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 Raymonde Marie-Lourdes Racines, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Monique Lapalme Arseneault, Chair
Louis Sloan, OCT
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
BETWEEN: )
) Martin Zatovkanuk,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers
– and – )
RAYMONDE MARIE-LOURDES ) Kelly Doctor,
RACINES ) Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP,
(CERTIFICATE #478370) ) for Raymonde Marie-Lourdes Racines
) Renée Kopp,
) Jones Harley LLP,
) Independent Legal Counsel )
) Heard: December 12, 2014
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) on December 12, 2014 at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated May 28, 2013, was served on Raymonde Marie-Lourdes Racines (“the Member”) requesting her attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on June 10, 2013 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for December 12, 2014.
The Member was in attendance at the hearing.
ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated May 28, 2013 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Raymonde Marie-Lourdes Racines is guilty of professional misconduct or is incompetent as defined in sections 30(2) and 30(3) 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 failed to supervise adequately a person(s) who was under the professional supervision of the Member contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
c) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
d) she demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
At the hearing on December 12, 2014, Counsel for the College announced the College’s intention to withdraw the allegation of incompetence as outlined in paragraph (d) of the aforementioned Notice of Hearing. The Committee agreed to the withdrawal of this allegation.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Counsel for the College informed the Committee that the parties had reached an agreement on the facts, and produced the Memorandum of Agreement (the “MOA”) (Exhibit 3), which provides as follows:
Agreed Statement of Facts
The parties acknowledge the truth and accuracy of the facts set out in this document and agree to submit it to the Discipline Committee.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud (the “Board”) and worked as a teacher at [XXX] (the “School”).
During the 2010-2011 school year, the Member received two unsatisfactory performance appraisal ratings, following classroom observations which took place on November 1, 2010 and January 25, 2011. The results of these performance appraisals are the subject of the complaint filed on May 1, 2012 and referenced in the introduction to this MOA.
On November 10, 2010, the school principal reported to the Children’s Aid Society (the “CAS”) some troubling situations in which students had injured other students while they were in the Member’s care.
On November 12, 2010, the Member attended a meeting at the School with the principal in which she was informed of certain incidents which had allegedly taken place in her classroom and resulted in injuries to students. These incidents included students who were allegedly bitten and scratched, one student with a red mark on the neck from being strangled and students who had allegedly exposed their stomachs and dropped their underpants.
On January 10, 2011, after reviewing the evidence, including the classroom observation and conversations with parents, the CAS verified the allegation of limited competence in the provision of care, endangering a child placed under her professional supervision.
On February 15, 2011, after receiving the second unsatisfactory performance appraisal rating referred to above, the Member was placed on review status.
On February 23, 2011, the Board informed the Member that she had been assigned to work from home for an undetermined period, because she had failed in her classroom management responsibilities, jeopardizing students’ safety.
Notwithstanding the two unsatisfactory performance appraisal ratings and the improvement plans implemented in their wake, the Board detected no improvement in the Member’s performance during the 2010-2011 school year, and found that the Member continued to struggle with classroom management, lesson planning and the assessment and evaluation of student learning.
On March 9, 2011, the Board terminated the Member’s employment.
The Member stated that her working conditions during the 2010-2011 school year had been very difficult, primarily because she had been assigned to a class which included several students with behavioural problems and because of a difficult relationship with her principal. She did, however, admit to struggling with classroom management, lesson planning and the assessment and evaluation of student learning.
The Member voluntarily admits the above particulars, and understands that by doing so, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the allegations against her and/or her right to a contested hearing.
Joint Submission on Resolution
The parties agree to resolve the complaint as follows:
The Parties agree that upon ratification of this MOA, there shall be no further action taken in the complaint, no appeal of any or all of the terms of this MOA and no application for judicial review, providing the terms are adhered to.
The Parties understand that if any provision of this MOA is deemed null and void, it will be replaced with a valid provision with the same effect and the ratified MOA shall remain in effect.
The Member agrees and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, the Discipline Committee will find her guilty of professional misconduct and will administer a reprimand.
The Member must appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing into this matter to receive a reprimand. This decision is to be published in the College’s public register of members. The reprimand is to be administered at 101 Bloor Street West, in Toronto, Ontario.
In view of the fact that the Member has already taken French as a Second Language, Part 1 (August 2011), French as a Second Language, Part 2 (July 2012) and French as a Second Language, Part 3 (Specialist) (July 2013), the College will not require her to take any other courses.
In view of the fact that the Member has already undergone teacher performance appraisals in December 2011 and April 2012, the College will not require her to provide the Registrar with a copy of her next performance appraisal.
The Member acknowledges and understands that for the purposes of the examination of this matter, the Discipline Committee shall receive a copy of this MOA and of the Notice of Hearing which will be produced as exhibits at the hearing and will constitute the evidence against her on which the guilty plea, the finding of guilty and the penalty are based.
The Member acknowledges and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, a notation will be made on the public register maintained by the Registrar, in accordance with section 23 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996. This information will also appear on her Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the public register and her Statement of Professional Standing. Any changes to these documents or to the public register may reflect this agreement between the Parties, including changes to the Member’s status, to her record of professional practice as a teacher and to any terms, conditions or limitations imposed on her.
The Member understands that the College reserves the right to publish a summary of the complaint and its resolution, as contained in this MOA, in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, on the College web site and in any other manner deemed appropriate by the Registrar and Chief Executive Officer. The Discipline Committee will decide whether the summary is to include the Member’s name.
The Member acknowledges and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, the College shall make the decision and the reasons for decision of the Discipline Committee available for review by the public in the Margaret Wilson Library, on its web site and in any other manner deemed appropriate by the Registrar.
The Member acknowledges and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, the College may post a copy of the decision and the reasons for decision of the Discipline Committee on Quicklaw and any other online legal database.
The Member agrees and understands that this MOA constitutes the entire agreement between the College and herself and that no oral or written inducement or threat of any kind has been made by the College to the Member to enter into this MOA.
Each party may sign a separate copy of this MOA which, once signed and submitted to the other party, shall become an original even if the other party has not signed it. The copies so signed shall together constitute proof of the parties’ consent to be bound by the agreement.
SUBMISSIONS AS TO PUBLICATION
The parties have reached an agreement in this matter which they both consider satisfactory, that is, a reprimand to be imposed on the Member. The Member and the College further agree that the Committee at its discretion may publish a summary of this matter in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, but they have failed to reach agreement as to the matter of the publication of the Member’s name in this summary. Submissions on this issue were made to the Committee by Counsel for the College and the Member’s Counsel.
Submissions by Counsel for the College
Counsel for the College maintained that it would be appropriate in this case to include the Member’s name in the publication, as a specific deterrent for the Member and a general deterrent for the members of the teaching profession. The inclusion of the Member’s name would also ensure the transparency of the disciplinary procedure. Counsel for the College also argued that the Committee should publish the Member’s name if there was no compelling reason not to do so. In the College’s estimation, publication of the Member’s name is conducive to the openness of Discipline Committee proceedings, which is essential.
Submissions by Counsel for the Member
The Member’s Counsel argued that it was the Committee’s prerogative whether or not to publish her client’s name. She maintained that it should not be published in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession because the penalty which had been agreed upon and the terms, conditions and limitations imposed on the Member’s certificate served as sufficient deterrent for her client. She argued that the penalty on its own conveyed to the teaching profession and the public that the College took students’ safety seriously, and would therefore act as a general deterrent. Counsel urged the Committee to take into account the time which had elapsed since the alleged incidents took place, and added that the publication of the Member’s name could be damaging to her teaching career. Since the incidents, the Member had been teaching for another school board and had received two satisfactory performance appraisal ratings.
Reply by Counsel for the College
Counsel for the College replied to the submissions by Member’s Counsel. He added that the time elapsed was not in itself a compelling enough reason to trump the openness and transparency of the proceeding, and argued that the Committee had no evidence indicating that the publication of the Member’s name could be damaging to her teaching career.
DECISION
Having examined the Exhibits filed, and based on the Memorandum of Agreement, the guilty plea and the submissions by Counsel for the College and the Member’s Counsel, the Committee ratifies the Memorandum of Agreement and finds the Member guilty of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11) and 1(15), as set out in the Notice of Hearing.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member acknowledges the truth and accuracy of the facts set out in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the MOA. The Committee accepts these facts and finds the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
The Education Act clearly sets out teachers’ role and responsibilities with regard to the safety of the students in their care. As a teacher, it is the Member’s duty to maintain a healthy physical, emotional and social learning environment for her students, as stated in section 264.1(2) of the Education Act. She failed in this duty, thereby contravening Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
The Committee views this behaviour as professional misconduct. The Member failed to properly supervise the students for whom she was responsible and contravened the standards of the teaching profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15) and 1(11).
RESOLUTION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Resolution and makes the following order:
(a) The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following this hearing to receive a reprimand. This decision is to be published in the College’s public register of members; and
(b) The decision and order of the Committee are to be published in summary form, including the Member’s name, in the next regular issue of Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR RESOLUTION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Resolution. The fact that two parties have reached an agreement should indicate that an appropriate balance of interests has been achieved. In the Committee’s opinion, the resolution is appropriate, because it addresses certain expectations relating to professional responsibility.
The reprimand impresses on the Member the gravity of the situation and the fact that poor judgement of this kind is not tolerated by the teaching profession. The reprimand acts as a specific deterrent for the Member because she is required to appear before her peers to be reminded of her responsibilities as a member of the teaching profession.
The Committee considers that it is also necessary to publish its findings and order with the Member’s name, because that serves as a deterrent for the profession and the Member. Including the Member’s name in the publication conveys both to that member and to the members of the teaching profession that the Member’s actions are unacceptable. Publication of the Member’s name also serves the public interest by providing reassurance and informing the community that the profession takes decisive action when facts of this nature are brought to its attention.
In conclusion, the Committee finds that the resolution is appropriate and serves and protects the public interest.
December 12, 2014
Monique Lapalme Arseneault
Chair, Discipline Panel
Louis Sloan, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel