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 three discipline proceedings against Samantha Jane Biggs, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair Hanno Weinberger, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Ava Arbuck, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Bev Hodsdon, Law Clerk
-and-
SAMANTHA JANE BIGGS (CERTIFICATE #469131) Samantha Jane Biggs was not present or represented
Julie Maciura, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: September 15, 2014
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR PENALTY
On May 15, 2014 a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) rendered a written decision finding Samantha Jane Biggs (the “Member”) guilty of professional misconduct. The Committee reconvened the hearing on September 15, 2014 to hear submissions on the issue of penalty. The Member was not present or represented by a lawyer during the penalty hearing.
In its written decision of May 15, 2014, the Committee found that, based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence presented during the two-day hearing, the Member committed acts of professional misconduct by:
- telling students in her class to “shut up”;
- saying that a student in her class was “retarded”;
- repeatedly telling one of her students that nobody liked her and that she was rude and disrespectful;
- pushing a student’s head into a water fountain at the school while the student was getting a drink, causing the student’s tooth to chip, and laughing at the student about this incident;
- making several comments, in front of her class, about a student with [XXX] “spazzing out” and telling the student with [XXX], “ewwww don’t touch me”; and
- calling a male student “rat face” on more than one occasion and telling him that he looked like he had rat teeth.
The Committee found that these facts supported a finding of professional misconduct pursuant to Ontario Regulation 437/97 (the “Regulation”), in that they constituted breaches of subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(18), and 1(19) of the Regulation. In particular, 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. 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 Regulation. By pushing a student’s head into a water fountain and causing her tooth to chip, the Member physically abused a student, contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of the Regulation. The Member’s acts of physical, verbal, psychological and emotional abuse would also reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of the Regulation. Finally, through her actions, the Member has engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of the Regulation.
All other allegations contained in the three Notices of Hearing were either proven but did not give rise to findings of professional misconduct, or were not proven due to insufficient evidence.
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
College Counsel entered as Exhibit 14 an affidavit of Daniela De Bartolo, sworn on September 10, 2014, outlining the various efforts of the College to inform the Member of today’s proceedings and the purpose of today’s proceedings. All communications from the College to the Member was returned unopened.
College Counsel submitted that the only appropriate penalty in this case was revocation. College Counsel spoke to the fact that the Member exhibited a pattern of behaviour involving different students in different classes and different schools over a period of at least three years. This pattern of behaviour included instances of verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse in the Member’s interactions with students, colleagues, parents, and administration. There was also one documented incident of physical abuse involving a student.
College Counsel submitted that this case involved a disturbing fact pattern in that the Member picked on the weak and vulnerable. College Counsel stated that if being on the receiving end of her bullying brought colleagues and administrators to tears, one can only imagine the impact on the students she taught.
College Counsel submitted that revocation, in serious cases such as this, protects the public interest, maintains the profession’s high standard, and ensures the public trust in the profession. The Member is guilty of very serious professional misconduct and in this case, cannot be remediated. The Member has shown a blatant disregard for the College’s process and proceedings. The Committee has no evidence to give them comfort that the Member would abide by any terms, conditions and limitations that they could impose. College Counsel further submitted that no evidence has been presented to suggest that the Member is open to any rehabilitation or remediation and the Committee can have no confidence that course work would benefit the Member. Currently, the Member is suspended for non-payment of fees and has chosen not to engage in any communication with the College. All recent correspondence has been returned unopened.
All administrators provided uncontradicted evidence that the Member never accepted any responsibility for her communication and interactions with students, parents, colleagues and administration. The administrators described the Member’s attitude as defiant, dismissive, flippant, full of denial and quick to blame others. College Counsel raised these issues to show that the Member’s own conduct demonstrated that she could not be remediated and chose not to be.
College Counsel submitted that revocation addresses the issue of protection of the public, which is a guiding principle for any order that the Committee makes. The public is best protected by an order which will eliminate the potential for any re-occurrence of abuse while the Member is teaching. The Committee heard evidence from a host of witnesses about the Member wreaking emotional havoc through her behaviour. This pattern of inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour intimidated and rattled everyone that the Member came into contact with in her professional role, including the six adult witnesses that testified before the Committee. In fact, three of the adult witnesses could not control their tears when speaking of the Member’s negative impact on students and the school.
College Counsel submitted that there are no courses that can adequately address the type of misconduct that the Member consistently and repeatedly displayed. Further, there is no evidence that the Member would even be a willing participant if such a course existed. Ultimately, there are no courses that can teach empathy without a willing participant.
College Counsel provided the Committee with a package of eight compelling impact statements, entered as Exhibit 15. These statements illustrate the emotional distress suffered by those involved as a result of the Member’s unprofessional behaviour. Each author, in their impact statements, stated that the impact continues to be felt to this day.
In conclusion, College Counsel argued that revocation is the only way to protect the public and students in this case. It is the best way to preserve the public confidence in the teaching profession and to maintain the College’s high standards.
With respect to publication, College Counsel submitted that publication with name is necessary in this case as it provides specific deterrence to the Member, general deterrence to the profession, speaks to the transparency and accountability of the process and communicates to the public and the profession that this level of misconduct has been fully addressed. College Counsel spoke to the horrible fact pattern exhibited by the Member, the fact that she picked on the weak and vulnerable, targeting young children who were unable to walk away from her. Publication with name is the best way of preserving the public confidence in the profession.
PENALTY DECISION
On September 15, 2014, the Committee made the following order as to penalty:
a) the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member; and
b) the Committee directs that there be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee, in summary form with the name of the member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee gave careful consideration to the evidence, submissions by Counsel and case law provided, as well as the advice of Independent Legal Counsel in reaching its decision. The Committee is fully aware that revocation is a penalty order usually reserved for the most serious misconduct and the Committee finds that the Member’s conduct meets this threshold. The Committee finds that revocation is the appropriate penalty in this case. Over a period of at least three years, the Member demonstrated repeated and blatant disregard for the emotional and physical well-being of the students in her care. The Member also consistently exhibited a lack of respect and professionalism in communicating with her students, parents, colleagues, and administrators.
The Committee accepted the arguments put forward by College Counsel and concluded that the Member’s behaviour exhibited a pattern of bullying and intimidating students and colleagues. The Committee was troubled by the Member’s repeated behaviour of picking on the weak and vulnerable.
The Committee also questioned whether the Member, who seems to have accepted no responsibility for her actions and has blatantly disregarded any attempt to participate in this proceeding, could benefit from a remedial course designed to change her attitude towards students and colleagues and treat them with respect and empathy.
Ensuring the safety of all students is of paramount importance to the Committee. The Committee recalls the relief expressed by one of the Member’s principals when she was told that the Member would no longer be teaching in her school. The Committee finds that revocation will ensure that the Member can no longer harm any students.
The Committee finds that the Member’s ongoing pattern of professional misconduct, with no evident interest on her part to remediate her practice, makes revocation the appropriate penalty. It is important not to minimize the impact on the school community and environment of daily, sustained, unprofessional conduct. By her actions and behaviour, the Member has forfeited the privilege to hold a teaching certificate in the Province of Ontario.
The Committee agrees with Counsel’s submissions that publication of the findings and Order of the Committee, in summary, with the name of the Member is warranted. Publication of name acts as a specific deterrent to the Member, provides a general deterrent to the profession and serves to protect the public interest. Publication assures the public and the profession that the College does not tolerate repeated misconduct of this nature. By publishing the name, the College also signals the serious nature of this unprofessional behaviour.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Dated: September 15, 2014
Robert Gagné Chair, Discipline Panel
Hanno Weinberger, OCT Member, Discipline Panel