Ontario College of Teachers v. Biggs, 2014 ONOCT 6

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Biggs, 2014 ONOCT 6

Date: 2014-05-15

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

-and-

IN THE MATTER OF three discipline proceedings against Samantha Jane Biggs, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair

Christine Bellini, OCT

Hanno Weinberger, OCT

BETWEEN: )

) Ava Arbuck

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,

) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,

) Law Clerk

-and- )

) Samantha Jane Biggs

) was not present or represented )

SAMANTHA JANE BIGGS )

(CERTIFICATE #469131) )

) Julie Maciura,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,

) Independent Legal Counsel

) Heard: April 3 & 4, 2014

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

Three separate Notices of Hearing were dealt with on April 3 and 4, 2014. These Notices of Hearing contained allegations that arose by way of three separate complaints.

BACKGROUND

The Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) alleged that Samantha Jane Biggs (the “Member”) had verbally and physically mistreated students in her care and had neglected her teaching duties during class time. These incidents were alleged to have occurred between September 2007 and December 2010, while the Member was employed as a [XXX] teacher by the Bluewater District School Board (the “Board”).

In September 2007, the Member was hired to teach [XXX] at [XXXX] School (“[XXX]”). During her time at [XXX], parents, students and a colleague made complaints to the school administration that the Member conducted herself inappropriately in the classroom and failed to teach her students any [XXX].

In the following 2009 fall semester, the Member was transferred to teach [XXX] at [XXX] School ([XXX]“”). Parents, students and colleagues made complaints to the school’s administration regarding the Member’s behaviour. In December 2010, the Member resigned from the Board and left [XXX].

Two complaints were filed with the College regarding the Member’s conduct. These complaints were from parents whose children had been taught by the Member. The College Registrar then filed a third complaint against the Member based on information received by the College.

The three matters were referred to a hearing before the Discipline Committee and were heard by a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 3 and 4, 2014. The Member was not in attendance at the hearing.

At the hearing, Ms. Bellini, one member of the Committee, recused herself from hearing the matter. Ms. Bellini had previously been appointed to chair a pre-hearing conference involving the Member, and although that pre-hearing conference never took place, Ms. Bellini had received and reviewed materials related to the allegations. The original three-member panel had been duly constituted in accordance with section 17 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), and section 4.4 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act allows for remaining members of a panel to complete a hearing in the event that one member is unable to continue. As such, the remaining two-member Committee determined that it would be appropriate to hear and adjudicate the three matters.

The task before the Committee was to determine whether the Member had engaged in the alleged behaviour and if so, whether that behaviour amounted to professional misconduct. After considering the allegations, evidence and submissions described below, the Committee found that the Member did indeed commit acts of professional misconduct.

ALLEGATIONS

The three matters against the Member were presented in three separate Notices of Hearing, one dated February 13, 2012, one dated February 17, 2012 and one dated October 25, 2012. The Member was not present at the hearing and did not make submissions as to how the three matters should be heard. The Committee determined that it was appropriate to hear all three matters together and make three separate sets of factual findings. The Committee was cautioned that it should ensure that the onus and burden of proof was met separately for each set of allegations.

Notice of Hearing #1

The allegations against the Member in the first Notice of Hearing dated February 13, 2012 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Samantha Jane Biggs is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of 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);

(c) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(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, subsections 1(14) and 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).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Samantha Jane Biggs (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Bluewater District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. During the 2008-2009 academic year, the Member taught Grade [XXX] and Grade [XXX] [XXX] classes.

4. During the Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, the Member:

(a) sprayed a water gun at the students;

(b) drank pop, ate donuts and shopped on eBay during class time.

5. During the Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, the Member:

(a) told students to “Shut-up”;

(b) told students to move their legs or she will break them;

(c) said to students, “Do you want the back of my hand?”;

(d) said that a student was “retarded”;

(e) on a regular basis, allowed students to watch [XXX] movies with no connection to the [XXX] curriculum.

6. The Member resigned from the Board on or about December 6, 2010.

Notice of Hearing #2

The allegations against the Member in the second Notice of Hearing dated February 17, 2012 (Exhibit 2) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Samantha Jane Biggs is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of 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);

(c) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, 1(7.1);

(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, subsections 1(14) and 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).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Samantha Jane Biggs (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Bluewater District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. During the 2008-2009 academic year, the Student was a female Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class.

4. During 2008-2009 academic year, the Member:

(a) repeatedly told the Student that no one likes her and that she is rude and disrespectful;

(b) singled out the Student about going to church;

(c) asked the Student, “Does your mom hate me?”;

(d) used the word “retard” during class;

(e) used a water gun to shoot at students until their clothes were soaked;

(f) watched “You Tube” during class time;

(g) shopped online during class time;

(h) told the students, “I’m sick, I’m going to die.”

5. On or about April 8, 2009, the Member:

(a) pushed the head of the Student into the water fountain at the School while she was getting a drink;

(b) caused the Student to chip a tooth;

(c) laughed after she pushed the Student’s head into the water fountain.

6. The Member resigned her employment with the Board on or about December 6, 2010.

Notice of Hearing #3

The allegations against the Member in the third Notice of Hearing dated October 25, 2012 (Exhibit 3) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Samantha Jane Biggs is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of 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 physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7) – prior to May 2008.

(c) she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7) – after May 2008;

(d) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, 1(7.1);

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

(f) 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 that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(g) 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

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

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Samantha Jane Biggs (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Bluewater District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. Around September 2007, the Member:

(a) told a male student with [XXX] not to speak again in class because his voice was annoying;

(b) told a male student that, “you lie and your parents need to learn to listen to adults and not little kids that lie”;

(c) told students that they were not permitted to have water in class;

(d) did not permit a student and/or students to go to the bathroom.

4. Around December 2008, the Member:

(a) after requesting that students raise their hands when they heard her say the grade they would be receiving, when a female student raised her hand at “A-“, said to the female student, “in your wildest dreams. Why would you ever think that, you’re not that good”;

(b) bullied colleagues by going room to room looking for the person who raised the issue of computer lab timetabling with the Principal;

(c) was alone in her classroom with two male Grade [XXX] students, not from her class, and allowed the two students to watch “Family Guy” with her on her computer screen;

(d) told a [XXX] student, Student No. 1, that he had to write a letter of apology because his desk wobbled and hurt another student;

(e) told Student No. 1 that he had to write a page from the dictionary for talking in class;

(f) stuck her tongue out at a student.

5. On or about September 3, 2009, the Member:

(a) said to custodial staff, words to the effect of how the “fuck” two teachers were to teach out of a room smaller than her bathroom.

6. On or about September 8, 2009, the Member:

(a) said to a Grade [XXX] male student, Student No. 2, “What is this? I can’t read this! Your art work is illegible”;

(b) held Student No. 2’s paper to the class and asked if “anyone else can make this out?”

7. In or around March 2010, the Member accused a student of trying to get her fired.

8. During September and/or October 2010, the Member:

(a) in front of the class, made several comments about a student with [XXX] about “spazzing out”;

(b) told the student with [XXX], “ewwww don’t touch me”;

(c) on more than one occasion called Student No. 3, a male student, “rat face” and told him he looked like he had rat teeth;

(d) told student Student No. 4 that no one wanted to be his friend;

(e) made fun of Student No. 4’s culture.

9. During October 2010, the Member:

(a) made fun of a Student No. 5’s incorrect answers to a test;

(b) after Student No. 5 was crying, told him that she would give him a B for the test.

10. During the 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic years, the Member:

(a) spent class time in social dialogue with class rather than teaching [XXX];

(b) told students to copy [XXX] work from the board, but did not offer any explanations as to what it was;

(c) made fun of students who did not know the answers in class;

(d) did not answer student questions in class.

At the end of the hearing, Counsel for the College requested the withdrawal of allegations (b) and (d) from the third Notice of Hearing. Allegation (b) made reference to verbal, emotional and psychological abuse but was redundant as allegations (c) and (e) also made reference to these forms of abuse. College Counsel stated that allegation (d) was not supported by evidence at the hearing. Having considered the College’s request, the Committee accepted the withdrawal of allegations (b) and (d) of the third Notice of Hearing.

NOTICE TO MEMBER

As the Member was not present at the hearing, Counsel for the College tendered an affidavit of service to demonstrate that the three Notices of Hearing had been served on the Member and that numerous efforts had been made to contact the Member regarding the hearing.

The Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo (Exhibit 5) indicated that the first two Notices of Hearing had been served on the Member through her legal counsel, Patricia D’Heureux (“Ms. D’Heureux”). On February 28, 2012, Ms. D’Heureux sent a letter to College Counsel confirming service of the two Notices.

On or about October 30, 2012, College Counsel served on the Member a third Notice of Hearing, and on November 21, 2012, the Member responded to this correspondence by way of a faxed letter. College Counsel then tried to contact the Member to discuss the matter further but was unable to reach her. To the College’s knowledge, the Member never retained legal counsel for the allegations in this third Notice.

In September 2013, Ms. D’Heureux advised College Counsel that she was no longer representing the Member with regard to the first two Notices of Hearing. Subsequently, between November 2013 and March 2014, College Counsel made a number of attempts to contact the Member directly to discuss hearing dates and procedures. However, Counsel’s calls were not returned and written correspondence was often sent back with the word “refused” written on the envelope.

After reviewing the Affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo, the Committee was satisfied that reasonable efforts had been made to inform the Member of the date of the hearing and of the allegations brought against her. The Committee additionally confirmed that the Member had been served with the three Notices of Hearing. As such, the Committee proceeded to hear the matters in the absence of the Member.

MEMBER’S PLEA

As the Member was not present or represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the three Notices of Hearing. The Committee Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.

EVIDENCE

Counsel for the College submitted a document entitled Registered Member Information for Samantha Biggs (Exhibit 4), which confirmed that the Member was registered with the College during the period of the alleged events.

College Counsel also tendered a document brief (Exhibit 11) and advised the Committee that witnesses would identify the different documents contained in it during the course of the proceedings.

Witnesses

The College called thirteen witnesses, eight of whom spoke to the alleged incidents at [XXX] and five of whom spoke to the alleged events at [XXX].

Testimony of Ms. A

Ms. A is the mother of two girls who previously attended [XXX]. Both her daughters were taught by the Member. Ms. A testified regarding her interactions with the Member as well as the effect the Member’s actions had on her daughters.

2007-2008 School Year

During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. A’s elder daughter, [XXX]., was in Grade [XXX], while her younger daughter, Student A, was in Grade [XXX]. Both her daughters had the Member as their [XXX] teacher that year. At the time, Ms. A was a youth leader for a group of teens at her local church. The teens in this group also attended [XXX], and during one group discussion, they told Ms. A that they were concerned that they were not learning any [XXX] in the Member’s class. They stated that the Member would spend class time applying make-up and eating and would show her students YouTube videos and [XXX] movies instead of teaching them [XXX]. The teens also indicated to Ms. A that the Member was disrespectful to her students.

After this discussion with her youth group, Ms. A asked her daughter, [XXX]., whether the remarks the teens had made about the Member were true. [XXX]. confirmed that the Member did in fact conduct herself this way in [XXX] class.

Ms. A testified that she later visited [XXX] for a matter unrelated to the Member’s conduct. As she was already at the school, Ms. A decided to drop by the principal’s office to see if she could address the concerns that the teens from her youth group had raised. The principal, Pauline Kelly (“Ms. Kelly”), told Ms. A that if she had concerns about a teacher, the proper procedure was to speak to the teacher directly, so Ms. A went to speak to the Member.

Ms. A testified that she went to the Member’s classroom and asked if she could set up an appointment with her. The Member told Ms. A that she could not do so and wanted to know right then and there Ms. A’s reasons for coming to see her. Ms. A. and the Member ultimately decided to head over to the science classroom to discuss Ms. A’s concerns. During their discussion, Ms. A explained that she wanted to talk about some issues that had been raised by teens in her youth group. The Member responded in a defensive manner, denying that she watched YouTube or applied make-up during class. In particular, the Member commented that Ms. A’s daughters were very “intense” and religious. The Member targeted [XXX] and stated that she was concerned that [XXX] would not be able to handle high school.

Ms. A testified that she felt intimidated by the Member during their conversation as the Member had gotten very close to her and had made hand gestures close to Ms. A’s body. At the end of their discussion, Ms. A asked the Member not to tell [XXX] about their meeting. The Member did not say anything in response to this request.

Later that day, Ms. A received a call from [XXX], who asked her mother if she had spoken to her [XXX] teacher. [XXX] was upset because the Member had pulled her aside and said to her, “if you have a problem with me, you should come to me”. Following this phone call, Ms. A wrote a letter to the principal, Ms. Kelly, outlining her discussion with the Member and indicating that she was upset about what had transpired (Exhibit 11, Tab 1).

2008-2009 School Year

Ms. A testified that in the following 2008-2009 school year, her younger daughter, Student A, was in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class. Student A often came home from school upset because she was not learning [XXX] and the Member was singling her out during class. Student A indicated to her mother that the Member would tell her that she was rude, disrespectful and that “nobody liked her”. Student A stated that her [XXX] teacher would make these comments to other students as well.

Ms. A recounted that she tried to provide her daughter with methods for dealing with this problem, reminding Student A to always be polite and to only raise her hand when she truly did not understand something in class. However, the situation did not improve, and there came a point when Student A began to have trouble sleeping and was dreading going to school. Ms. A testified that her daughter was affected emotionally by her interactions with the Member, and she began to have less confidence.

In December 2008, Ms. A wrote an email to Ms. Kelly informing her of the difficulties that Student A had been experiencing in the Member’s [XXX] class (Exhibit 11, Tab 2). In her email, Ms. A asked the principal to not mention Student A’s name to the Member as she did not want her daughter to be singled out.

Ms. A testified that on one occasion in April 2009, she received a call from Student A, who told her that the Member had pushed her head into a water fountain at school. Her daughter was crying, stating that her tooth hurt and that it was chipped. The next day, Ms. A wrote an email addressed to Ms. Kelly and two other Board employees, Lori Wilder and John Chapman (Exhibit 11, Tab 3). In the letter, Ms. A outlined the fountain incident and indicated that she would be removing her daughter from the Member’s [XXX] class. Ms. A also stated that the Member was not to have any interaction with either of her daughters. After she sent this email, Ms. A went to [XXX] to discuss the matter with Ms. Kelly in person. After speaking with Ms. A, Ms. Kelly arranged for Student A to write a statement about the water fountain incident and assured Ms. A that she would investigate the matter and get back to her about her findings.

Ms. A testified that she took Student A to the dentist to have her tooth examined, and the dentist indicated that there was some gum damage and that Student A’s tooth was chipped. The dentist was able to smooth off the chipped tooth and provided Ms. A with a letter confirming the dental issues identified and the treatment that had been provided (Exhibit 11, Tab 4).

Further Steps

Ms. A gave testimony that in May 2009, she was frustrated that it had taken almost a month for the Member to be put on an administrative leave. For weeks following the water fountain incident, the Member had still been at [XXX], where she was able to have unsupervised contact with Student A. Ms. A wrote a letter to the Director of Education, Mary Anne Alton, Board Chair Jennifer Yenssen and Board Trustee John Chapman (Exhibit 11, Tab 5) in which she expressed concerns that the Board had failed to take appropriate action in a timely manner.

Ms. A testified that she and her husband also reported the water fountain incident to the police as well as the Children’s Aid Society (the “CAS”). The police initially assured Ms. A that the matter she had reported would go forward, but when the report was referred to the Crown, the police felt that it would be in the best interest of Student A if the matter did not go any further.

As for the CAS investigation, Ms. A received a letter verifying that the Member had physically harmed Student A (Exhibit 11, Tab 6). The letter stated that although the allegations of emotional harm and risk of emotional harm were deemed inconclusive, this conclusion did not mean that abuse or neglect did not occur. Rather, a lack of information made it impossible to establish that abuse or neglect did occur.

Ms. A testified that she and her husband also filed a complaint with the College in May 2009 (Exhibit 11, Tab 7). Ms. A stated that they decided to take this step as they were frustrated that it had taken almost a month for the Member to be put on leave and felt that the school system continued to put students at risk.

Ms. A stated that the Member permanently left the school at the end of May 2009. On the whole, the Member’s conduct and the investigations into the water fountain incident had a significant impact on Student A. Ms. A indicated that her family had made many attempts to pursue the matter, but her daughter was continually let down by the different systems. Further, the Member’s behaviour had such an impact on her that when Student A later went to a psychologist, she was diagnosed with [XXX].

Testimony of Student A

Student A is the daughter of Ms. A and currently attends a high school in Ontario. Student A previously attended [XXX], and in Grades [XXX] and [XXX], the Member was her [XXX] teacher. Student A testified regarding the Member’s conduct towards herself and her peers.

Student A testified that on a few occasions, the Member would take a small handheld water gun from her desk and spray water at students. Student A never got sprayed but once witnessed her friend getting sprayed. The Member did not explain why she did this and acted like it was a joke.

Student A also gave evidence that the Member would show her and her classmates many movies during class time. A few of the movies were in [XXX], but most of them were in [XXX] and had no connection with the curriculum. Student A also stated that she did not recall having homework or tests for [XXX] class. Further, although students were not allowed to eat snacks or drink pop in her classroom, the Member often ate cookies and drank pop, while her students were doing desk work.

Student A stated that students rarely asked the Member to help them with their work as they were all too intimidated to talk to her. The Member made her and her classmates feel uncomfortable because she acted as if she had more power than they did. On one occasion, Student A did go up to try and ask the Member for help and noticed that the Member had the YouTube homepage open on the screen of her laptop.

Student A testified that the Member often made inappropriate comments to students during class. For example, the Member would often tell the class to “shut up”. She would say this if students were talking during class or if she wanted to make an announcement. The Member would say “shut up” in a stern tone, and all the students would listen because they did not want to get in trouble.

The Member also frequently told the class that she was sick and that she was probably “going to die soon”. This comment made Student A worried as she wondered if the Member was really going to die. Student A stated that the Member would also stick her tongue out at students, which Student A found to be a disrespectful gesture.

Student A testified that the Member would make fun of students in front of the entire class. Whenever she went through the attendance list, the Member would stop and make fun of a particular student’s last name, [XXX]“” and would sometimes find excuses to say the student’s last name for fun in an exaggerated way.

Student A gave testimony that she herself was targeted by the Member. The Member would keep her after class and make comments to the effect of “nobody likes you”. When the Member made this remark, she had a serious tone, and it did not seem like she was joking. When they were in class, the Member would also sometimes come around to Student A’s desk while she was working to tell her that she was “rude” and “disrespectful”. During class discussions, the Member made comments about the fact that Student A went to church in such a way that implied that attending church was something negative. The Member also asked Student A on more than one occasion, “Does your mother hate me? Why does she hate me?”

Water Fountain Incident

Student A testified that on April 8, 2009, the Member pushed her head into a water fountain at school. Student A was walking with a friend to [XXX] class and stopped to get a drink of water from the water fountain. While Student A was drinking from the fountain, she felt a hand pushing her head down. Her tooth hit the fountain’s metal spout, and she felt pain. Student A looked up and asked her friend if she had pushed her head down. Her friend replied that the Member was the one who had done it, and when Student A turned her head, she saw the Member walking by, smiling and nodding as if she were agreeing with what Student A’s friend had just said.

When Student A and her friend went to [XXX] class, Student A’s mouth hurt, and the other students were all taking about what had occurred at the water fountain. The Member was again nodding her head as if she were agreeing with the students that she had indeed pushed Student A’s head into the fountain.

Student A testified that the next day, she was asked by her principal to write a statement about the incident (Exhibit 11, Tab 8).

Testimony of Student B

Student B is a recent high school graduate. In Grade [XXX], he attended [XXX], where the Member taught him [XXX]. Student B testified regarding the Member’s conduct in the classroom.

Student B testified that before going to [XXX], he had taken other [XXX] classes, enjoyed the language and had received high marks in this subject. However, in the Member’s class, Student B did not learn much [XXX] as the Member usually [XXX] [XXX].

Student B stated that the Member had a laptop in her classroom and would show the class YouTube clips and other [XXX] videos that were unrelated to the [XXX] curriculum using a projector that she borrowed from the library. In particular, Student B recalled watching a Family Guy episode on one occasion.

At one point, the Grade [XXX] students were scheduled to watch The Simpsons in [XXX] class, but Student B’s parents wrote a note in his agenda excusing him from this activity as they did not want him to watch this program. Student B stated that when he showed the Member this note, she took his agenda and told him that she was going to photocopy the note so that she could put it into her book of “lamest excuses to get out of work”.

Student B testified to a particular incident in which the Member spoke to him inappropriately. He stated that the desks in the Member’s classroom were really low, and it was difficult for taller students to sit under them. When Student B sat at his desk, his legs would essentially raise the desk higher (so that the desk legs were off the ground). Student B shared his desk with another student, and whenever Student B got up from his seat, the desk would fall back down and hit his desk mate’s legs. As a result, Student B’s parents were continually asking the school to provide their son with a raised desk.

Student B testified that after he was given a raised desk, there was one occasion where the Member was talking to the class, and he turned in his desk to look at his teacher while she was talking. The Member yelled at him in front of the whole class, complaining that after his parents’ many requests for a raised desk, he was “not even sitting in it properly”.

Student B stated that the Member yelled quite often, and there were instances where she told the class to “shut up”. His parents eventually removed him from the Member’s class, and the vice-principal ended up teaching him [XXX] that year.

Testimony of Student C

Student C currently attends a high school in Ontario. In Grade [XXX], she went to [XXX], where the Member taught her [XXX]. Student C testified regarding the Member’s conduct in the classroom.

Student C testified that the Member did not spend much class time teaching her students [XXX]. Most of the time, the Member gave the students a sheet to work on or had them copy something off the board. About once a week, the Member would put on an [XXX] movie that was unrelated to the curriculum. She would often joke that they would have a “movie day” because she did not feel like doing anything.

Student C stated that the Member gave preferential treatment to some students. The teacher would sit at the front of the classroom with certain “sporty” male students and chat with them in [XXX] about her personal life or celebrity gossip. The Member would sometimes discuss these topics with the entire class, but these conversations were usually reserved for the “sporty” boys. Although there was a no-gum policy at school, the Member would sometimes give these boys gum during class, and she herself was always drinking coke in the classroom.

The Member often joked with the “sporty” male students, and during at least one class, she gave them water guns to spray other students.

Student C testified that the Member, in addition to favouring certain boys, would also pick on particular students in her [XXX] class. Whenever the Member was about to hand back graded tests, she would call out letter grades from A to F and would have students put up their hands for the letter grade they believed they had received. On one occasion when she was performing this call-out, she made a comment in front of the class insinuating that a student, [XXX]., was not passing and used the word “retard” to describe him. During another instance, the Member called out the letter grade “A-”, and when Student C’s friend raised her hand, the Member made a comment to the effect of “you really think you got that mark?” or “you wish you got that mark”.

Student C stated that she herself had been targeted by the Member. At the time, she had been a “chubbier kid”, and when other students teased her for it, the Member would not discourage this behaviour but would, instead, play up the teasing. Student C had the impression that the Member wanted to be the “teenager in the room” as she often tried to make the students laugh.

Student C testified that the Member would tell the class or certain students in the class to “shut up”. On one occasion, the teacher said to students in an aggressive manner, “move your legs, or I’ll break them”.

Student C described an incident in which she went up to the Member’s desk during class time to ask for help with her seatwork. Rather than helping her, the Member gave her a “look” as if to say that it was absurd that Student C did not understand the work and told her to go back to her seat.

After this incident, Student C and her friends went to the principal’s office to report the Member’s behaviour and told the principal how the Member would not help them with their work and how she was not a good teacher.

After they reported her behaviour to the principal, the Member would make comments in class, saying “oh we better do some work today because I could get in trouble”.

Testimony of Student D

Student D currently attends a high school in Ontario. In Grade [XXX], she went to [XXX], where the Member was her [XXX] teacher. Student D gave testimony regarding the Member’s conduct in the classroom.

Student D testified that she was always nervous when she went to [XXX] class because she never knew what kind of mood the Member would be in that day. The Member could get angry very quickly, but other times, she was happy or sarcastic.

Student D gave testimony that the Member had a number of small water guns in her desk. While students were watching a movie or working on a worksheet during class, the Member would sometimes use a water gun to spray students for no apparent reason. Certain athletic male students were allowed to sit at the Member’s desk, and the Member would give them water guns so that they could squirt water as well. The Member also gave these students candy.

By contrast, Student D testified that the Member would pick on a particular student, [XXX]. The Member would call him a “retard” and mock his stutter. Student D stated that [XXX]. was really nice and did not deserve to be treated this way. He never gave the Member a reason to act in this manner towards him. The Member also did not like “class clowns” because she wanted to be the class clown and always tried to make students laugh.

Student D indicated that the Member had, on a number of occasions, told the class to “shut up”. She would yell or scream “shut up” to the entire class or use the phrase with specific students. On one occasion, a student was talking and would not stop, so the Member got up from her desk, walked over to the student and told him to shut up. The Member would also stick her tongue out at students if they did something that irritated her or if they looked at her too long.

Student D testified that when the Member handed back graded work, she would call out letter grades and have the students raise their hands to guess the mark that they had received.

Student D stated that the Member never taught the class anything. She would put on movies for the class at least twice a week. The movies were sometimes in [XXX], but she also showed [XXX] films that had no connection to the lesson. Student D recalled one week where she and her classmates just watched episodes of SpongeBob SquarePants during [XXX] class, and the Member never explained why they were viewing this program. Student D stated that at the end of the year, she did not feel prepared for Grade [XXX] as she had essentially missed a whole year of [XXX].

Student D testified that she eventually went with her friends to the principal and told her about the Member’s inappropriate behaviour.

Testimony of Krista Bell, Teacher at [XXX]

Krista Bell (“Ms. Bell”) is a member of the College and was able to verify that the document entitled the Registered Member Information of Krista Bell (Exhibit 6) accurately reflected her academic background and teaching qualifications.

Ms. Bell is currently a teacher at [XXX]. She was already teaching at the school in 2007 when the Member was first hired as a [XXX] teacher for Grades [XXX], [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX]. Ms. Bell gave testimony regarding her interactions with the Member and her observations of the Member’s [XXX] class.

Interactions with the Member

Ms. Bell stated that the first time she met the Member, she could tell that the [XXX] teacher had a very “big personality”. A few minutes into their first meeting, the Member lifted her shirt to show Ms. Bell her new bra. Ms. Bell felt that this gesture was completely inappropriate.

Ms. Bell’s classroom was initially across the hall from the Member’s classroom, and they would spend a great deal of time talking before and after classes. It was the Member who initiated the conversations as she would always come into Ms. Bell’s classroom to chat.

One of the courses that Ms. Bell taught was [XXX], and the class schedule was arranged so that the Grade [XXX] students would have [XXX] with the Member and then have [XXX] with Ms. Bell. As time went on, Ms. Bell could see that the Member’s behaviour in her [XXX] class was affecting students, and Ms. Bell began to feel uncomfortable being in the same room as the Member. Ms. Bell tried to avoid having conversations with the Member after class by leaving her classroom right at 3:10 p.m. to find another location in the school to work on her lesson preparation.

Ms. Bell testified that she tried explaining to the Member that she did not have time to chat after class as she was very busy and needed time to prepare her lessons. The Member, however, tried to make her feel bad by saying that Ms. Bell did not care to hear about how her day went. During their conversations, the Member often wanted to talk about students and wanted to know whether Ms. Bell thought certain students would go home and tell their parents about what had happened at school.

Ms. Bell gave testimony that the Member acted inappropriately towards students in her care. When Ms. Bell saw students engaging in an activity with the Member that they were not supposed to be engaging in, Ms. Bell would ask the students to come into her classroom. In response, the Member would say sarcastically, in front of the students, that “Ms. Fancy Pants” was trying to implement rules.

Observations of the Member’s [XXX] Class

Ms. Bell explained that there was a glass panel on the door in her classroom, so she had a view of the Member’s classroom. Ms. Bell had seen the Member and some students using fluorescent green water guns to shoot water around the room. The Member would also stick her tongue out at students and teachers, and she would sometimes try to be funny by walking over to the glass panel of Ms. Bell’s classroom and sticking her tongue on the glass, while Ms. Bell was teaching students. Ms. Bell felt that in these instances, the Member was seeking attention.

The Member’s students were not allowed to eat in class, and Ms. Bell heard from students that the Member did not even allow them to have water. The Member, however, would eat chips and crackers out of a cat dish or dog bowl during instructional time. From her classroom, Ms. Bell often heard the Member hollering in her class but did not hear her [XXX] a lot of [XXX].

Ms. Bell testified that the Member would show [XXX] movies to her students on a regular basis, particularly on Fridays. Ms. Bell was not aware of any connection between these movies and the Member’s [XXX] lessons. Furthermore, as the Member often left her classroom door open, Ms. Bell could hear her talking to her students during class time about their social lives or celebrities.

Member’s Treatment of Students

Ms. Bell testified that there were three boys who were granted special privileges from the Member and could spend their breaks in her classroom. These three male students were also in Ms. Bell’s [XXX] class, and in one instance, Ms. Bell went to the Member’s classroom to inquire why these students had not gone out for recess. When she walked into the room, she observed the students watching Family Guy on YouTube. The Member told Ms. Bell to relax and stated that the boys were fine.

Ms. Bell indicated that there was one boy who was friends with the male students who spent their breaks in the Member’s classroom. When this boy tried to join the gathering in the Member’s classroom, the Member told him that he was not welcome and slammed the door. Ms. Bell had to console him.

Ms. Bell testified that the students would often come to her [XXX] class upset because of what had happened during their [XXX] period. The students told her that the Member would call them “retards”, which was consistent with the comments the Member made to Ms. Bell in their private conversations. The Member had described students as “slow”, “retarded”, “dense” and “not too bright” when talking to Ms. Bell.

Water Fountain Incident

Ms. Bell also testified regarding the water fountain incident involving Student A. Student A was in Ms. Bell’s [XXX] class and was quiet, kind and conscientious. One day in April 2009, Ms. Bell’s students came to her [XXX] class from [XXX], and while she was teaching, Ms. Bell noticed that students were talking to Student A. When Ms. Bell went over to try and get them focused, the students told her that something had happened. At this point, Student A started to cry. Ms. Bell took her outside into the hall to speak with her, and Student A explained that she was taking a drink from the water fountain when the Member came up behind her and pushed her head into the metal spout of the fountain. Ms. Bell stated that she felt that Student A was more emotionally than physically hurt, and the other students were upset that one of their classmates had been hurt. After class, Ms. Bell went to see the principal and told her what had happened. The principal asked Ms. Bell to write a statement about this incident (Exhibit 11, Tab 9).

Ms. Bell testified that on the day of the incident, the Member came into her classroom, stood very close to Ms. Bell and asked her, “What did (Student A) say to you today in [XXX] class?” Ms. Bell responded that Student A had informed her of an incident that had occurred earlier in the hallway. The Member reacted by saying, “We both know that can’t be true because she’s retarded”. The Member then wanted to know if Ms. Bell was aware whether Student A would go home and tell her parents about incidents at school.

Ms. Bell stated that she was intimidated by the Member, and that at a certain point, she was fed up with the Member coming into her classroom to corner her. Ms. Bell asked administration whether she or the Member could change rooms. The Member was eventually moved to another classroom.

Testimony of Diane Wall, Former Vice-Principal at [XXX]

Diane Wall (“Ms. Wall”) is a member of the College and was able to verify that the document Registered Member Information of Diane Wall (Exhibit 7) tendered by College Counsel accurately reflected her academic background and teaching qualifications. Ms. Wall gave evidence about the complaints that she had received from parents and students regarding the Member’s conduct as a teacher.

Ms. Wall testified that at a certain point in her career, she was employed at [XXX] School, where the Member was a [XXX] teacher. The Member then moved to work at [XXX], and shortly after, in 2007, Ms. Wall joined her at [XXX], where she was a teacher and part-time vice-principal. At the time, Pauline Kelly was the principal at the school, and Ms. Wall had a very good working relationship with her.

Member’s Treatment of Students

Ms. Wall gave evidence regarding her communications with Student B’s father (“Mr. B”). Mr. B was also employed by the Board and worked with students who had [XXX]. His son, Student B, was on an [XXX] ([XXX]“”) as he had certain [XXX]. Ms. Wall described Student B as someone who tried to please others and was always friendly.

On October 1, 2007, Mr. B called the school to speak with Ms. Wall, and the vice-principal took notes regarding their conversation (Exhibit 11, Tab 10). Mr. B was upset that Student B was getting in trouble in [XXX] class for getting up from his desk, which would result in the desk legs wobbling. Mr. B stated that this happened because the desk was too small for his son and that it was not fair that Student B was getting in trouble for something that was not his fault. The father was also concerned that the Member made students copy a page from the dictionary as a disciplinary measure. He stated that Student B had [XXX], and it was therefore an onerous task for him to copy a page from the dictionary.

Mr. B indicated that his son did not want to go to [XXX] class because he felt bullied and picked on by the Member. After this call, Ms. Wall reminded the custodian to provide Student B with a suitable desk, and the student was eventually given a desk with raised legs.

Ms. Wall testified that in the following November 2007, Mr. B called the school again with concerns about the Member’s treatment of his son. Ms. Wall prepared written notes regarding the call (Exhibit 11, Tab 11). This time, Mr. B stated that Student B had gotten into trouble for turning in his desk to look at the Member, while she was talking. The Member had complained that by turning in his seat, Student B was misusing his new desk.

Additionally, Mr. B had written a note in his son’s agenda to excuse Student B from watching The Simpsons in [XXX] class as he did not feel that the program had anything to do with the curriculum. The Member took Student B’s agenda for the whole day because she wanted to photocopy this note and put it into her “excuses book”. The Member’s actions created a problem because Student B was supposed to bring his agenda from class to class so that his teachers could write notes in it and communicate issues to his parents.

Mr. B told Ms. Wall that if issues arose, he wanted the Member to call him directly and to speak to Student B privately instead of discussing the problems in front of the class. The parent also wanted to ensure that all the teachers at the school were aware of Student B’s [XXX].

Ms. Wall stated that she felt that Mr. B’s comments were valid as he had experience working with children who had [XXX]. Mr. B was not argumentative and just seemed concerned.

Ms. Wall explained that arrangements were eventually made allowing Student B to periodically work on his [XXX] in the office instead of the Member’s classroom so that he could build up confidence. Eventually, Student B stopped going to the Member’s class altogether and would spend all of [XXX] period in the office.

Further Complaints

The day after Mr. B’s second call to Ms. Wall, three Grade [XXX] students came to the office to discuss their concerns about the Member’s [XXX] class. They stated that they were uncomfortable with the way their [XXX] teacher treated them and their peers, so Ms. Wall told them that she and the principal would look into the matter. Ms. Wall made notes of their concerns (Exhibit 11, Tab 12) and spoke to Ms. Kelly about the issue.

A few days later, on November 27, 2007, Ms. Wall received a call from another parent who was concerned about the Member’s conduct. The parent was the mother of the one of the Member’s students, and she indicated that the Member had made derogatory comments to her son, telling him that he was a “creep” and that he was going to grow up to be a “stalker”. Ms. Wall made notes regarding her concerns (Exhibit 11, Tab 13) and referred the matter to Ms. Kelly.

Ms. Wall also testified to her own interactions with the Member. The Member would tell Ms. Wall that certain students were “dumb” or that their families were “not well off”. On one occasion, Ms. Wall witnessed the Member rubbing her breasts against the glass panel of the door of another teacher’s classroom, while the class was in session. Ms. Wall stated that overall, she had overheard and observed unprofessional comments and actions by the Member.

Testimony of Pauline Kelly, Former Principal at [XXX]

Pauline Kelly is a member of the College and was able to verify that the document Registered Member Information of Pauline Kelly (Exhibit 8) accurately reflected her academic background and teaching qualifications.

In 2007, Ms. Kelly was hired as the principal for [XXX], and she held this position for four years. Ms. Kelly testified regarding the complaints that she had received about the Member during her time at the school and her investigation into the matter. During her testimony, Ms. Kelly had the aid of notes from the Document Brief Re: Pauline Kelly (Exhibit 9).

2007-2008 Complaints

Ms. Kelly testified to a number complaints that she had received in September 2007, the beginning of the 2007-2008 academic year. On September 6, a volunteer who had come to the school to prepare the library approached Ms. Kelly and told her that the Member had called the library “sick” and described the computer screen as “screwed”. The principal made a note of this conversation (Exhibit 9, Tab 1) in her concern log. When Ms. Kelly spoke to the Member about the volunteer’s concerns, the Member was flippant about the matter.

The following week, on September 14, Ms. Kelly received two calls from parents complaining about the Member’s treatment of their children, and she made notes of their concerns (Exhibit 9, Tabs 2 and 3). During the first call, parents complained that the Member had told their son not to speak because his voice “annoyed her” and would not give students permission to have water or go to the bathroom. In the second call, a mother stated that the Member had called her son a liar and told him that his parents needed to “learn to listen to adults and not little children”. When Ms. Kelly attempted to speak to the Member about these complaints, the Member was flippant and denied that she had said or done these things.

In addition to speaking with the Member about the parents’ reports, Ms. Kelly called the human resources staff at the Board and was advised to document the incidents. The principal followed this direction. She also wrote a letter of concern to the Member (Exhibit 9, Tab 4) instructing her to refrain from unprofessional comments and to allow reasonable water and bathroom privileges to all students. After receiving this letter, the Member stated that she was disappointed as she felt the letter had an “accusatory tone”. The principal noted the Member’s reaction (Exhibit 9, Tab 5).

Ms. Kelly testified that parents and students continued to come forward with concerns about the Member’s conduct in the months that followed. The principal investigated the matter by having students write statements about their interactions with the Member and her behaviour during [XXX] class (Exhibit 9, Tabs 6-13).

Ms. Kelly stated that she continued to document concerns raised by parents (Exhibit 9, Tabs 14-18). Parents complained that the Member was harassing their children, verbally berating them and telling them that they were going to fail in high school. One parent reported that she had learned that the Member would spend class time shopping online, watching YouTube and putting on make-up, and another parent indicated that the Member had told her son that he was going to be a drug dealer when he grew up.

2008-2009 Complaints

Ms. Kelly indicated that in the following 2008-2009 school year, there continued to be complaints regarding the Member’s treatment of students. In November 2008, another parent called the school to express her concerns that the Member had told her daughter to “shut up” and had indicated to students that if they did not move their legs, she would break them. The parent also stated that when parents complained about the Member, the Member would take it out on their children. Ms. Kelly had her executive assistant email Lori Wilder, a superintendent of education, about these concerns. In this email, Ms. Kelly’s executive assistant indicated that the principal wanted to conduct a Teacher Performance Appraisal (“TPA”) for the Member, and the superintendent responded by telling Ms. Kelly that she could move forward with the appraisal (Exhibit 9, Tab 22). However, Ms. Kelly testified that the TPA was never conducted because the Member falsely accused the principal of throwing a book at her, and Ms. Kelly was required to attend empathy training before she could conduct the appraisal.

Ms. Kelly stated that in December 2008, she met with the vice-principal, Ms. Wall, and they decided that the Member should not teach until the issues regarding her conduct were clarified (Meeting Notes, Exhibit 9, Tab 23). That month, Ms. Kelly continued to interview students, recording their concerns and asking them to provide written statements (Exhibit 9, Tabs 24-29). Students told the principal that when the Member handed back work, she would make them raise their hands to guess the letter grade that they thought they would receive, that she would give certain boys in her class pop and that she squirted water at a student, [XXX]., using a water gun. Ms. Kelly also learned from the students that the Member had, on one occasion, made a hand motion, twirling her finger beside her head to indicate that [XXX] was “crazy”. When interviewed by Ms. Kelly, [XXX]. stated that he tried very hard not to “cross” the Member.

Ms. Kelly stated that she would try to discuss these concerns with the Member, but the Member would always react flippantly, rolling her eyes and walking away. In one instance, Ms. Kelly went to the Member’s classrooms to address some issues that had been raised by students and colleagues, and the principal saw the Member and two male students huddled together in front of a computer watching Family Guy. These two male students were not in any of the Member’s classes. At this point, the Member admitted to the principal that it was inappropriate to have the boys watch Family Guy but stated that Ms. Kelly was using her as a “whipping boy”.

Ms. Kelly also testified that other [XXX] staff had expressed concerns regarding the computer lab timetable at the school. They felt that it was being monopolized by the Member’s [XXX] class and wanted the allocation of computer lab time revisited. Ms. Kelly made a note about this matter (Exhibit 9, Tab 30) and later spoke to the Member about these concerns. After she had spoken to the Member about this problem, the Member’s colleagues approached Ms. Kelly and told her that the Member had been going from classroom to classroom asking who had “narced her out”.

To address the Member’s many issues, Ms. Kelly wrote her a letter of expectation outlining the incidents that had been reported by students and colleagues and advising the teacher that her performance would continue to be monitored (Exhibit 9, Tab 31).

Water Fountain Incident

Ms. Kelly testified that parents continued to contact the school about the Member’s behaviour towards their children (Exhibit 9, Tab 32-34). On April 9, 2009, a parent, Ms. A, informed the principal that the Member had pushed Student A’s head into a water fountain at school. Ms. Kelly met with the Member to discuss this incident and took notes during this meeting (Exhibit 9, Tab 35).

When Ms. Kelly first walked into the Member’s classroom to speak to her about the matter, the Member had her feet up on her desk and was applying make-up. The principal told the Member what Ms. A had reported, but the Member denied pushing Student A’s head into a fountain and called Ms. A a “problem parent”. The Member stated that the students were late coming from the gym to [XXX] class, so she might have put her hands on their backs to get them to hurry along. Ms. Kelly asked the Member to put her version of the events in writing, but the Member responded “no” right away, stating that she had already given the principal an oral account. Ms. Kelly told the Member that she would eventually need a written statement, but the principal never received one.

Ms. Kelly had Student A prepare a statement about the water fountain incident (Exhibit 11, Tab 8) and asked Student A’s friend, who had witnessed the event, to do the same (Exhibit 9, Tab 36). Student A’s family was upset about how the Board had handled this incident, so Ms. Kelly and senior Board administrators met with Ms. A and her husband (Meeting Notes, Exhibit 9, Tab 37). At the end of the meeting, however, Ms. A and her husband still felt that the Board had failed to listen to them or be honest with them. Ms. Kelly sympathized with the parents as she had also felt let down by the Board. Ms. Kelly testified that she continually investigated and provided evidence to the Board about the Member’s behaviour, and yet nothing was done.

Ms. Kelly stated that sometime after the water fountain incident, the Member was transferred from [XXX] to another school.

Testimony of Student E

Student E currently attends a high school in Ontario. In Grades [XXX] and [XXX], he went to [XXX], where he had the Member for [XXX]. Student E testified regarding the Member’s conduct towards students in her class.

Student E gave testimony that he first had the Member as a [XXX] teacher when he started Grade [XXX]. The Member did not create a very good atmosphere in her classroom and did not appear to care about her job very much. The Member did not [XXX] much [XXX] during class and would spend class time [XXX] to the students in [XXX] about her personal life. She put on videos and movies for the students to watch, some of which were in [XXX]. When she gave the class work, the Member would often refuse to help students. If a student asked a question, she would tell them that they should know the answer. Student E eventually stopped asking for help because he was not getting any assistance when he did. The Member would also sometimes drink coke, and Student E recalled seeing the Member eat chips once during class.

Student E testified that the Member would angrily tell students to “shut up” if the class was loud or if particular students were annoying her. The Member would also stick her tongue out at students and pick on certain kids, kicking them out of class for no reason or giving them nicknames. Student E recalled the Member giving one student, [XXX]., the nickname “rat face” and calling him this name in front of the class. There was a student with [XXX] in the Member’s class, and she called him “spaz” and “Captain Stinky Pants”. When this student had a question, he would tap the Member on the shoulder, and the Member would react by recoiling and saying “don’t come near me” or “don’t touch me”.

Student E recalled one class where the Member was in an especially bad mood. The discussion that day revolved around the professions that the students wanted to pursue, and the Member told her class that she had wanted to be a lawyer, not a teacher. The Member then asked the students what they wanted to be when they grew up but proceeded to shoot down all of their responses. When a student would name a profession that they were interested in, the Member would tell the student that the job they had selected was too hard or that they should pick something else. This discussion made Student E sad and discouraged.

Student E testified that the Member was once again his [XXX] teacher in the following year, when he was in Grade [XXX]. In October or November, however, his parents removed him from this class, and he spent [XXX] period reading in the principal’s office. Halfway through the school year, the Member left the school, and the Grade [XXX] students had another [XXX] teacher.

Testimony of Student F

Student F currently attends a high school in Ontario. In Grades [XXX] and [XXX], he went to [XXX], where the Member was his [XXX] teacher. Student F testified regarding the Member’s behaviour in [XXX]h class.

Student F stated that the Member did not teach the students a lot of [XXX] as she and the students [XXX] in [XXX], and they never had any tests. The Member would spend a lot of time [XXX] [XXX] about her life and did not give much homework. The Member rarely bothered to answer the students’ questions.

Student F testified that the Member picked on one particular student, [XXX]., who had an [XXX]. The Member would make fun of his answers and frequently used the word “stupid”. The Member would also tell the class to “shut up”.

Student F described an incident in October 2010 when the Member handed the students their tests back and made them read their answers aloud. When it was Student F’s turn and he read his answers, the Member laughed at him, which made him cry. After class, the Member offered Student F $20.00 and stuck her tongue out at him. Student F felt that the Member had offered him the money because he had cried, and she was worried that he would tell on her.

Testimony of Marcia Tennyson Kirk, Teacher at [XXX]

Marcia Tennyson Kirk (“Ms. Kirk”) is a member of the College and was able to verify that the document entitled Registered Member Information for Marcia Tennyson Kirk (Exhibit 10) accurately reflected her academic background and teaching qualifications. Ms. Kirk testified regarding her interactions with the Member at [XXX] during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years.

2009-2010 School Year

Ms. Kirk stated that in September 2009, she began teaching at [XXX], where she met the Member for the first time. Ms. Kirk started out in the Grade [XXX] classroom, but later that year, she was assigned to work as a Grade [XXX] Long-Term Occasional teacher. As such, Ms. Kirk would have daily interaction with the Member, given that the Member taught Ms. Kirk’s students [XXX].

On one occasion, the Member told Ms. Kirk that she did not like kids and that if she were to win the lottery, she would leave the school. The Member indicated to Ms. Kirk that she did not know how Ms. Kirk could teach a room of “stupid kids.” The [XXX] teacher also used the word “stupid” to describe a [XXX] student in Ms. Kirk’s class.

Ms. Kirk testified to an encounter that she had with the Member in February 2010. On February 3, Ms. Kirk was on her lunch break when one of her colleagues, Joyce Walsh (“Ms. Walsh”), asked her to come into the behaviour support room because a student from Ms. Kirk’s class was in the support room and was very upset. Ms. Kirk found [XXX]. in the room, sobbing. He told Ms. Kirk that he did not understand [XXX] and that when he asked for help, the Member would make him feel stupid. Ms. Kirk understood [XXX].’s frustration as the student had a [XXX] and already had difficulty with work in [XXX]. She told him that she would work with the Member to come up with strategies to make him more successful in [XXX] and then dismissed him so that he could clean himself up and get fresh air.

Ms. Kirk stated that as she was leaving the room, she bumped into the Member, who wanted to know where [XXX]. was. When Ms. Kirk explained to her what had happened, the Member became upset that [XXX]. had been dismissed from the room without her permission. The Member also complained that [XXX]. had a “tick” and indicated that he “ticked” on purpose just to annoy her. Ms. Kirk and Ms. Walsh tried to discuss with the Member options for [XXX]., but the Member became angry, stating that her two colleagues were messing with her job. Ms. Kirk was scared and tried to de-escalate the situation by reassuring the Member that their concerns were about [XXX].’s learning and not her teaching, but the Member simply ended the conversation by putting her hand in front of Ms. Kirk’s face, telling her, “I am done” and leaving the room.

Ms. Kirk testified that the Member had intimidated and “shocked” her during this encounter. After the students were gone for the day, she sat at her desk and cried. Wanting to rectify the situation, Ms. Kirk went to speak to the principal, and the principal advised her to document the incident and assured her that she would try and deal with the issue. Ms. Kirk wrote a statement about her run-in with the Member (Exhibit 11, Tab 14) and submitted it to the principal.

About a week after their run-in, Ms. Kirk had another encounter with the Member. After classes were finished for the day, the Member walked into Ms. Kirk’s classroom and came very close to her desk. The Member indicated that she had been encouraged to come speak with Ms. Kirk but did not really want to do so. The Member stated that Ms. Kirk “disgusted” her, accusing the other teacher of undermining her authority by how she dealt with the situation involving [XXX]. The Member told Ms. Kirk that she was only an occasional teacher, and Ms. Kirk took this comment to mean that the Member was telling her that she had no protection in terms of employment. Ms. Kirk felt intimidated by the Member during this interaction, and after the Member left her classroom, Ms. Kirk cried.

Ms. Kirk testified that she spoke to school administration about her issues with the Member and documented her second run-in with the Member (Exhibit 11, Tab 15). A mediation meeting was subsequently set up. Following the meeting, which involved two unions, the Member finally apologized to Ms. Kirk. Ms. Kirk and the Member were advised to stay away from one another.

2010-2011 School Year

Ms. Kirk gave testimony that in the following school year, she was still teaching Grade [XXX], and the Member continued to teach Ms. Kirk’s students [XXX]. As directed, the two teachers initially did not interact with one another. In October 2010, however, Ms. Kirk had a third run-in with the Member. Ms. Kirk and another staff member were talking outside of Ms. Kirk’s classroom, when the Member approached them to complain that the two of them had more computer lab time than other teachers. When Ms. Kirk asked the Member how she could accommodate her and give her the lab time she needed, the Member never answered her question and simply stated that this was an “equity” issue. To Ms. Kirk, it appeared that the Member did not even want or need more computer lab time. After this incident, Ms. Kirk spoke to the school’s vice-principal about the matter and documented the encounter (Exhibit 11, Tab 16).

Ms. Kirk testified that during the 2010-2011 school year, she noticed that Student E’s behaviour was changing. By October 2010, he was becoming lethargic and did not complete his work. Ms. Kirk and the school’s principal met with Student E and his parents, and their main concern was the change in Student E’s attitude towards school. When Student E was asked what could make the situation better, he replied, “Fire [XXX] Biggs”.

Ms. Kirk testified that later in the school year, the Member left [XXX].

Testimony of Elizabeth MacPherson, Former Principal at Port Elgin

Elizabeth MacPherson (“Ms. MacPherson”) is a member of the College and was able to verify that the document entitled Registered Member Information of Elizabeth MacPherson (Exhibit 12) accurately reflected her academic background and teaching qualifications. Ms. MacPherson was the principal at [XXX] for five years, and she testified regarding her interactions with the Member and the complaints that she had received about the Member’s conduct. Ms. MacPherson gave her testimony with the aid of notes and correspondence from the Document Brief Re: Elizabeth MacPherson (Exhibit 13).

Ms. MacPherson gave evidence that the Member began teaching [XXX] at [XXX] in September 2009. Ms. MacPherson was made aware that the Member had been put on administrative leave at her previous school, but the principal was told by her superiors that she had no choice but to accept the Member’s transfer to [XXX].

Ms. MacPherson testified that on September 3, 2009, she was approached by school custodians, who were intimidated and upset because of comments made by the Member. The custodians had gone to the Member’s classroom to move filing cabinets, and while they were in the room, the Member commented that she did not know “how the fuck” two teachers were to teach out of a classroom smaller than her bathroom. Ted Fields, the head custodian, also stated that when the Member asked him to fix her classroom chairs later that day, she told him that she did not want his “rage to come out”, adding that she could see a lot of “rage” inside him. The custodians wrote statements about the incidents (Exhibit 13, Tab 1).

Ms. MacPherson stated that on September 8, 2009 she asked the vice-principal, Colleen Maguire (“Ms. Maguire”) to speak with the Member about the scheduling of her TPA. Ms. MacPherson was originally scheduled to conduct a TPA at the beginning of the school year to evaluate the Member’s performance but later received an email that she was not to conduct an appraisal. Ms. Maguire spoke to the Member about this change and sent Ms. MacPherson her notes from their meeting (Exhibit 13, Tabs 2 and 3).

That same day, a student, C., came to the office asking to go home. C. was upset and anxious because the Member had made fun of him during [XXX] class. The Member had asked the class to make name cards for themselves, and when C. showed his name card to his teacher, the Member ridiculed his work, saying, “What is this? I can’t read this! Your artwork is illegible”. The Member then proceeded to hold up C.’s name card for the rest of the class to see, asking “anyone else can make this out?” Ms. MacPherson stated that C. was devastated by the Member’s comments. To give him support, the principal introduced C. to the school’s behaviour support teacher, Ms. Walsh. The next day, C.’s father sent the school a letter of complaint regarding the Member’s treatment of his son (Exhibit 13, Tab 4).

Ms. MacPherson testified that she met the Member on September 10 to discuss the comments that the Member had made to C., her remarks directed at custodial staff and her abrupt behaviour towards YMCA employees who were running a program on the school site. Later that day, Ms. MacPherson was informed by Ms. Walsh that the Member had approached Ms. Walsh and C.’s classroom teacher to tell them that the principal had spoken to her about her treatment of C. and that C.’s parents had called the school complaining about her behaviour. Ms. MacPherson felt that it was unprofessional for the Member to speak to Ms. Walsh and C.’s classroom teacher about this matter. Ms. MacPherson documented the events of September 10 (Exhibit 13, Tab 5).

Later in September, Ms. MacPherson held another meeting with the Member, this time in the presence of the Member’s union representative, Ms. Maguire, and Cynthia Lemon (“Ms. Lemon”), the Administrator of Employee Relations for the Board. Ms. Maguire made notes of the meeting (Exhibit 13, Tab 6). During the meeting, the Member did not own up to the reported incidents and either downplayed or denied the complaints made about her. The Member indicated that the meeting was a “waste of her time”.

Ms. MacPherson testified that in October 2010, she received two complaints from parents who were concerned because the Member had imposed a detention on her entire Grade [XXX] [XXX] class after a few students had misbehaved (Exhibit 13, Tabs 9 and 10). Ms. MacPherson emailed Ms. Lemon asking for direction, and Ms. Lemon advised the principal to have a brief conversation with the Member about expectations for discipline. Ms. MacPherson and Ms. Maguire spoke to the Member about the matter, and Ms. MacPherson made notes regarding this meeting (Exhibit 13, Tab 7).

Ms. MacPherson gave testimony that in February 2010, she learned about the Member’s conflicts with Ms. Kirk. The principal emailed Ms. Lemon about the situation and asked for the Board administrator’s involvement in the matter (Exhibit 13, Tab 11). Ms. MacPherson felt that the Member was targeting someone that she saw as “weak” because Ms. Kirk was not a permanent employee and had a sensitive personality.

Ms. MacPherson also testified that in March 2010, she received a complaint from Student E’s father regarding comments that the Member had made in her [XXX] class (Exhibit 13, Tab 11). The Member told her students that if she won the lottery, she would leave teaching quickly. The Member went on to hold a discussion with her students about future career paths but discouraged them, telling them that their aspirations were probably not going to happen. Ms. MacPherson stated that Student E was affected by the Member’s behaviour and was becoming an agitated and anxious student.

After receiving the complaint from Student E’s father, Ms. MacPherson investigated the matter by interviewing students, and Ms. Maguire took notes of their testimonies (Exhibit 13, Tab 12). Following these interviews, Ms. MacPherson learned that the Member had questioned a student, [XXX]., who had been one of the students interviewed. The Member accused [XXX]. of spreading rumours about her and trying to get her fired. [XXX]. was intimidated and ended up crying in the office. Ms. MacPherson spoke to [XXX]. and took notes about her encounter with the Member (Exhibit 13, Tab 13). Ms. Lemon, the Administrator of Employee Relations at the Board, subsequently sent the Member a letter of discipline regarding the March 2010 incidents (Exhibit 13, Tab 14).

Ms. MacPherson testified that in May 2010, Ms. Maguire wrote her an email to give her an update on the investigation into the Member’s conduct (Exhibit 13, Tab 15). In this email, Ms. Maguire also asked Ms. MacPherson how the meeting regarding timetabling had gone. Ms. MacPherson explained during the hearing that the Member and Ms. Kirk had another conflict regarding the computer lab schedule for teachers.

The following school year, in October 2010, Ms. MacPherson received another parent complaint about the Member’s conduct (Exhibit 13, Tab 16). The mother of one of the Member’s students called the school office as she was concerned that her daughter was not going to be prepared for high school. The parent had been informed by her daughter that the Member spent most of class time in social dialogue, telling students personal stories in [XXX]. The parent also indicated that her daughter had come home upset because the Member would humiliate her classmates. In particular, her daughter mentioned that the Member had made fun Student F’s answers to a test in front of the class. The parent later made a formal request to remove her daughter from the Member’s [XXX] class as it was having a negative effect on the student (Exhibit 13, Tabs 20 and 21).

Ms. MacPherson stated that after receiving this call, she looked into the matter by interviewing students and parents, and the interviews were documented (Exhibit 13, Tabs 17 and 18). The principal interviewed Student F, who confirmed that the Member did make fun of his answers to a test in front of the class. Student F stated that the Member’s taunting made him cry. After class, the Member told Student F that she would only mark half of his test and give him a B. Through other student and parent interviews, Ms. MacPherson also learned that the Member had told a student with [XXX] not to touch her, had called another student “rat face” and told this same student that he had rat teeth. The Member had also made fun of a student’s culture and told this student that no one wanted to be his friend.

Ms. MacPherson testified that over the course of October 2010, she received two other complaints about the Member’s conduct, one from Student E’s father outlining further concerns about the Member’s treatment of his son (Exhibit 13, Tab 19) and one from the mother of a Grade [XXX] student indicating that the Member made fun of students and failed to teach her daughter [XXX] (Exhibit 3, Tab 22).

Sometime after Ms. MacPherson received these complaints, the Board put the Member on a paid administrative leave. In late November 2010, Ms. MacPherson was driving in her car when she received a phone call from Ms. Lemon. Ms. Lemon informed her that the Member would not be coming back to [XXX]. When she heard this news, Ms. MacPherson pulled her car over to the side of the road and cried because she was so relieved that the Member could no longer hurt the students at her school.

SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING

Counsel for the College submitted that the Committee had been provided with clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the Member had engaged in a pattern of mistreatment directed at students, parents, colleagues and administrators.

Counsel for the College acknowledged that not all the particulars of the allegations in the three Notices of Hearing had been proven through direct testimony at the hearing. In particular, Counsel noted that the testimonies given by the principals contained a fair amount of hearsay evidence as they testified regarding incidents that had been reported to them by students, parents and teachers. While the Committee was not expected to rely on this hearsay evidence to make factual findings, this information was intended to give context and explain why the principals took the measures that they did.

College Counsel argued that although not all the particulars of the allegations had been proven, the particulars that were supported by direct evidence were sufficient to prove the allegations of professional misconduct against the Member. Counsel for the College therefore submitted that the Committee should find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

DECISION

Onus and Standard of Proof

The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof, with which the Committee is familiar, set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53. The standard of proof applied by the Committee in accordance with the McDougall decision was a balance of probabilities. As in all cases, the Committee looks for clear, convincing and cogent evidence.

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. In particular, the Committee finds that Samantha Jane Biggs committed acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(18) and 1(19).

The Committee does not find that there was evidence to substantiate that the Member contravened subsections 1(14) and 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee carefully examined the evidence provided by College Counsel and considered whether the testimonies and exhibits were sufficient to prove the allegations brought against the Member. For each of the three Notices of Hearing, the Committee concluded that there was evidence to support the College’s position that the Member had committed acts of professional misconduct.

Notice of Hearing #1

In the matter of the first Notice of Hearing dated February 13, 2012, the Committee made the following findings:

Allegation

Did it happen?

Is it misconduct?

Contravenes which subsection(s) of the Misconduct Regulation?

4 (a) During the Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, the Member sprayed a water gun at the students.

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student A

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

4 (b) During the Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, drank pop, ate donuts and shopped on eBay during class time.

-Evidence: No direct evidence of shopping on eBay or eating donuts

-Some reference to drinking pop: Direct testimony from Student A and Student C

-Allegation partially proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

5(a) During the Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, the Member told students to “Shut-up”

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student B and Student D

-Allegation proven

Constitutes professional misconduct

Contravention of :

1(5) (failure to maintain professional standards)

1(7) (verbal abuse)

1(19) (conduct unbecoming a member)

5(b) During the Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, the Member told students to move their legs or she will break them

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student C

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

5(c) During the Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, the Member said to students, “Do you want the back of my hand?”

-Evidence: No evidence

-Allegation not proven

Not Applicable (“N/A”)

5(d) During the Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, the Member said that a student was “retarded”

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student C and Student D

-Allegation proven

Constitutes misconduct

Contravention of:

1(5) (failure to maintain professional standards)

1(7) (verbal abuse)

1(18) (disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional acts)

1(19) (conduct unbecoming a member)

5(e) During the Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, the Member on a regular basis, allowed students to watch [XXX] movies with no connection to the [XXX] curriculum.

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student B, Student C and Student D

-Allegation proven

No finding of professional misconduct

As set out above, the Committee determined that certain allegations in the first Notice were not proven. Allegation 5(c) (threatening students with the back of her hand) and part of allegation 4(b) (eating donuts and shopping on eBay during class time) were not supported by any direct testimony at the hearing, and the Committee noted that it was not asked by College Counsel to make findings with respect to these particulars.

The Committee found that the Member did use a water gun to spray students [4(a)], drank pop during class time [4(b)] and told students to move their legs or she would break them [5(b)]. However, while these allegations were founded by direct testimony and were deemed by the Committee to be inappropriate, these acts do not rise to the level of professional misconduct.

The Committee was concerned by the number of references made by students and Ms. Bell regarding the watching of [XXX] movies with no connection to the curriculum. However, hearing no direct evidence from curriculum leaders regarding the use of [XXX] movies in the teaching of [XXX], the Committee could not make a finding of professional misconduct with regard to this allegation. Although Ms. Bell gave testimony to the fact that [XXX] movies were shown to the Member’s students, her area of curriculum expertise did not encompass the [XXX] program.

The Committee found that the Member did tell students to “shut up” [5(a)] and did say that a student was “retarded” [5(d)]. Such acts constitute professional misconduct. The Committee heard from three individual students about the Member’s use of inappropriate language in the classroom. The testimonies of Student B, Student C and Student D were clear and consistent and spoke to a pattern of behaviour on the part of the Member. The three student witnesses, when answering questions, responded in a respectful, responsible and credible manner. They presented a consistent picture of the events that took place in the Member’s [XXX] class.

Further, the Committee was not provided with any evidence contradicting the testimonies of these three witnesses.

Notice of Hearing #2

In the matter of the second Notice of Hearing dated February 17, 2012, the Committee made the following findings:

Allegation

Did it happen?

Is it misconduct?

Contravenes which subsection(s) of the Misconduct Regulation?

4(a) During 2008-2009 academic year, the Member repeatedly told the Student that no one likes her and that she is rude and disrespectful

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student A

-Allegation proven

Constitutes professional misconduct

Contravention of:

1(5) (failure to maintain professional standards)

1(7.2) (psychological or emotional abuse)

1(19) (conduct unbecoming a member)

4(b) During 2008-2009 academic year, the Member singled out the Student about going to church;

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student A

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

4(c) During 2008-2009 academic year, the Member asked the Student, “Does your mom hate me?”

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student A

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

4(d) During 2008-2009 academic year, the Member used the word “retard” during class

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student C and Student D

-Allegation proven

Constitutes professional misconduct

Contravention of:

1(5) (failure to maintain professional standards)

1(7) (verbal abuse)

1(7.2) (psychological or emotional abuse)

1(18) (disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional acts)

1(19) (conduct unbecoming a member of the College)

Allegation

Did it happen?

Is it misconduct?

Contravenes which subsection(s) of the Misconduct Regulation?

4 (e) During 2008-2009 academic year, the Member used a water gun to shoot at students until their clothes were soaked

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student C

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

4(f) During 2008-2009 academic year, the Member watched “You Tube” during class time

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student A and Student B

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

4(g) During 2008-2009 academic year, the Member shopped online during class time

-Evidence: No direct testimony

-Allegation not proven

N/A

4(h) During 2008-2009 academic year, the Member told the students, “I’m sick, I’m going to die.”

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student A

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

5 (a) On or about April 8, 2009, the Member pushed the head of the Student into the water fountain at the School while she was getting a drink

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student A direct testimony from Ms. A regarding chipped tooth

-Allegation proven

Constitutes professional misconduct

Contravention of:

1(5) (failure to maintain professional standards)

1(7.1) (physical abuse)

1(7.2) (psychological or emotional abuse)

1(18) (disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional acts)

1(19) (conduct unbecoming a member of the College)

5 (b) On or about April 8, 2009, the Member caused the Student to chip a tooth

5(c) On or about April 8, 2009, the Member laughed after she pushed the Student’s head into the water fountain.

As set out above, the Committee determined that allegation 4(g) of the second Notice was not proven. The assertion that the Member shopped online during class time was not supported by any direct testimony at the hearing, and the Committee noted that it was not asked by College Counsel to make findings with respect to these particulars.

The Committee found that the Member did single out a student about going to church [4(b)], did ask a student, “Does your mom hate me?” [4(c)], did use a water gun to shoot water at students [4(e)], did watch YouTube during class time [4(f)] and did tell her students, “I’m sick, I’m going to die” [4(h)]. However, while these allegations were founded by direct testimony and were deemed by the Committee to be inappropriate, these acts do not rise to the level of professional misconduct.

The Committee found that the Member repeatedly told a student that no one liked her and that she was rude and disrespectful [4(a)], did use the word “retard” during class [4(d)] and did push the head of a student into a water fountain, causing the student to chip a tooth and laughing at the student afterwards [5(a), (b) and (c)]. These acts constitute professional misconduct.

The Committee heard from four witnesses regarding these allegations, namely Student A, Student C, Student D and the parent of Student A, Ms. A.

Student A testified that the Member told her that no one liked her and that Student A was rude and disrespectful. The Committee believed the student witness’ testimony in this regard as Student A was clear and candid when giving her evidence.

With respect to the water fountain incident, the Committee heard from Student A and her mother, Ms. A, regarding these events and their aftermath. The Committee believed the incident did occur as their testimony was clear, consistent and was corroborated by a letter from Student A’s dentist (Exhibit 11, Tab 4).

The accounts of Student A and her mother were also supported by the evidence of Ms. Bell and Ms. Kelly, who testified to their interviews with students and the Member about this incident. Overall, Student A and Ms. A presented a consistent picture of the events that took place on April 8, 2009.

As for the allegation that the Member used the word “retard” in class, Student C and Student D both gave evidence in this regard. Their testimony was clear, consistent with one another and spoke to a pattern of behaviour on the part of the Member.

Further, the Committee was not provided with any evidence contradicting the testimonies of these witnesses.

Notice of Hearing #3

In the matter of the third Notice of Hearing dated October 25, 2012, the Committee made the following findings:

Allegation

Did it happen?

Is it misconduct?

Contravenes which subsection(s) of the Misconduct Regulation?

3 (a) Around September 2007, the Member told a male student with [XXX] not to speak again in class because his voice was annoying;

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

3(b)Around September 2007, the Member told a male student that, “you lie and your parents need to learn to listen to adults and not little kids that lie”;

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

3(c) Around September 2007, the Member told students that they were not permitted to have water in class

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

3(d) Around September 2007, the Member did not permit a student and/or students to go to the bathroom.

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

4 (a) Around December 2008, the Member after requesting that students raise their hands when they heard her say the grade they would be receiving, when a female student raised her hand at “A-“, said to the female student, “in your wildest dreams. Why would you ever think that, you’re not that good”

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

4(b) Around December 2008, the Member bullied colleagues by going room to room looking for the person who raised the issue of computer lab timetabling with the Principal;

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

4(c) Around December 2008, the Member was alone in her classroom with two male Grade [XXX] students, not from her class, and allowed the two students to watch “Family Guy” with her on her computer screen;

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Ms. Kelly and Ms. Bell

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

4(d) Around December 2008, the Member told a [XXX] student, Student No. 1, that he had to write a letter of apology because his desk wobbled and hurt another student

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

4(e) Around December 2008, the Member told Student No. 1 that he had to write a page from the dictionary for talking in class

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

-N/A

4(f) Around December 2008, the Member stuck her tongue out at a student.

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student A, Student D and Ms. Bell

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

5 (a) On or about September 3, 2009, the Member said to custodial staff, words to the effect of how the “fuck” two teachers were to teach out of a room smaller than her bathroom.

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

6 (a) On or about September 8, 2009, the Member said to a Grade [XXX] male student, Student No. 2, “What is this? I can’t read this! Your art work is illegible”;

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

6 (b) On or about September 8, 2009, the Member held Student No. 2’s paper to the class and asked if “anyone else can make this out?”

7. In or around March 2010, the Member accused a student of trying to get her fired.

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

8 (a) During September and/or October 2010, the Member, in front of the class, made several comments about a student with [XXX] about “spazzing out”

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student E

-Allegation proven

Constitutes professional misconduct

Contravention of:

1(5) (failure to maintain professional standards)

1(7) (verbal abuse)

1(7.2) (psychological or emotional abuse)

1(18) (disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional acts)

1(19) (conduct unbecoming of a member of the College)

(b) During September and/or October 2010, the Member told the student with [XXX], “ewwww don’t touch me”;

(c) During September and/or October 2010, the Member on more than one occasion called Student No. 3, a male student, “rat face” and told him he looked like he had rat teeth;

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student E

-Allegation proven

Constitutes professional misconduct

Contravention of:

1(5) (failure to maintain professional standards)

1(7) (verbal abuse)

1(7.2) (psychological or emotional abuse)

1(18) (disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional acts)

1(19) (conduct unbecoming a member of the College)

(d) During September and/or October 2010, the Member told student Student No. 4 that no one wanted to be his friend;

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

(e) During September and/or October 2010, the Member made fun of Student No. 4’s culture.

9 (a) During October 2010, the Member made fun of a Student No. 5’s incorrect answers to a test;

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student F

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

9 (b) During October 2010, the Member after Student No. 5 was crying, told him that she would give him a B for the test.

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

10 (a) During the 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic years, the Member spent class time in social dialogue with class rather than teaching [XXX]

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student A, Student B, Student C, Student E and Ms. Bell

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

10(b) During the 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic years, the Member told students to copy [XXX] work from the board, but did not offer any explanations as to what it was

-Evidence: No direct evidence

-Allegation not proven

N/A

10(c) During the 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic years, the Member made fun of students who did not know the answers in class

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student F

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

10(d) During the 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic years, the Member did not answer student questions in class

-Evidence: Direct testimony from Student C

-Allegation proven

Inappropriate but no finding of professional misconduct

As set out above, the Committee determined that certain allegations in the third Notice were not proven. The Committee found that the allegations listed below were not supported by any direct testimony at the hearing.

• 3(a): asking a male student with [XXX] not to speak in class because his voice was annoying

• 3(b): calling a male student a liar

• 3(c): not permitting students to have water in class

• 3(d): not permitting students to go to the bathroom

• 4(a): making fun of a student for guessing that she got an A-

• 4(b): bullying colleagues over computer lab timetabling

• 4(d): having a [XXX] student write an apology letter

• 4(e): telling a student to write a page from the dictionary

• 5(a): using obscenity with custodial staff

• 6 (a and b): making fun of a student’s artwork

• 7 (a) accusing a student of trying to get her fired

• 8 (d and e): making fun of a student’s culture

• 9(b): telling a student she would give him a B for a test after making fun of him

• 10(b): asking students to copy work from the board with no explanation

The Committee did not make factual findings with regard to these allegations. The Committee was not asked by College Counsel to make findings with respect of these particulars.

The Committee found that the Member spent time alone with two grade [XXX] students watching an episode of Family Guy on her computer screen [4(c)], stuck her tongue out at a student [4(f)], spent class time in social dialogue [10(a)], made fun of students who did not know the answers in class [10(c)] and did not answer student questions in class [10(d)]. The Committee determined that while the Member did indeed make fun of a student’s incorrect answers to a test [9(a)], the direct testimony of Student F spoke to the Member offering him $20.00 as a joke and sticking her tongue out at him, and no reference was made to Student F receiving a B for the test, as asserted by allegation 9(b). Overall, the allegations listed above were supported by direct testimony and were deemed by the Committee to be inappropriate. However, these acts do not rise to the level of professional misconduct.

The Committee found that the Member did, in front of the whole class, make several comments about a student with [XXX] “spazzing out” and told this student not to touch her [8(a) and (b)], did, on more than one occasion, call a male student “rat face” and told him that he looked like he had rat teeth [8(c)] These acts constitute professional misconduct. The Committee heard from Student E regarding these allegations. The Committee believed Student E’s testimony. Student E testified in a forthright and convincing manner. Further, the student’s testimony was corroborated by the hearsay evidence of Ms. MacPherson, who testified that students told her the Member made comments to this effect (Interview Notes, Exhibit 13, Tab 18).

Additionally, the Committee was not provided with any evidence contradicting the testimonies of this witness.

Conclusion of Professional Misconduct

Given the factual findings set out above, the Committee determined that the Member has committed acts of professional misconduct.

By using inappropriate and hurtful language when speaking to students in the presence of their peers, the Member verbally, psychologically and emotionally abused students, contrary to subsections 1(7) and 1(7.2) of the of Ontario Regulation 437/97 (the “Regulation”).

The Committee also found that the Member pushed Student A’s head into a water fountain, thereby chipping her tooth. The Committee determined that this action contravenes subsection 1(7.1) of the Regulation in that she physically abused the student.

Through her verbal and physical mistreatment of students, the Member has failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of the Regulation. Her acts of physical, verbal, psychological and emotional abuse would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection of 1(18) of the Regulation. By her actions, the Member has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection of 1(19) of the Regulation.

PENALTY

The Committee will schedule a subsequent date on which to hear submissions with respect to penalty.

Date: May 15, 2014

Robert Gagné

Chair, Discipline Panel

Hanno Weinberger, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel