DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Bruce Robert MacDonald, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Stefanie Achkewich, OCT, Chair Pauline Smart Hanno Weinberger, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS David Leonard, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Daniela De Bartolo, Law Clerk
- and –
BRUCE ROBERT MACDONALD (CERTIFICATE # 174088) Lisa Corrente, Torkin Manes LLP for Bruce Robert MacDonald
Marc Spector, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: June 5, 2014
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 5, 2014 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated February 10, 2011 (Exhibit 1) was served on Bruce Robert MacDonald (the “Member”), requesting his presence on March 8, 2011 to set a date for a hearing and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for June 5, 2014.
The Member was in attendance at the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 10, 2011 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Bruce Robert Macdonald is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in section 30(2) of the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);
(c) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(d) he committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
At the outset of the hearing, Counsel for the College requested the withdrawal of allegations (a), (c) and (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely subsections 1(5), 1(15) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
The Committee granted this request, and these allegations were subsequently withdrawn.
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 3), which provides as follows:
At all material times, the Member was a member in good standing of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). The Member has held a Certificate of Qualification and Registration (formerly an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate) with the College since June 30, 1988. The Member has no prior record of discipline with the College. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
The Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) at all times material hereto and was an [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.
During the 2006/2007 academic year, the Member:
(a) failed to keep a record of students’ marks in the Board’s computerized record system; and
(b) on one occasion, improperly offered Daily Physical Activity (“DPA”) to students who ought to have been otherwise engaged, contrary to the Guidelines on Daily Physical Activity.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts referred to in paragraph 3 above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(10) and 1(18) - unprofessional.
By this document the Member states that he:
(a) understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing on the merits;
(d) understands that depending on the penalty ordered by the Discipline Committee, the decision of the Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, may be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) understands that any agreement between his counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the uncontested facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by College Counsel and Counsel for the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that Bruce Robert MacDonald committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(10) and 1(18) -unprofessional.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 3) and acknowledged that the facts constitute conduct that is professional misconduct. The Committee accepts the Member’s plea of no contest and the statement tendered by the parties.
The Committee finds that the Member’s failure to keep a record of students’ marks in the Board’s computerized record system, and his actions in improperly offering DPA to students who ought to have been otherwise engaged, constitute acts of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(10) and 1(18).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member submitted a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4) indicating the following:
- The Ontario College of Teachers and the Member jointly submit that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
(a) directs the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms and conditions and limitations to be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as they are fulfilled:
(i) within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date of this Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall attend, at his own expense, the following course, pre-approved by the Registrar:
A. a course in classroom management, with an emphasis on organizational and record-keeping skills, such course to be conducted in a one-on-one session; and
(ii) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course referred to at paragraph A above, the Member shall provide evidence to the Registrar in writing, of his successful completion of same.
SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Submissions of College Counsel
College Counsel submitted that there was a Joint Submission on Penalty, yet the parties had not come to an agreement regarding the publication of the findings in summary form, as well as the publication of the Member’s name, in the College’s official magazine, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
College Counsel stated that the misconduct was relatively minor and that the proposed penalty was proportionate. Further, the focus of the coursework to be undertaken was rehabilitation of the Member and would offer him valuable learning skills in computerized record keeping.
In anticipation that Member’s counsel would argue against publication of the findings in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, College counsel submitted that he had never seen a Committee not order publication in summary form and there was no precedent for such an order. College counsel stated the benefit of publication of all matters is for the education of the members of the profession. College counsel agreed that the nature of the misconduct was minor but that the profession could be educated by being alerted to the fact that minor misconduct of this kind can lead to a finding of professional misconduct. Counsel submitted that choosing not to publish would defeat the benefit of educating the membership.
College counsel stated that publishing the name of the Member speaks to the transparency and openness of the process.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member agreed with College counsel that the proposed penalty was appropriate and proportionate to the misconduct. Counsel stated that the course work would serve as a general and specific deterrent to the Member and was in the public interest.
Counsel’s submission on publication was that there should be no publication of the findings, nor publication of the Member’s name. Counsel stated that the allegations date back seven years, there has been no recent misconduct, and these were minor allegations in an otherwise unblemished 26-year teaching career. Counsel further stated that this case will be published on the College’s website so transparency is served and no further purpose would be served by publication in the College’s official magazine.
Reply Submission of College Counsel
College counsel rebutted that if the course is to serve as a general deterrent to the membership, this can only be achieved by publication of the findings in the College’s official publication.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
- The Committee directs the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the College’s public register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) within 120 days of the date of this order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall attend, at his own expense, the following course, pre-approved by the Registrar:
(i) a course in classroom management, with an emphasis on organizational and record-keeping skills, such course to be conducted in a one-on-one session; and
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the aforementioned course, the Member shall provide evidence to the Registrar, in writing, of his successful completion of the same.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The Committee determined that the Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4) was proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, the Committee accepted the proposed penalty presented by the parties.
The coursework in classroom management, with an emphasis on organizational and record-keeping skills serves an educational function as it will equip the Member with the organizational and record-keeping skills needed to maintain an effective learning environment for students.
Publication of the findings and order of the Committee, in summary, without the name of the Member, in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession provides both a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to the profession while advising and serving the public interest.
The Committee took into consideration that the allegations were on the low end of the spectrum and reflected conduct that happened seven years ago. The Member has had a 26-year career with no prior misconduct reported to the College. Therefore, the Committee finds that publication, without the Member’s name is sufficient as no further specific deterrent is needed other than the rehabilitative terms and conditions imposed.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances, and serves and protects the public interest.
Dated: June 5, 2014
Stefanie Achkewich, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Pauline Smart Member, Discipline Panel
Hanno Weinberger, OCT Member, Discipline Panel