DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Yasin Mohamud Ajab, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair
Darlene Mead, OCT
Vicki Shannon, OCT
BETWEEN: )
) Lisa Filgiano, McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for the Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
) Vaino W. Poysa,
YASIN MOHAMUD AJAB ) Ontario Secondary School Teachers’
(CERTIFICATE # 478982) ) Federation,
) for Yasin Mohamud Ajab
) Paul Marshall,
) Emond Harnden LLP,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: May 16, 2013
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on May 16, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A Notice of Hearing, dated July 19, 2011, was served on Yasin Mohamud Ajab requesting his attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on August 8, 2011, to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for May 16, 2013.
Mr. Ajab was in attendance at the hearing.
ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated July 19, 2011, are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Yasin Mohamud Ajab is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”) and/or is incompetent as defined in subsection 30(3) of 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 released or disclosed information about a student to a person other than the student or, if the student is a minor, the student’s parent or guardian, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(6);
c) he abused a student, or students, verbally, physically, psychologically or sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
d) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
e) he contravened a law which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);
f) he contravened a law such that the contravention has caused or may cause a student who is under the member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);
g) 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);
h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and
i) he displayed in his professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement and/or a disregard for the welfare of students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that he is either unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities or that his Certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions, or limitations.
At the hearing on May 16, 2013, Counsel for the College announced that the College was withdrawing several of the misconduct allegations, specifically those of contravening subsections 1(16) and 1(17) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 of the Act, as set out in paragraphs e) and f) above. In addition, she also withdrew the allegation with respect to incompetence, as set out in paragraph i).
The Committee agreed to the withdrawal of these allegations.
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 Guilty Plea (the “Agreement”) (Exhibit 2).
Yasin Mohamud Ajab (the “Member”) is a member of the College. A copy of the information concerning the registered member of the Ontario College of Teachers is attached as Appendix A.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Brampton.
During the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school year, the Member engaged in professional misconduct in that:
(a) he had a poor understanding of some of the [XXX] concepts he was required to teach his students, failed to properly prepare his lessons, made errors in delivering lessons, was incapable of explaining complex concepts, and gave tests without warning;
(b) he failed to assist students who requested assistance, compared the work of some students to that of their classmates and often socialized with certain students in the class;
(c) between November 2006 and February 2007, he made statements that [XXX], the department head, was the source of his difficulties in teaching [XXX];
(d) he created a hostile learning environment by slamming books on his desk, kicking desks, and yelling at students;
(e) he advised students not to participate in remedial [XXX] classes offered during the lunch hour by other teachers;
(f) in March 2007, without approval from the principal, he sent a letter outlining his expectations to parents and guardians of students he had sent to the principal's office;
(g) he slammed a door on the hand of [XXX] -year-old Student A;
(h) on April 16, 2008, he said to Student A that the student was stupid and an idiot;
(i) on April 10, 2008, [XXX] -year-old Student B allegedly told the principal that the Member had looked down her cleavage. The principal allegedly told the Member that he was not being accused, but he should always be sensitive to the way he was perceived. If Student B testified at the hearing, she would say that on April 10, 2008, the Member looked down her cleavage while she was talking to him. If the Member testified at the hearing, he would deny the allegation.
GUILTY PLEA
The Member admitted the accuracy of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 above. He submitted a Guilty Plea and admitted that he was guilty of professional misconduct in that he contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(6), 1(7), 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Member stated that:
(a) he fully understood the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against him;
(b) he understood that, by signing this document [the Agreement], he was agreeing to the submission to the Discipline Committee of the evidence as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts;
(c) he understood that, by pleading guilty to these allegations, he was waiving his right to require that the College prove the case against him and his right to have a hearing on the facts of the case;
(d) he understood that, depending on the penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee, the Committee’s decision and a summary of its Reasons for Decision, including the mention of his name, might be published in the College’s official publication;
(e) he understood that any agreement as to penalty between the College and the Member was not binding on the Discipline Committee; and
(f) he understood and acknowledged that he was executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally and with the benefit of legal counsel.
The Member provided this Guilty Plea 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, for the purpose of this proceeding under the College of Teachers Act, S.O. 1996, c. 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s Guilty Plea 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 Guilty Plea, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find that the Member’s actions constitute professional misconduct.
DECISION
Based on the supporting evidence, the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions made by counsel, the Committee recognizes that the facts presented support the allegations of professional misconduct and finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(6), 1(7), 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19), as set out in the Notice of Hearing.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Agreement. He acknowledges that the facts set out in paragraph 3 constitute professional misconduct and is not contesting the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more specifically breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(6), 1(7), 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Committee accepted the Member’s Guilty Plea and his admission of the facts as set out in the Agreement, and determined that the Member’s conduct meant that he was guilty of professional misconduct:
During the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years, the Member’s conduct contravened the standards of the teaching profession.
Firstly, the Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with the standards of the profession by failing to understand certain [XXX] concepts or teach the subject matter effectively. Furthermore, he failed to provide assistance to students who requested it and even advised students not to participate in remedial [XXX] classes offered by other teachers.
In addition, the Committee found that the Member had abused students verbally, psychologically and emotionally by using inappropriate language in the classroom, yelling at students, and calling one student stupid and an idiot. He had also abused students physically through his intimidating actions (slamming books on his desk and kicking desks) and by slamming the door on a student’s hand. One student accused the Member of abusing her sexually in an incident in which he allegedly looked down her cleavage. At the time of this incident, the student informed the principal, who warned the Member, without making an accusation, to be more vigilant in his actions. The principal did not deny or contest this allegation.
The Committee also considered the fact that the Member had disclosed information about a student or students to a person other than the student’s parent or guardian by comparing the work of some students to that of their classmates.
The Committee further found that the Member had failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, firstly by stating that his department head was the source of his difficulties in teaching [XXX], and by failing to observe the by-laws by sending a letter without approval from the principal to the parents and guardians of students.
The Committee also agreed that the Member had contravened the boundaries between students and teachers that are generally observed by the teaching profession, by socializing frequently with some students in the class.
In addition to abusing his students, failing to observe certain by-laws and contravening the boundaries between students and teachers, a number of the acts could reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct that is unbecoming a member of the teaching profession.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
The Ontario College of Teachers and the Member jointly submitted in the Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3) that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Committee would be that the Committee:
direct the Member to appear before the Discipline Committee in this matter, that the Committee impose a verbal reprimand and that this fact be recorded on the public register. The reprimand shall be delivered in person at the offices of the College, at 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario;
direct the Registrar to impose the following conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification:
(i) that within one year of the date of this order, the Member must enrol at his own expense in a course, approved in advance by the Registrar, on maintaining appropriate boundaries with students. Within 30 days of completion of the course, the Member must provide the Registrar directly with proof of successful completion of the course.
direct that the decision and order of the Discipline Committee be published in summary form in the next regular issue of Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession;
The parties failed to reach agreement as to the matter of the publication of the Member’s name.
SUBMISSIONS AS TO PUBLICATION
Notwithstanding the consensus on the items referred to, the parties failed to reach agreement as to the matter of the publication of the Member’s name. Submissions on this issue were made to the Committee.
Counsel for the College urged the Committee to publish the Member’s name, arguing that there was no valid reason not to do so. She reminded the Committee that hearings are open to the public and members of the public can readily view all Discipline Committee decisions posted on the College web site. She further submitted that the allegation against the Member is of a less serious nature. The profession would consider that a teacher hitting a student was a serious allegation, but although the allegations set out in this Notice of Hearing do not fall within this sphere they are no less significant, and warrant the publication of the Member’s name in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
Counsel for the College produced two earlier decisions by a Discipline Committee of the College as jurisprudence; that is, the decisions by the Ontario College of Teachers against Quintino Bordonali, dated July 14, 2010, and David Bryan Anderson, dated June 3, 2009, in which very similar allegations gave rise to the publication of the members’ names in Professionally Speaking/ Pour parler profession.
Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member agreed to publication of the findings of this hearing and of the order, but asked that the Member’s name not be included. He contended that publication of the Member’s name would be inappropriate, because the allegations were more than five years old and at the time, the Member was a young and inexperienced new teacher. He added that the reprimand and the course on maintaining appropriate boundaries would have sufficient deterrent effect to impress on the Member the seriousness of his actions and would have a deterrent effect on the profession as a whole. He noted that the Member had experienced several years of anxiety and shame relating to the College’s complaint and the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing.
By way of jurisprudence, Counsel for the Member submitted a case report to the Committee containing several instances of similar cases in which penalties had been imposed which did not include publication of the Member’s name. The report included the decisions by the Ontario College of Teachers against Rafal Jacek Ralph Musial, dated April 30, 2009; Ryan Geekie, dated April 28, 2010; and Wayne Norman Todd, dated November 8, 2011.
Counsel for the Member submitted that in these three cases, publication without the Member’s name was appropriate and justifiable and that, for similar reasons, the Member’s case should include a Decision as to Penalty of which a summary would be published without the Member’s name. He explained that the teachers who were the subjects of the jurisprudence he had produced were also beginning their careers at the time of the incidents at issue, and that the allegations in these cases were also considered less serious.
Counsel maintained that the public interest was not at stake and that the discipline panel would accommodate the need for transparency in a case of this kind by publishing its findings in the College’s public register and in Professionally Speaking /Pour parler profession without including the Member’s name.
Counsel concluded by adding that the hearing itself acted as a deterrent measure for the Member.
PENALTY AND ORDER
The Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order as to penalty:
The Discipline Committee directs the Member to appear before the Discipline Committee in this matter for the Committee to administer a verbal reprimand, and that this fact be recorded on the public register. The reprimand shall be delivered in person at the offices of the College, at 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario;
The Discipline Committee directs the Registrar to impose the following conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification:
(i) that within one year of the date of this order, the Member must enrol at his own expense in a course, approved in advance by the Registrar, on maintaining appropriate boundaries with students. Within 30 days of completion of the course, the Member must provide the Registrar directly with proof of successful completion of the course;
- The Discipline Committee directs that the decision and order of the Discipline Committee be published in summary form in the next regular issue of Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, including the Member’s name as it appears on the public register.
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
The Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty for the following reasons:
In the Committee’s estimation, the penalty is appropriate, because it addresses certain expectations relating to discipline. The fact that two lawyers defending opposing interests should reach agreement should indicate that an appropriate balance of the interests has been achieved.
The verbal reprimand to be administered to the Member by members of his profession for his inappropriate conduct should serve as a reminder to him of the need to comply with the standards of the profession. It will also remind both the Member and the other members of the profession that the profession does not tolerate abuse of students.
The course on maintaining appropriate boundaries between teachers and students will assist the Member in understanding why his behaviour constitutes professional misconduct. The panel also hopes that the course will give him a better understanding of the type of behaviour that has prompted his appearance before this hearing and has resulted in professional misconduct, and will equip him with a better grasp of acceptable student-teacher interactions. The penalties that are imposed will serve as a specific deterrent for the Member and will promote his rehabilitation while protecting the public interest.
To attain a thorough understanding of the proposed penalty with respect to the publication of the Member’s name, the Committee has carefully considered the arguments of both College Counsel and Counsel for the Member and has decided to direct that the findings and order, including the Member’s name, be published in the College’s official publications, Professionally Speaking/ Pour parler profession. Such publication will also serve as a further specific deterrent for the Member and as a deterrent for the members of the teaching profession, demonstrating to both the teaching profession and to the public that the College does not condone such behaviour.
The Committee therefore finds that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and that it serves and protects the public interest.
June 5, 2013
Robert Gagné
Chair, Discipline Panel
Darlene Mead, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Vicki Shannon, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel