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 Bryant, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Pauline Smart, Chair Christine Bellini, OCT Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS – and – JOHN BRYANT (CERTIFICATE #399541)
Ava Arbuck, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Daniela De Bartolo, Law Clerk Joshua Phillips, Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP, for John Bryant Rebecca Durcan, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: November 20, 2014
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 20, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated January 10, 2014 was served on John Bryant (the “Member”), requesting his presence on February 20, 2014 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for November 20, 2014.
The Member was not in attendance at the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated January 10, 2014 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that John Bryant is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 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 abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he failed to supervise adequately a person under his supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264 thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(f) 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
(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
At the hearing on November 20, 2014, College counsel requested that the allegations of professional misconduct as defined in paragraphs (c) and (e) of the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) be withdrawn. The Committee granted this request, and these allegations were subsequently withdrawn.
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea document (Exhibit 3), which provides as follows:
John Bryant is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached to Exhibit 3, at Tab A is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a high school teacher at [XXX] Institute (the “School”). He began teaching at the School in 2001.
The Member taught [XXX] at the School from 2001 until 2011. During the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 academic years, the Member taught [XXX] at the School. As of 2011, he had not taught [XXX] since 1993.
February 2012:
On or about February 2, 2012, the Member was speaking to another teacher in the [XXX] Room between classes. During that conversation, he referred to a female student as a “bitch”. He made the comment out of frustration with the student’s unwillingness to attend his class, which required him to frequently assist her with missed work. Although class was not in session when the comment was said, and the Member believed that he was having a private conversation, a student overheard it and reported what was said to the administration.
On or about February 8, 2012, a male student disrupted the Member’s class when he arrived late, wasn’t listening in class, and harassed a female student while she attempted to write a test. The Member attempted to prevent the male student from continuing to distract the female student. At one point, the male student tore the female student’s test paper out of the Member’s hands. Shocked by this behaviour, the Member called the male student a “cocky son of a bitch”.
The Principal investigated the incidents. The Member admitted to the Principal that he had referred to a female student as a “bitch”, and had called a male student a “cocky son of a bitch”. He acknowledged both comments were inappropriate. He also apologized to the two students involved – to the student who overheard the first inappropriate comment, and to the male student who was the recipient of the second inappropriate comment.
The Member received a Letter of Reprimand dated February 24, 2012 and was suspended for five (5) days without pay. Attached to Exhibit 3 at Tab B is the Letter of Reprimand dated February 24, 2012. The matter was grieved and the suspension was reduced from five to three days without pay.
April 20, 2012:
On Friday April 20, 2012, the Member was responsible for his Grade [XXX] [XXX] class during Period 4. Only a few students came to class that afternoon. They asked if they could work in the [XXX] Classroom. The Member agreed. When the students explained that the Member had sent them, the teachers in the [XXX] Classroom discovered that the Member was not in the building, and realized that the students had been left in their care.
One student from his class said he was hungry, so the Member offered to buy him something from [XXX]. This student told his friend, a student at the School who was supposed to be in [XXX] class at the time, that the Member was taking him to [XXX]. The friend told the Member that he was on a spare and asked if he could join them. The Member agreed.
The Member drove the student and his friend to [XXX] in his car, and then drove them back to the School. When they arrived back at the School, the Member did not get out of his car. Both students told the Member that they would work on projects in the [XXX]. He told the two students he was going to visit his mother up north and would see them next week, and drove off. The student from the Member’s class joined his friend in his friend’s [XXX] class for the remainder of Period 4, even though the student was not enrolled in that class.
The Member did not have signed excursion forms or signed consent forms to take the students off School property, nor did he seek permission from the School administration to transport the students in his personal vehicle.
The Member received a Letter of Reprimand dated May 25, 2012 and was suspended for ten (10) days without pay. Attached to Exhibit 3 at Tab C is the Letter of Reprimand dated May 25, 2012. The matter was grieved and the suspension was reduced from ten to six days without pay.
September 28, 2012:
- On September 28, 2012, the Member showed a movie about ecosystems during one of his classes. Students reported that during the viewing of the movie, the Member made a number of inappropriate comments. The comments were directed at the movie and not at the students. However, they made some of the students feel uncomfortable. The comments included the following:
(a) “you are fucking ugly”;
(b) “you are so fucking gay”;
(c) “you are a dumb ass”;
(d) “what a fucking dickhead”;
(e) “this guy probably does drugs”.
The Member can neither confirm nor deny making the comments. He had recently missed doses of an antidepressant he had taken for twenty years and was experiencing discontinuation symptoms. The symptoms left him confused, disoriented, and without any memory of making the reported comments. Since this incident, the Member has not taught after missing doses of his antidepressant.
The Member received a Letter of Reprimand dated November 20, 2012 and was suspended without pay for twenty (20) days. Attached to Exhibit 3 at Tab D is the Letter of Reprimand dated November 20, 2012. The matter was grieved and the suspension was reduced from twenty to fifteen days without pay.
While the Member has had anxiety and depression for decades, he experienced increased stress during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 academic years, in part because of the difficulties associated with teaching [XXX] for the first time in eighteen years. All of the above incidents occurred during this timeframe. The Member has since addressed the issues related to his stress.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 16 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and admits the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(11), 1(18), and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he 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 his name, may be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between his Counsel and Counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, 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 John Bryant committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(11), 1(18), and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member acknowledged that the facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea document (Exhibit 3) constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct made against him. The Committee accepts the Member’s plea and the facts contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea document.
The Member acknowledged that, on several occasions, he used inappropriate language. The Member failed to supervise students when he left them in the [XXX] room. Further, the Member admits that he took students off the School property in his personal vehicle without parental or administrative consent. That same day, the Member departed School property early without permission from his administration. In another incident, while watching a movie in class with students, the Member used profanity directed at the film which made students feel uncomfortable.
In light of the Member’s behaviour and his plea, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(11), 1(18), and 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member submitted a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4) indicating the following:
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:
direct that prior to undertaking any teaching position or any other position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall appear before the Committee, on a date to be arranged by the Member, to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions, or 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:
(a) prior to undertaking any teaching position or any other position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics and professional boundaries;
(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:
(i) he or she has reviewed a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and
(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course.
- direct 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 ON PUBLICATION
Submissions of College Counsel
Counsel for the College submitted that publication with name is warranted in this case as it addresses the four principles of sanction, being specific and general deterrence, transparency and accountability. Counsel for the College stated that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession when he verbally abused students in class. The Member failed to supervise students in another one of his classes and left School property with students in his vehicle without permission from parents or administration. It was submitted that in the following school year, the Member made several inappropriate comments in his class that made students feel uncomfortable.
College Counsel made submissions regarding publication with the Member’s name. Publication with name would serve as a specific and general deterrent. It signifies to the Member that his conduct was not acceptable and it demonstrates to the profession that the College does not take these matters lightly. It was further submitted that publication with name is essential to maintain transparency and accountability to the public. In the absence of a good reason not to publish, publication should include the Member’s name.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member acknowledged that it is common practice for the Discipline Committee to publish with the Member’s name. Member’s Counsel submitted a Book of Authorities consisting of five cases in which the Discipline Committees chose not to publish the Member’s name. Member’s Counsel advised that some of the reasons for non-publication are: the Member’s conduct is at the less serious end of the spectrum; the cases are historical in nature; specific deterrence is adequately addressed in other measures; and, general deterrence is achieved through publication of the facts alone.
Counsel for the Member submitted that this case is appropriate for publication without name because the conduct was on the low end of the spectrum (i.e. a fast food excursion and inappropriate language). Member’s Counsel further submitted that one of the alleged incidents was during a private conversation with a colleague and another was in response to provocative student behaviour.
Member’s Counsel stated that the most egregious conducted occurred when the Member discontinued taking his antidepressant medication which left him in a state of confusion and disorientation. Member’s Counsel compared this case to cases before a Fitness to Practise Committee, which often deal with similar issues related to mental health. The rule in Fitness to Practise hearings is complete privacy. Member’s Counsel suggested that the Committee afford this Member the same practice.
Member’s Counsel submitted that publication with name is sometimes warranted if the Member is seeking employment. However, in this case the Member has retired and has no intention of returning to the teaching profession which therefore reduces the possibility of further misconduct to zero. Therefore, publication with the Member’s name is not warranted.
Member’s Counsel highlighted two mitigating circumstances: 1) the incidents occurred over a short period of time during a 24-year career; and 2) the Member has no prior discipline record. Member’s Counsel submitted that in light of all the facts, it is not necessary to publish the Member’s name.
Reply Submissions of College Counsel
College Counsel submitted that she did not agree with Member’s Counsel’s view that general deterrence is achieved solely with publication of the facts. College Counsel further submitted that when the findings are published with the Member’s name, it “hits home” with all members of the profession that their name could be made public should they engage in similar conduct.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
Prior to undertaking any teaching position or any other position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall appear before the Committee, on a date to be arranged by the Member, to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, 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, or 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:
(a) prior to undertaking any teaching position or any other position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics and professional boundaries;
(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:
(i) the course provider has reviewed a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee; and
(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course.
- There shall 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 reprimand of the Member by the Committee in respect of his inappropriate conduct serves to emphasize the necessity to maintain the standards of the profession. The fact that the reprimand will be recorded on the Register also serves as a specific deterrent to the Member.
Members of the profession must be aware of expectations regarding professional behaviour and not engage in unprofessional conduct. The Member’s behaviour indicated a lack of professionalism with his use of profanity both in and outside of the classroom. Further, the course on professional ethics and boundaries will remind the Member that conduct such as leaving school property with students and without permission is unacceptable. The course will assist in the process of remediation of the Member.
The Committee considered the submissions of College Counsel and Counsel for the Member with respect to publication of the Member’s name. Member’s Counsel made submissions regarding the Member’s mental health as contributing to his conduct. The Committee was not given any evidence to support this submission and therefore could not give it substantial consideration.
The Committee ordered publication of the findings and order, with the name of the Member, for the following reasons. The Committee determined that publication with the Member’s name assures transparency and accountability of the disciplinary process and reinforces the mandate of the College to serve and protect the public interest. Publication with name serves as a general deterrent by reminding the profession that such behaviour is not condoned. Publication of the decision and findings of the Committee, with the name of the Member, also serves to inform the public that the College takes seriously its obligation to impose appropriate sanctions on members of the profession who conduct themselves in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances, and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: November 20, 2014
Pauline Smart Chair, Discipline Panel
Christine Bellini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT Member, Discipline Panel