MINORITY DECISION (LOUIS SLOAN)

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Rice, 2014 ONOCT 90
Date: 2014-04-02

Re: Ontario College of Teachers and Ellen Irene Rice

This minority decision differs from the majority decision with regard to the issue of professional misconduct. While I substantially agree with much of the rationale and concern cited by the other Committee members, I am of the view that given the evidence, the Member spoke words of a threatening nature, “I want to shoot you”. These words were directed towards a student, and they had an effect on the students in the Member’s care. As such, it is my position that the Member should have been found guilty of professional misconduct.

The Member acknowledged that she had made the statement, “I want to shoot you”, which is materially similar to that reported by student witnesses. The credible student and Member testimony and the accompanying documentary evidence support that an inappropriate comment was made.

I recognize that there were certain mitigating factors in this matter and a context to the Member’s statement. For instance, the Member likened the comment to a context in which a student declares, “My parents are going to kill me!” While such a comment is meant to express frustration, in most cases, the student making the comment does not truly believe that he or she is at risk of physical harm. Likewise, the Member stated that she had no intention of following through with her remark, “I want to shoot you”.

I also acknowledge that the Member was engaged in programming to improve the organizational skills and work completion of Student No. 1. The evidence supports that the Member was making efforts for Student No. 1’s benefit in following an extended program of focused student remediation. Student No. 1 had received individualized attention, effort and care from the Member in the classroom. When Student No. 1 failed to produce her assigned work despite the Member’s diligent attention, it can reasonably be understood that the Member experienced frustration, which resulted in an instantaneous, poor choice of words, where she articulated her inner thoughts or feelings.

The Member’s words led to significant consequences. It is unfortunate that the Member was not informed earlier of the reaction her words had created. Equally unfortunate was the fact that the Member was not afforded an earlier opportunity to respond to the reaction that her instantaneous choice of words, “I want to shoot you”, had on Student No. 1, the school and the wider community. It is possible that had an environment existed in which a teacher could have immediately been made aware of the impact that this comment had had, the matter could have been dealt with and resolved locally. The effect and outcome could have been very different. Unfortunately, the effect of the words resulted in a long sequence of events concluding with a decision at the Ontario College of Teachers.

In spite of these contextual factors and the Member’s acknowledgement that she should not have made the statement, she is ultimately responsible, and these spoken words did have an effect. In this case, it seems that the words had consequences that were unintended and unforeseen. Notably, the evidence supports the conclusion that the Member’s words made Student No. 1 feel “scared, intimidated and upset”, and she continues to have feelings about the incident to this day. The words also had an effect on other students and the school community.

The fact that teachers have an enormous impact on students and are responsible for the care and well-being of their students is evident in this case. When students are adversely affected by a teacher’s poorly chosen and regrettable words, the teacher is responsible. In spite of the chain of events that would preclude the Member from any opportunity to spontaneously and immediately take responsibility for the inappropriate spoken words, responsibility is still attributable. Such words, which led to an adverse effect on students and the broader community, warrant a finding of professional misconduct. A finding of professional misconduct in a case such as this would not be a comment on the mitigating factors, which generally have weight during the penalty portion of a hearing, nor is it a comment on the handling of this matter. Rather, it applies strictly to the Member’s conduct.

The public can reasonably expect that such statements as, “I want to shoot you”, are considered to be unacceptable in a school setting. Students can reasonably expect that their teachers will not direct such words towards them. And, the profession should reasonably expect that the expression, “I want to shoot you”, would constitute grounds for professional misconduct. It is therefore my view that the Member’s words, “I want to shoot you,” should have warranted a finding of professional misconduct.

Date: April 2, 2014

______________________________
Louis Sloan, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel