members-at-large of the consequences of such behaviour. Publication recognizes the seriousness of the behaviour. Counsel submitted that publication with the Member’s name acknowledges a pattern of more than eleven years of misconduct. Counsel stated that the Member’s conduct was not an “extraordinary and anomalous situation.”
The Committee sought additional submissions on penalty as the proposed penalty seemed insufficient for eleven years of misconduct.
Counsel provided further submissions and reminded the Committee that the Member’s current status was “suspended-non-payment of fees.” Counsel submitted that the College has confidence that the Member will not return to teaching based on the fact that he has not taught since 2007, and the Member’s daughter commented that her father was “not interested in teaching, that he did not care about the College proceeding and that he was retired.” The Member’s daughter further stated that the College “would not receive any response from him” (Exhibit 3, page 2, paragraphs 3-4).
Counsel submitted that an additional ninety day suspension would provide an “additional hurdle” that the Member must cross in order to teach again. Counsel reaffirmed that through publication, “all will see the consequences of such behaviour.” Counsel stated that the ninety day suspension was in keeping with progressive discipline, but represented a “huge jump” from his previous ten day suspension from the Board. Counsel submitted that the Member “got away with a lot, with modest penalty” and was finally referred to the College. Counsel referenced this as a “big penalty” which was dissimilar to the “soft slope” of progressive discipline applied by the employer. Counsel further stated that revocation as a penalty was usually reserved for sexual and/or severe behaviour and that the Member’s behaviour would not usually lead to revocation. Counsel submitted that public interest was served by publication in the magazine and the website. Counsel closed by stating that the result of the Member’s misconduct should be a penalty that includes three very specific courses designed to remediate specific problems and weaknesses. Counsel advised that the ninety day suspension was a punitive action which would deter further misconduct.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
a) the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member; and
b) 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 Committee finds the penalty proposed by the College incongruent with the nature of the misconduct and the evidence submitted. Each of the five witnesses called by Counsel provided compelling evidence, detailing a pattern of behaviour which occurred over an eleven year period in three different school settings. The Member’s behaviour persisted despite numerous attempts at remediation and deterrence by various administrators. The Committee finds that the proposed penalty is no more onerous on the Member than penalties previously applied by the employer. The Member has not been deterred in the past by caution, suspension, loss of income and attempts at counseling. Consequently, the Committee is not confident that the Member’s behaviour will change as a result of the proposed penalty. The Committee questions the effectiveness of coursework in classroom management, sensitivity and communication skills with school administration and colleagues for this Member given that he has received numerous specific suggestions and strategies from his employer which he has failed to implement.
The Committee reviewed the two cases presented by Counsel for the College and noted that while the misconduct was somewhat similar, the pattern of misconduct of this Member is far more serious, longstanding and repetitive. This misconduct therefore requires a more severe penalty. The Committee finds that the cases provided by Counsel refer to isolated incidents that occurred in single locations and involved few individuals. The narrow scope of these occurrences cannot be compared to the broad and abusive conduct of the Member before this Committee.
The Committee gave careful consideration to evidence, submissions by Counsel and case law provided, as well as the advice of Independent Legal Counsel in reaching its decision. The Committee is fully aware that revocation is a penalty order usually reserved for the most serious misconduct and the Committee finds that the Member’s conduct meets this threshold. The Committee finds that revocation is the appropriate penalty in this case. Over eleven years, the Member demonstrated repeated and blatant disregard for: the emotional, physical and academic well-being of the students in his care; the commonly held standards of respect and professionalism inherent in communication between colleagues and with others in the school community; and the expected assessment policies and procedures of the school, Board and Ministry.
The Committee finds that the Member’s ongoing pattern of professional misconduct, with no evident interest on his part to remediate his practice makes revocation the necessary penalty to prevent his return to the classroom. It is important not to minimize the impact on the school community and environment of daily, sustained, unprofessional conduct. By his actions and behaviour, the Member has forfeited the privilege to hold a teaching certificate in the Province of Ontario.
The Committee agrees with Counsel’s submissions that publication of the findings and Order of the Committee, in summary, with the name of the Member is warranted. It acts as a specific deterrent to the Member, provides a general deterrent to the profession and serves to inform the public and therefore protect public interest. Publication assures the public and the profession that the College does not tolerate repeated and unresolved misconduct and 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.
Dated: March 7, 2013
Danny Anckle,
Chair, Discipline Panel ______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Annilee Jarvis, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel