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 John Courtney Knollys Folkes, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Stefanie Achkewich, OCT, Chair Mel Greif Darlene Mead, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Larissa Moscu, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Litigation Paraprofessional
-and-
JOHN COURTNEY KNOLLYS FOLKES (CERTIFICATE #148173) John Courtney Knollys Folkes was not present, nor was he represented
Julie Maciura, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: November 5, 2013
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 5, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated October 31, 2012 was served on John Courtney Knollys Folkes (the “Member”), requesting his presence on December 18, 2012 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for November 5, 2013.
John Courtney Knollys Folkes was not in attendance.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against John Courtney Knollys Folkes (the “Member”) in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit # 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that John Courtney Knollys Folkes is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in section 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 failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(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, subsection 1(18); and
(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
John Courtney Knollys Folkes (“the Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (“the Board”) as a teacher at Georges Vanier Secondary School in Toronto, Ontario.
In or about October 2006, the Member:
(a) Threw chairs in the presence of students;
(b) Used profane language in the presence of students and/or staff;
(c) Belittled support staff and/or was unprofessional in his dealings with staff;
(d) Fixated on the availability of one parking space for his use;
(e) Bullied colleagues with respect to said parking space.
- The Member sent letters to Board officials and others containing abusive and unprofessional language.
College Counsel submitted into evidence Affidavits of Annie Lacroix, affirmed October 28 and November 4, 2013 (Exhibit #3 and 4). These Affidavits confirmed that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing, Disclosure Brief and Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee. The Committee takes comfort in the information contained in the affidavits of Annie Lacroix and the fact that all efforts were made to facilitate the Member’s attendance at the hearing. The Member’s letter dated December 4, 2012 (Exhibit #3, Tab E) indicates that he received documents from the College including the Notice of Hearing and the Disclosure Brief. Therefore, the Member was aware of the allegations against him and cognisant of the date, time and place of the hearing. Ms. Lacroix’s notes regarding her telephone conversation with the Member on October 1, 2013( Exhibit #3, Tab K) confirm that the Member had received the Notice of Hearing and was aware of the fact that the College hearing was scheduled to proceed on November 5, 2013. College Counsel made a final effort to contact the Member regarding his attendance just a few minutes before the start of the hearing. College Counsel reported that she was not successful in her contact attempt. Further, the Committee waited until 9:25 a.m. to allow the Member more time to attend the hearing. The hearing therefore proceeded in the absence of the Member.
MEMBER’S PLEA
As the Member was not present or represented by counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.
OVERVIEW
John Courtney Knollys Folkes is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at Georges Vanier Secondary School (the “School”). It is alleged that in or about October 2006, the Member threw chairs in the presence of students, used profane language in the presence of students and/or staff, belittled support staff and/or was unprofessional in his dealings with staff, fixated on the availability of one parking space for his use and bullied colleagues with respect to the said parking space. It is also alleged that the Member sent letters to Board officials and others containing abusive and unprofessional language. The central issue for the Committee to consider is whether the Member engaged in this behaviour as alleged.
THE EVIDENCE
The College called two witnesses, [XXX], Principal of Georges Vanier Secondary School and Richard Nosov (“Vice-Principal”).
Evidence of [XXX]
[XXX] is an experienced school principal with forty years of service and with significant administrative background. She was aware of the Member’s behavioural patterns. She provided an overview of her previous interactions with the Member and commented that the Member’s communication included “lengthy communications with a legal overtone.” She also testified that, “all letters from the Member were disturbing.” She further expanded that the Member admitted that he often had difficulties with administrators, claiming that they were harassing him. He was often late for school and had negative interactions with other teachers, primarily about his alleged “personal” parking spot.
The Principal noted that the Member’s behaviour became more erratic. There were two incidents that were particularly disturbing. On October 19, 2006, the Member was unable to teach in his classroom because his preferred chair had gone missing. As a result, he launched a complaint with the Vice-Principal.
The Member said he was being persecuted by the Vanier administration. The Member yelled loud enough for the class to hear, “You don’t want to give me shit! You don’t know what I’ll do to you!” Once in his classroom, and after efforts to placate him, the Member said in front of the students, “How am I supposed to teach like this!” In spite of the fact that there were three other identical chairs in the classroom, the Member refused to make use of them. The Member could not be calmed. He continued to express that he was “a victim of persecution by administration of the school.” In his email to the Principal, the Vice-Principal also wrote, “he got close to my face and told me not to harass him.” The Member refused to teach until his chair was found.
The Principal was contacted by the Vice-Principal by walkie-talkie and left her office to intercept the Member. “We went into the empty classroom 210, and the Member was pacing around the open space, and was talking about his previous experience of feeling abandoned.”
There was a follow-up meeting to this incident on October 23, 2006. The Member was invited to have OSSTF present, but the Member declined. “He told me he was not pursuing support through Employee Assistance. He said he was consulting his Bible” (Exhibit #5, Tab 6). When the Member asked what he had done “that was so wrong”, the Principal raised the issue of using profanity. The Member was unaware of using profanity. Therefore, the Principal detailed his use of profanity including the use of the word “shit” in front of students. The Principal continued with another issue. The Principal had been told that the Member had thrown chairs out of his classroom and advised him that it was “dangerous and could have hurt a student and himself.” The Member acknowledged that the behaviour was wrong and that he would apologize to his class. The Member was confident that the students would understand as they “had witnessed other events in which he got angry for good reasons.”
The Principal gave evidence about the Member’s attitude and behaviour toward support staff (Exhibit #5, Tab 7). According to this email, the Member calls a caretaker to his classroom and treats him as his personal employee in front of a full class of students.
The Principal reiterated her concern about the Member’s continuing inappropriate behaviour and the increasingly aggressive tone of his letters.
Evidence of Richard Nosov (“Nosov”)
The Vice-Principal was able to confirm the information supplied by the Principal. The Vice-Principal described the Member as very angry and defiant, noting that he had difficulty with authority and did not work well with his colleagues. The Member did not meet deadlines and generally had an aggressive disposition. In his email (Exhibit #5, Tab 1), the Vice-Principal confirmed his interaction with the Member in his classroom. The Member insisted that the Vice-Principal come to his classroom and, loud enough for adjacent classes to hear and using profanity, he asserted that his personal chair was missing. The Member maintained that he could not teach like this. With difficulty, the Member was persuaded to come out into the hallway but he could not be calmed. “He continued to tell me he was a victim of persecution by administration of the school. He got close to my face and told me not to harass him.”
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL ON FINDING
College Counsel reviewed the facts as they apply to the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. Counsel asked that the Committee make a finding of professional misconduct under all of the headings as detailed in the Notice of Hearing.
The Member displayed erratic and unacceptable behaviour which included throwing chairs and even kicking them into the hallway. The Member used profane language in front of students and in front of other school personnel. The Member belittled support staff and demanded service that was both personal and inappropriate.
The Member had a fixation about his parking spot even where one was not his to claim. The Member harassed other teachers about his personal parking spot. The Member wrote letters to the Principal about his parking spot. These letters even threatened legal action regarding his parking spot. By his actions and mindset, the Member displayed behaviour that was unacceptable in a school setting. No matter how hard the school administration tried to meet his increasingly inappropriate demands, the Member continued in their escalation.
The College Counsel closed her comments by stating that the College was seeking a finding of professional misconduct under all the headings cited in the Notice of Hearing.
DECISION
Onus and Standard of Proof
College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof, with which the Committee is familiar, as set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53. The standard of proof applied by the Committee, in accordance with the McDougall decision, is the balance of probabilities. As in all cases, the Committee looks for clear, convincing and cogent evidence.
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. In particular, the Committee finds that John Courtney Knollys Folkes committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18 - unprofessional) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee heard evidence from two witnesses who proved to be highly credible in that their shared stories overlapped and reinforced each other in the description of the events. Additionally, all of the exhibits were supported via testimony and in how they related to the events described by the witnesses. The Member’s behaviour was unacceptable. The Member displayed outbursts, both verbal and through his actions, inimical to an educational setting. He fostered a culture of apprehension about the personal safety of his colleagues and students. Administrators in his school became anxious about his ability to conduct himself in a safe manner.
The Committee was convinced, on a balance of probabilities, of the truth of the allegations.
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL ON PENALTY
College Counsel made the following submission on penalty. The penalty should have three components. The Member ought to appear to receive a reprimand which will be recorded on the College register. The Member’s certificate is subject to terms and conditions including enrolling in a pre-approved course on anger management and undergoing psychiatric assessments. The College also expects that there will be publication of the Member’s name in the College magazine Professionally Speaking / Pour parler profession.
PENALTY
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Committee directs that the Member appear before the Committee following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (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) Prior to seeking or engaging in employment for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enroll in and complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar, regarding anger management;
(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 the Member has successfully completed the course;
(iii) Prior to seeking or engaging in employment for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall undergo, at his own expense, a psychiatric assessment by a psychiatrist (“Assessor”) pre-approved by the Registrar. This assessment must determine the Member’s suitability to return to teaching;
(iv) The Member shall sign any Consent forms required to enable the Assessor to examine the health records that he/she feels are necessary to complete a full assessment;
(v) The Member shall provide the Assessor with a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(vi) The Assessor shall provide a written report to the Registrar and the Member of his/her assessment of the Member; and
(vii) The Member shall comply with any treatment recommendations which might be contained in the report of the Assessor.
- 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 carefully considered the evidence of the witnesses and the submissions of College Counsel.
The penalty is appropriate given the unacceptable behaviour of the Member. The Member created a culture of fear in his school as he let go of his inhibitions to achieve some form of justice as he saw it. The Member was completely unaware of the impact that he was having on other persons in his school. This is not the way a teacher should function. Teachers are not alone in the exercise of the profession. In fact, they are part of a team with their fellow teachers, staff members, students and administrators in maintaining a “healthy, safe and secure” environment. The Member was completely unaware of this responsibility. The Member requires remediation for his behaviour as well as assessment to determine his suitability to continue in his teaching career. The penalty seeks to address this.
Publication with name is warranted. The facts of this matter are sufficiently concerning to be shared with the public and the profession. Publication will assist in deterring this type of behaviour in the future. Publication with the Member’s name reiterates the message to the profession and to the public that behaviour of this nature is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
In conclusion, the Committee is confident that the penalty is fitting in these circumstances and protects and serves the public interest.
Date: December 17, 2013
Stefanie Achkewich, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Mel Grief
Member, Discipline Panel
Darlene Mead, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel