Ontario College of Teachers v. Lazore, 2013 ONOCT 60

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Lazore, 2013 ONOCT 60

Date: 2013-12-20

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 Shannon Louise Lazore, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Mel Greif Hanno Weinberger, OCT

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Eli Mogul, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Litigation Paraprofessional

and –

SHANNON LOUISE LAZORE (CERTIFICATE #467985) Charlene Desrochers, for Shannon Louise Lazore Marc Spector, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: December 20, 2013

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on January 30, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing, dated July 11, 2011 was served on Shannon Louise Lazore, requesting her presence on July 19, 2011 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for December 20, 2013.

Shannon Louise Lazore was in attendance.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against Shannon Louise Lazore in the Notice of Hearing, (Exhibit 1) dated July 11, 2011 are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Shannon Louise Lazore is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”), in that:

(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(d) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(e) she failed to comply with the Act and the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under those Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) she 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

(g) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts, and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:

STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

Shannon Louise Lazore (the “Member”) was at all material times, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the [XXX] Board of Education (the “Board”) as a Grade [XXX] and [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Quebec.
At all material times, Student A was a Grade [XXX] female student in the Member’s class.
On one occasion in mid-April 2010, the Member did not assist Student A with her school work when she asked for help. The Member was helping another student at the time and told Student A, after her repeated interruptions, that if Student A would pay attention in class she would know what to do and that Student A had to wait until the Member was finished with the other student. When the Member was finished helping the other student, she offered assistance to Student A. Student A refused the Member’s offer of assistance.
On or about May 6, 2010, Student A was at her desk and the Member was speaking to the class. Student A did not want to listen to the Member, and the Member then raised her voice to Student A.
The Member called Student A a “spoiled brat” when Student A did not get her way in class. Student A talked back to the Member and started to play with things inside her desk as she was leaning on top of her desk.
The Member turned Student A’s desk around so that it was facing opposite Student A. Student A proceeded to move the desk with her feet in an attempt to turn the desk back towards her. Student A almost fell off her chair.
At this time, the Member told Student A to go to the principal’s office and Student A refused.
The Member told Student A to go to the [XXX] at which time she did. In the [XXX], the Member called the Principal who then advised her to send Student A to the Principal’s office.
The Member was issued a fifteen (15) day suspension without pay by the Board.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts referred to in paragraphs 4 to 10 above, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5); 1(7); 1(7.1); 1(7.2); 1(15); 1(18); 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she understands that depending on the penalty ordered by the Discipline Committee, the decision of the Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to her name, may be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

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, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, 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 uncontested facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

DECISION

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Shannon Louise Lazore committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 above (the “Uncontested Facts”). She acknowledged that the Uncontested Facts referred to in paragraphs 4 to 10 above, constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct. The Committee accepted the Member’s guilty plea and the facts in the Statement of Uncontested Facts, and Plea of No Contest.

The Member, in dealing with a student in her classroom, used inappropriate language and personally moved the student’s desk. When the student proceeded to move the desk back to its previous position, the student almost fell off her chair. On a previous occasion, while the Member was helping another student, Student A repeatedly interrupted the Member prompting the Member to say that the student should pay attention in class and as a result the student would know what to do. The Member told the student that she would have to wait until the Member had finished with another student. It was only after this, that the Member offered to assist Student A, but Student A refused the proffered assistance.

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

The Ontario College of Teachers and the Member jointly submitted, through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee be as follows:

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:

(a) directs that the Member appear before the Committee within a period of six months from the date of the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand;

(b) directs that the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

(c) directs the Registrar 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 successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and anger management;

(ii) within thirty (30) days of her completion of the course outlined in (i) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:

A. he or she has reviewed a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts, Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty document made an exhibit at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and

B. the Member has successfully completed the courses.

(d) directs that there be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. The parties have not agreed on whether or not the Member’s name should be included and submissions will be made on that issue.

SUBMISSIONS RE: PUBLICATION

The Committee received submissions from both counsel on the penalty to be imposed with a specific focus on the issue of publication with or without name. Each of the counsel submitted supporting documents in the form of past Ontario College of Teachers decisions that supported their respective argument on publication.

College Counsel submitted that a reprimand would serve as a specific deterrent to the Member, the course assigned would provide remedial benefit, and publication with name would serve to advise the profession that the College takes matters such as this very seriously. College Counsel provided two cases in which publication with name was warranted and provided the following argument for publication with name. Publication with name would also indicate to the general public that conduct of this nature will not be tolerated and demonstrate to all that the College’s discipline process is appropriately transparent.

Counsel for the Member provided four examples of earlier discipline decisions. Member’s Counsel stressed that the behaviour under review reflected an isolated set of events. The degree of misconduct was at the lower end of the scale. There were no prior or subsequent complaints against the Member and this fact should be considered. At this time, the Member has stated that she will not be returning to teaching. Member’s Counsel also argued that the penalty should rehabilitate the Member and that this penalty will strive to do so. Member’s Counsel continued by addressing the issue of the reprimand and publication. The reprimand would act as an appropriate and specific deterrent and the Member is prepared to accept it as such.

Publication without name is a sufficient specific deterrent and acts as an appropriate general deterrent by still serving to inform the profession about issues of appropriate classroom management. Publication in summary without name will satisfy the right of the public to expect transparency.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

(a) The Member is directed to appear before the Committee within a period of six months from the date of the hearing of this matter, December 20, 2013, 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”);

(b) 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 successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and anger management;

(ii) within thirty (30) days of her completion of the course outlined in (i) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:

B. the Member has successfully completed the courses.

(c) Pursuant to subsection 30 (5) paragraph 3 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, the findings and order of the Committee shall be published in summary, without the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Committee agrees that the reprimand and the assignment of a course are appropriate in this matter and act as a specific deterrent and as a vehicle for remediation. Both of these penalties have been agreed to by both parties.

There was no agreement on publication. The Committee was presented with four cases by Member’s Counsel and two cases by College Counsel. The Committee assessed these six cases and determined that the four presented by Member’s Counsel were indeed specifically determinant. In the four preferred cases publication was without name. More particularly, the Committee concurred that this was an isolated example of a minor incident of professional misconduct.

Publication in summary without name satisfies the need to provide a general deterrence to the profession as well as maintaining the public trust.

Date: December 20, 2013

Irene Dembek, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

Mel Greif Member, Discipline Panel

Hanno Weinberger, OCT Member, Discipline Panel