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 Wanda Denise Maracle, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: John Tucker, Chair
Christine Bellini, OCT
Irene Dembek, OCT
BETWEEN: ) David Leonard,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Law Clerk
-and- )
WANDA DENISE MARACLE ) Velda Maracle,
(CERTIFICATE # 248466) ) for Wanda Denise Maracle
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: April 17, 2014
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR PENALTY
On January 28, 2014, the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) rendered a written decision finding Wanda Denise Maracle (the “Member”) guilty of professional misconduct.
In its written decision of January 28, 2014, the Committee found that based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence presented during a two day hearing, the Member committed acts of professional misconduct by:
(a) failing to comply with 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);
(b) committing acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(c) engaging in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
The finding of professional misconduct was based on the fact that the Member interrupted a teacher and her students during class time, resulting in a verbal exchange. The Committee found that the Member did not set a professional example in front of students by disrupting a class in progress and further engaging in a verbal altercation with both students and the teacher.
The Committee reconvened the hearing on April 17, 2014 to hear submissions on the issue of penalty.
The Member was present during the penalty hearing.
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
College Counsel submitted that the appropriate penalty in this case would be that the Member receive a reprimand and that the findings and Order of the Committee be published in Professionally Speaking/pour parler professional, with the name of the Member.
College Counsel submitted that a reprimand was appropriate and would allow direct interaction between the Committee and the Member. Counsel stated that the Member’s conduct was at the “more minor end of the spectrum” of professional misconduct and that a reprimand was appropriate in the circumstances. The reprimand to the Member achieves two deterrent goals. Specific deterrence will be met through the Committee directly expressing concerns to the Member. General deterrence sends a message to the profession that there is a consequence for this type of behaviour in front of students.
College Counsel requested that the name of the Member be published, along with a summary of the findings and order. He indicated that publication of name fosters transparency of the process and public confidence in the discipline process. Counsel indicated there was no presumption of publication with name, that this was discretionary, but indicated that as hearings are open to the public, it should follow that the Member’s name be published. Counsel reminded the Committee that if they choose not to publish the name of the Member, they should be able to clearly articulate their reasons.
College Counsel provided the Committee with a prior decision of the Committee (“Lazore”) wherein the professional misconduct was similar, but more serious with seven heads of professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, which resulted in a reprimand, terms, conditions and limitations, and publication without name.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE MEMBER’S REPRESENTATIVE
The Member’s Representative, Velda Maracle (“Ms V. Maracle”) agreed that a reprimand of the Member was an appropriate resolution in this matter. Ms V. Maracle requested that the Member’s name not be published in the College’s official publication. She stated that the conduct was at the low end of the misconduct scale, regarding an incident that escalated within a few minutes between two people. She indicated that the Member has been a teacher for 17 years and that since this misconduct occurred the Member has been a principal on a reserve and had to deal with conflict in this role. Ms. V. Maracle indicated that life has regrets and that upon self-reflection, the Member wishes she had acted differently in the circumstances.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers; and
The findings and order of the Committee shall be published in summary form, without the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The reprimand by her peers and on behalf of the profession acts as a specific deterrent to the Member. The fact of the reprimand will remain on the Member’s certificate for a period of three years and will serve as a general deterrent to the profession.
The Committee notes that in the prior decision of Lazore, the Member’s misconduct was more egregious and involved two incidents, which resulted in seven heads of professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97. The resulting penalty was more serious with a reprimand, terms, conditions and limitations, and publication without name.
The Committee found that this case is less severe than the Lazore case. It involved a single incident of a class interruption and a verbal exchange with a colleague and students. The Committee found on only three of the six allegations of professional misconduct, arising from this one incident.
The Committee agrees with the Member’s representative that publication of the Member’s name is not necessary.
In this case, publication of the findings and order of the Committee, in summary, without the name of the Member provides a general deterrence to the profession and informs the public that there is a consequence for this type of conduct.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: April 17, 2014
John Tucker
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Irene Dembek, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel