Ontario College of Teachers v. Robitaille, 2014 ONOCT 92

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Robitaille, 2014 ONOCT 92 Date: 2014-11-28

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”) and Ontario Regulation 437/97

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Lucie Robitaille, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair Louis Sloan, OCT Darlene Mead, OCT

BETWEEN: ) ) Christine Lonsdale, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for the Ontario College of Teachers, ) assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk – and – ) ) Lucie Robitaille LUCIE ROBITAILLE ) was not present at this hearing (CERTIFICATE #261134) ) nor was she represented by legal counsel ) Erica Richler, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: September 29 and 30, 2014

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on September 29, 2014 at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing, dated December 5, 2012, was served on Lucie Robitaille (“the Member”) requesting her attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on February 5, 2013, to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for September 29, 2014 and continued on September 30, 2014.

The Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was she represented by legal counsel.

SUMMARY

During the 2008-2009 school year, the Member demonstrated unprofessional conduct. At all material times, she was employed by the Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel-Ontario as a teacher. The teacher received two unsatisfactory performance appraisal ratings. Her performance in the areas of Commitment to Students and Student Learning, Professional Knowledge, Teaching Practice and Leadership in Learning Communities was unsatisfactory. Specifically, the Member was significantly deficient in four key areas of teaching practice, namely: in planning, in teaching methods, in student evaluation and in discipline strategies and/or classroom management.

Despite the support of her employer, the Member decided to disregard the requests made of her. She demonstrated no significant improvement in her performance.

For the following reasons, the Committee finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct in that she contravened sections 1(5), 1(14) and 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and that she is incompetent as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act.

ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated December 5, 2012, are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Lucie Robitaille is guilty of professional misconduct and/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 comply with the Act or the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, or the regulations made under these Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14) and 1(15);

(c) 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.

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Lucie Robitaille (“the Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel-Ontario as a teacher.

3. During the 2008-2009 school year, the Member was teaching at [XXX] in Sudbury.

4. On December 2, 2008, the Member received an unsatisfactory performance appraisal rating.

5. On March 10, 2009, the Member received a second unsatisfactory performance appraisal rating.

6. On March 23, 2009, the principal of the school and the Superintendent of Education suspended the Member with pay.

7. On May 19, 2009, the Board terminated the Member’s employment.

8. The Member’s performance is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

A. Commitment to Students and Student Learning

1. The teacher infrequently demonstrates commitment to the well-being and development of all students.

(i) She openly and publicly targets students who are misbehaving.

(ii) She makes parents and students fearful by insisting that there is a security problem in the class.

(iii) She does not apply knowledge effectively about how students develop and learn socially.

2. The teacher infrequently demonstrates dedication in her efforts to teach and support student learning and achievement.

(i) She provides little feedback or comment in students’ notebooks to monitor their learning.

(ii) The students’ notebooks show little content from instruction in [XXX], [XXX] or [XXX].

(iii) She allocates too much time to independent study of spelling in [XXX].

(iv) She has not submitted any assessment to the principal for analysis.

(v) Students’ work, notebooks and achievement are infrequently monitored.

(vi) She does not provide the necessary support for students who are struggling with independence, problem-solving skills and the organization or submission of homework and assignments.

3. The teacher infrequently treats all students equitably and with respect.

(i) She employs disciplinary approaches that openly target students and do not respect the individual needs of students; as a result, situations are not always addressed in a positive manner.

(ii) The teacher’s interventions are unfair and not always appropriate.

4. The teacher does not provide an environment for learning that encourages students to be problem-solvers, decision-makers, life-long learners and contributing members of a changing society.

(i) She does not provide written feedback on formative assignments to assist students in attaining new skills.

(ii) She teaches [XXX] solely by means of desk work.

(iii) She does not demonstrate the use of observation and achievement charts, road maps or deadlines to provide structure for the steps in these learning projects.

B. Professional Knowledge

1. The teacher does not demonstrate knowledge of her subject matter, the Ontario curriculum and education-related legislation.

(i) She does not submit her daily preparation or any other planning to the principal to demonstrate improvement.

(ii) The students’ notebooks show little instructional content and do not clearly demonstrate targeted learning outcomes or monitoring of learning.

(iii) It is difficult to discern explicit instruction in grammatical concepts through topics or learning projects presented by the teacher.

2. The teacher does not demonstrate knowledge of a variety of effective teaching and assessment practices.

(i) She infrequently uses a variety of effective teaching and assessment practices.

(ii) She has not provided any document demonstrating her organizational and planning skills or her ability to monitor the progress of students’ learning.

(iii) She does not provide additional assistance to students with [XXX] [] needs during assessments.

3. The teacher does not demonstrate knowledge of a variety of effective classroom management strategies.

(i) She does not organize instructional time so that subjects are taught effectively and productively within the allocated time period.

(ii) The students’ notebooks show no evidence of instruction since November 20, 2008.

4. The teacher infrequently demonstrates knowledge of how students learn and factors that influence student learning and achievement.

(i) No expectations, target learning outcomes, knowledge, marking or feedback are discernible in the learning projects set by the teacher.

(ii) She does not plan for the modifications required for students with [XXX][XXX], provides no monitoring and does not respect the modifications in [XXX] for struggling students.

C. Teaching Practice

1. The teacher does not demonstrate use of professional knowledge and understanding of students, curriculum, legislation, teaching practices and classroom management strategies to promote the learning and achievement of her students.

(i) She refuses to submit her daily lesson plans or long-term planning, so no links can be made.

(ii) The students’ notebooks indicate poor organization in the teaching of practical lessons.

2. The teacher is ineffective in communicating with students, parents and colleagues.

(i) She does not communicate effectively with students when administering disciplinary measures.

(ii) The ineffective management of challenging situations creates a lack of discipline that affects the atmosphere in the classroom.

(iii) The teacher inappropriately communicates classroom management challenges to parents.

(iv) Her communication with parents is sometimes unprofessional.

(v) She imparts confidential information concerning certain students to other parents, making them more fearful.

(vi) She communicates some of her confidential conversations with parents to her students.

3. The teacher does not conduct ongoing assessment of her students’ progress, evaluate their achievement and report results to students and parents regularly.

(i) She provides little feedback in students’ notebooks.

(ii) She does not provide any supporting documentation to indicate that she is monitoring formative teaching progress prior to summative evaluation.

(iii) She provides evidence of sporadic programming with no long-term assessment.

4. The teacher has difficulty adapting and refining her teaching practices through continuous learning and reflection, using a variety of [sources and] resources.

(i) She has difficulty assessing and reviewing program delivery.

(ii) She has difficulty organizing and planning her teaching in a multigrade class.

D. Leadership in Learning Communities

1. The teacher has difficulty working with professionals, parents and members of the community to enhance student learning, student achievement and school programs.

(i) She questions and expresses doubt concerning suggestions made by professionals, and demands proof supported by research.

MEMBER’S PLEA

Because the Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was she represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the assumption that she denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

EVIDENCE

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Notice of Hearing dated December 5, 2012

Exhibit 2: Certificate of Qualification, printed on September 26, 2014

Exhibit 3: Affidavit of Annie Lacroix dated September 26, 2014

[NOTE: Exhibits 1-3 were produced at the hearing on the motion (videoconference) on September 29, 2014.]

Exhibit 4: Summative Report – (Appraisal 1) – approved form. Signed on December 20, 2002

Exhibit 5: Improvement Plan (after Appraisal 1 if necessary). Signed on January 15, 2003

Exhibit 6: Email from L. Hurtubise dated June 6, 2008

Exhibit 7: Miscellaneous training/support, Lucie Robitaille

Exhibit 8: Note: Intervention

Exhibit 9: Timeline – Lucie Robitaille [Number 1]

Exhibit 10: Documents given to Lucie Robitaille (late August 2008, on August 27)

Exhibit 11: September 11, 2008: Account of meeting with Lucie Robitaille

Exhibit 12: Note on the meeting on September 25, 2008

Exhibit 13: Note on the meeting on October 2, 2008

Exhibit 14: Note on the meeting on October 28, 2008

Exhibit 15: Note on the meeting on November 4, 2008

Exhibit 16: Summative Report Form for Experienced Teachers (approved form). Signed on December 2, 2008

Exhibit 17: Comment by L. Robitaille dated December 3, 2008

Exhibit 18: Letter from a parent dated November 18, 2008 (Appendix 1)

Exhibit 19: Response from L. Robitaille, dated November 19, 2008, to the letter of November 18 (Appendix II)

Exhibit 20: Appendix D: Improvement Plan (template form). Signed on December 16, 2008

Exhibit 21: Administrative notes made by L. Hurtubise beginning June 5, 2008

Exhibit 22: Timeline – Lucie Robitaille [Number 2]

Exhibit 23: Meeting: Mélanie Moreau: Monday, January 19, 2009

Exhibit 24: Summative Report Form for Experienced Teachers (approved form). Signed on March 10, 2009

Exhibit 25: Comment by L. Robitaille in response to Appraisal 2 dated February 28, 2009

Exhibit 26: Note made by L. Hurtubise dated March 2, 2009

Exhibit 27: Letter from a parent to L. Robitaille dated March 10, 2014

Exhibit 28: Documents package, Mélanie Moreau

Witnesses

At the hearing, the College called two witnesses: 1. Lucie Hurtubise (“Ms. Hurtubise”) and 2. Mélanie Dubois, née Mélanie Moreau (“Ms. Dubois”). Ms. Dubois testified by videoconference, following a motion that was approved by the Committee on September 29, 2014.

Testimony of Lucie Hurtubise

Ms. Hurtubise is a veteran school principal with 26 years of professional experience. She worked as a teacher for seven years. During the 2008-2009 school year, she was principal of the school where the Member taught. Ms. Hurtubise testified concerning what occurred during her appraisals of the Member. In her testimony, she provided particulars concerning the Member’s significant deficiencies in four key areas of teaching practice, namely: planning, teaching methods, student evaluation, and discipline strategies and/or classroom management.

1) Planning Deficiencies

Ms. Hurtubise testified that she provided the Member with a great deal of administrative support during the period in question. In her testimony, she referred to the account of the meeting with the Member on September 11, 2008 (Exhibit 11) in which she outlines the detailed instructions she gave the teacher with respect to the teacher’s planning. She explained that she discussed backward planning with the Member and suggested that the Member collate her lessons in a binder to make lesson progress easier to follow and prepare long-term planning starting with two-week blocks. Ms. Hurtubise also testified that the Member stated that she understood that by improving her planning, she would teach the key subject matter and avoid deviating from the planning.

Ms. Hurtubise testified that the Member provided her with samples of her daily planning and that she gave the Member feedback concerning her planning (see Exhibit 13). In the Summative Report Form for Experienced Teachers dated December 2, 2008 (Exhibit 16), the principal’s first appraisal of the teacher, Ms. Hurtubise stated that the Member had made no adjustment to her strategies or her overall planning. Specifically, Ms. Hurtubise explained that, in spite of the advice given to the teacher, such as preparing blocks of lessons and placing them in binders by subject matter, the Member continued to do it her own way, which did not improve her planning. Her teaching did not include planning strategies.

According to Ms. Hurtubise, based on the first appraisal of the Member, the teacher’s class planning was seriously deficient. In the Improvement Plan of December 16, 2008 (Exhibit 20), Ms. Hurtubise stated that the Member needed to put more effort into her planning. Specifically, Ms. Hurtubise stated that to improve, the Member would have to develop consistent, pertinent, daily planning in order to plan her teaching to reflect the target outcomes; she would have to develop short- and long-term curriculum-relevant and grade-appropriate planning; and she would need to develop blocks of 10-15 consecutive lessons to establish a logical flow and include strategies that she could use and further develop.

According to Ms. Hurtubise, based on the second appraisal of the Member, the teacher’s planning continued to be seriously deficient. In the Summative Report Form for Experienced Teachers dated March 10, 2009 (Exhibit 24), Ms. Hurtubise described the Member’s second appraisal. With respect to planning, Ms. Hurtubise testified that the Member did not provide the principal with daily or any other planning, so she was unable to discern a link between class planning, teaching methods and student learning and evaluation. Ms. Hurtubise also testified that she could not see any improvement in the way the Member organized her lessons to make them clear, specific and concise.

2) Deficiencies in Teaching Methods

Ms. Hurtubise testified that the Member’s teaching methods were seriously deficient. In the Summative Report Form for Experienced Teachers dated December 2, 2008 (Exhibit 16), Ms. Hurtubise explained that there was no link between students’ notebooks and students’ evaluations, because there were virtually no rubrics. According to Ms. Hurtubise, it seemed as though lessons were planned, but no feedback was prepared or recorded for the next lesson based on the preceding one.

In addition, Ms. Hurtubise testified that the Member often selected irrelevant or inappropriate classroom resources. Ms. Hurtubise gave the following passage as an example:

One devil grabbed Ti-Jean by the leg and tossed him to the collector; another hit him on the head with his stick as he flew past. His brain was already hanging out of his skull… the palace corridor was soaked in blood, and the devils were playing catch with handfuls of minced flesh… The young man was cut in two with a sword-stroke (Exhibit 16, Appendix D).

Ms. Hurtubise testified that violent texts of this nature did not belong in a classroom, and that the Member had several choices of classroom resources but decided to select inappropriate texts.

In the Summative Report Form for Experienced Teachers dated March 10, 2009 (Exhibit 24), Ms. Hurtubise also stated that the Member’s teaching methods were unsatisfactory. Firstly, she did not organize instructional time so that subjects were taught effectively and productively within a given time period. Secondly, a review of the students’ notebooks showed only a handful of lessons in [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX]. Furthermore, the Member did not give her class any dictations and did not teach nearly enough lessons in [XXX].

Ms. Hurtubise also testified that from November 20, 2008 on, there was no indication of any instruction in the students’ notebooks.

3) Deficiencies in Student Evaluation

Ms. Hurtubise testified that the Member’s student evaluations were seriously deficient. In her note on the meeting on October 28, 2008 (Exhibit 14), Ms. Hurtubise explained that the Member submitted two [XXX] evaluations to her for feedback. Ms. Hurtubise noted that the evaluations were far too long, showed no clear links to the curriculum expectations and included several questions which were unclear.

In the Summative Report Form for Experienced Teachers dated March 10, 2009 (Exhibit 24), Ms. Hurtubise stated that the Member’s evaluations were unsatisfactory. In the principal’s opinion, the students’ notebooks contained few comments, there was no documentation to show that the teacher was monitoring formative progress before summative progress and the evaluation was unplanned.

Ms. Hurtubise also testified that she had asked the Member to submit evaluations, but the teacher had not done so. According to Ms. Hurtubise’s testimony, the only known summative evaluation was for the Cartesian plane, which all of the Member’s students failed. Ms. Hurtubise also noted that because of the deficiencies in student evaluations, the Member’s report cards had to be postponed by four weeks.

4) Deficiencies in Discipline Strategies and/or Classroom Management

Ms. Hurtubise testified that the Member’s discipline strategies and/or classroom management were seriously deficient. According to the administrative notes made by Ms. Hurtubise beginning June 5, 2008 (Exhibit 21) and the Summative Report Form for Experienced Teachers dated December 2, 2008 (Exhibit 16), the Member used an inappropriate “forum-style” discipline strategy. According to Ms. Hurtubise’s testimony, when a student broke a rule, the Member would consult the other students in the class as a forum to vote on the penalty for the student. This approach was damaging to students’ self-esteem, created friction among the students and was humiliating. Ms. Hurtubise explained that the Member’s students became afraid of being publicly reprimanded. The teacher’s discipline strategies were not conducive to an encouraging learning environment.

Ms. Hurtubise also testified that the Member targeted students in her class inappropriately. She shared confidential information concerning certain students with other parents, which made the latter additionally fearful. The Member told her students about confidential conversations she had with parents. In Ms. Hurtubise’s opinion, the Member’s communication with parents was unprofessional.

The principal also testified that the Member targeted students publicly and inappropriately, which was indicative of deficiencies in her discipline and classroom management. Ms. Hurtubise said that a team of professionals had met to discuss the behaviour of one of the Member’s students and had determined that the student was not violent and did not pose any danger to himself or other students, but the Member prohibited all work tools in her classroom in order to protect her other students from the student whom she wrongly considered violent.

Testimony of Mélanie Dubois (née Mélanie Moreau)

At the time of the events in question, Ms. Dubois had six years of teaching experience. She had worked in four schools where she taught primarily special education students. She was hired as a mentor to observe the Member’s performance and provide her with support in class preparation and administration. It was an accompaniment position in which Ms. Dubois was to assist the Member with her daily planning, evaluations, teaching methods and discipline strategies. She was not hired to teach the Member’s class or to appraise the teacher’s performance. Her position lasted for six weeks.

Ms. Dubois testified that, during her six weeks in the Member’s classroom, the teacher demonstrated deficiencies in four key areas of teaching practice, namely: planning, teaching methods, student evaluation, and discipline strategies and/or classroom management.

1) Planning Deficiencies

Ms. Dubois testified that, during her six weeks in the Member’s classroom, she did not observe any preparation indicative of daily planning on the teacher’s part. In Ms. Dubois’s report dated January 30 to February 6, 2009 (Exhibit 28, Tab 3), Ms. Dubois described the Member’s planning deficiencies.

She testified that the Member refused to write out all the overall and specific expectations for her lessons. She also stated that she wrote down only rough guidelines for her lessons because she had a lot of other things to do. Ms. Dubois had shown her a sample of her daily planning to give her some idea, but the Member disregarded it. The Member even claimed that her planning notebook had been stolen when Ms. Dubois requested it. Ms. Dubois therefore testified that planning was lacking and that the Member had even admitted that she did not want to do any.

2) Deficiencies in Teaching Methods

In her testimony, Ms. Dubois gave several examples of the Member’s deficient teaching methods. Ms. Dubois testified that she was in class every day with the Member and had observed her teaching methods on several occasions.

Firstly, in Ms. Dubois’s report dated January 30 to February 6, 2009 (Exhibit 28, Tab 3), she explained that the Member failed to teach the concepts adequately before assessing her students. Her students completed a summative evaluation on February 3, 2009 and the Member scheduled another summative evaluation three days later, without teaching them the concepts.

Secondly, in her report on the week of February 2-6, 2009 (Exhibit 28, Tab 3), Ms. Dubois indicated that the teacher had not taught any lessons all that week.

Thirdly, in her February 11, 2009 report (Exhibit 28, Tab 4), Ms. Dubois said that she had looked over the Member’s preparations and had noticed that not only was the summative evaluation on the Cartesian plane not ready, but the students had not even been prepared for this evaluation, because no lessons had been taught since their previous summative evaluation a few days earlier.

Fourthly, in her February 19, 2009 report (Exhibit 28, Tab 5), Ms. Dubois indicated that even by her fourth week with the Member, the teacher had not taught the concepts she was supposed to evaluate.

Lastly, Ms. Dubois stated that in [XXX], the Member had not given the students adequate instruction before assessing them. Furthermore, the road maps for this subject were either not handed out or were non-existent (Exhibit 28, Tab 8). Ms. Dubois testified that, when she mentioned to the Member that summative evaluations should reflect classroom instruction and the evaluation should have been prepared beforehand, the teacher replied that summative evaluation in [XXX] was not complicated and she was simply going to assess the students by asking them questions, without road maps.

3) Deficiencies in Student Evaluation

As noted above, Ms. Dubois provided copious comments on the deficiencies in the Member’s evaluations. In addition to the above-mentioned comments, Ms. Dubois also testified that the Member had to give her students six evaluations in three different domains over a nine-day period (Exhibit 28, Tab 6). Ms. Dubois testified that this was impossible and it was a good example of the Member’s shortcomings with respect to the evaluation of her students. Moreover, Ms. Dubois testified that with the exception of one evaluation (on the Cartesian plane), the Member did not submit her evaluations to the school principal, as she was supposed to do.

4) Deficiencies in Discipline Strategies and/or Classroom Management

Ms. Dubois testified that the Member struggled with classroom management. In her February 20, 2009 report (Exhibit 28, Tab 6), Ms. Dubois described an incident in which the teacher reprimanded her students about hockey cards and mini hockey sticks. The students explained that the principal had given them permission to bring mini hockey sticks to school. The Member replied, “I DON’T CARE WHAT MS. LUCIE SAID, I’m the teacher in this class, I DON’T CARE what the other teachers are doing.” When some students talked back to the teacher, she went on, “SHUT UP AND DO AS YOU’RE TOLD OR YOU’LL GET WHAT’S COMING. I DON’T CARE, I COULDN’T CARE LESS, it’s not about me, it’s about you.” Ms. Dubois testified that one student started crying.

Ms. Dubois also testified concerning an incident in which the Member humiliated several of her students in front of the whole class. On February 20, 2009, one student was unable to concentrate during a summative evaluation and handed in an incomplete evaluation to his teacher. Ms. Dubois offered to take the student to another, quieter room so he could complete his evaluation, but the Member said in front of the whole class, “That child doesn’t need any help, he can do that test on his own. He doesn’t have an [XXX] like ________ and ________. He isn’t entitled to any more help than the others” (Exhibit 28, Tab 6).

Lastly, Ms. Dubois testified concerning another incident in which the Member demonstrated her difficulties with classroom management. A student asked a question about the homework and the Member answered:

[…] I DON’T CARE whether you do your homework or not, I have other things to do. I don’t have 10 minutes to waste every day checking homework for nothing. […] If it was up to me, I wouldn’t even give tests, I would just put a mark on the report card. It won’t change my life if you don’t do your homework. I’m not going to kill you like a teacher in Egypt (Exhibit 28, Tab 6).

Ms. Dubois testified that she was bowled over by the Member’s performance.

SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE

Counsel for the College submitted that both allegations against the Member, incompetence and professional misconduct, had been proven. In her opinion, the evidence produced supported the case for professional misconduct and incompetence. She began her submissions by describing section 30(3) of the Act, which concerns incompetence:

30(3) The Discipline Committee may, after a hearing, find a member to be incompetent if, in its opinion, the member has displayed in his or her professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit to continue to carry out his or her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

She noted that the criteria to be considered by the Committee in determining whether the Member was incompetent, were fourfold:

1. the Who (“the Member”) ;

2. the When (“in her professional responsibilities”) ;

3. the What (“a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of a student”); and

4. the severity of the conduct (“of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities”).

Counsel for the College produced three decisions of the Discipline Committee in support of her contention of incompetence, namely: Ontario College of Teachers v. Chenier, 2011 LNONECD 4 (“Chenier”); Ontario College of Teachers v. MacGregor, 2005 LNONECD 18 (“MacGregor”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Lee, 2012 LNONECD 37 (“Lee”).

Counsel for the College further submitted that the Member was significantly deficient in four key areas of teaching practice, namely:

1. planning;

2. teaching methods;

3. student evaluation; and

4. discipline strategies and/or classroom management.

Counsel for the College also submitted that the evidence produced supported the case for professional misconduct, and supported her arguments with the aid of MacGregor and Ontario College of Teachers v. Joly, 2013 LNONECD 36 (“Joly”). In her opinion, most of the above-mentioned deficiencies which supported the case for incompetence also supported the case for professional misconduct.

DECISION

After reviewing the evidence, and in light of the onus of proof and standard of proof and the submissions by College Counsel, the Committee recognizes that the facts support the case for professional misconduct and finds that Lucie Robitaille is guilty of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(14) and 1(15), as set out in the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee further finds that the facts produced support the case for incompetence as defined in section 30(3) of the Act and finds that Lucie Robitaille 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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Analytical Criteria

The College is required to prove the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] SCR 53; that is, the balance of probabilities, which consists in determining the likelihood of the occurrence of the alleged events. The Committee relies on clear and convincing evidence.

In assessing the evidence, the Committee applies the guidance provided by the courts with respect to assessing witness credibility. It determines whether witnesses appear trustworthy, sincere and straightforward, and do not appear evasive, taking into account their behaviour, appearance and manner of expressing themselves. To assess the reasonableness of witness accounts, the Committee also considers the consistency of testimony and any contradictions.

Memory and faculties of perception and observation are important analytical criteria: the Committee must look at witnesses’ ability to recall the facts of an incident while assessing their capacity for accurate observation. To assess the veracity of statements made during the hearing, the Committee also considers witnesses’ personal interest and any bias.

The Committee is aware of the importance of its duty to state clearly its grounds for giving credence to or dismissing testimony. All of the parties to a proceeding must be confident that they have been understood and treated fairly. The Committee assesses the relative probative value of testimony as well as any discrepancies. It relies on common sense and its knowledge of human nature when considering the factors described above. The Committee is also aware of the importance of determining whether testimony is probable or improbable.

Assessment of Witness Credibility

In handing down this decision, the Committee relied on the testimony of the two witnesses and on Exhibits 1 to 28.

It was the duty and responsibility of Ms. Hurtubise, the principal of the school, to assess staff.

Ms. Dubois was responsible for accompanying, mentoring and supporting the teacher.

The Committee found both witnesses, Ms. Hurtubise and Ms. Dubois, to be credible. Both testified honestly and consistently and their testimony was supported by highly detailed documentation. The Committee found that neither witness appeared evasive, taking into account their behaviour, appearance and manner of expressing themselves. It found no contradictions in the evidence produced. Ms. Dubois’s testimony confirmed the accuracy of Ms. Hurtubise’s testimony.

The documents package (Exhibit 28) prepared by Ms. Dubois was extremely detailed and the Committee considered her testimony trustworthy, sincere and straightforward. She did not appear evasive in her answers to the questions posed by College Counsel. Ms. Dubois’s testimony was sufficiently credible.

The Committee also found that both witnesses were able to recall the facts accurately. It had no doubt as to the veracity of the testimony, which was plausible and reasonable.

Findings

In the Committee’s opinion, the Member is guilty of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(14) and 1(15). The Committee also finds that the facts produced support the case for incompetence as defined in section 30(3) of the Act.

The Committee handed down this decision on the basis of the above-mentioned evidence and testimony. It gave credence to the testimony of the principal, Ms. Hurtubise, and the Member’s mentor, Ms. Dubois. The Committee carefully reviewed the two Summative Reports, the various Improvement Plans, the notes on actions taken, the accounts of the various meetings between the Member and the principal, the Member’s comments in response to the principal’s appraisals, the letters from parents and the mentor’s reports.

The Summative Reports showed clearly that the Member demonstrated incompetence or disregard for the welfare of her students and that she required improvement in the areas of planning, teaching methods, student evaluation and learning, and effective discipline strategies and/or classroom management.

1) Planning Deficiencies

In the Committee’s estimation, the Member’s planning was seriously deficient. She did not submit daily preparations or any other planning to the principal as a way of demonstrating improvement. She provided no documentation of her organizational or planning skills or her ability to monitor the progress of student learning. She refused to submit her daily lesson plans or long-term plans to the principal and had difficulty organizing and planning her teaching in a multigrade class.

The Committee finds that the principal made appropriate use of the teacher performance appraisal procedure. In spite of Ms. Hurtubise’s efforts to set up improvement plans to assist the Member, the Committee finds that the teacher’s progress was inadequate.

The Committee notes from Ms. Dubois’s testimony that during the time Ms. Dubois spent in the Member’s class, the Member did not have any daily planning and decided spontaneously what she would teach. The mentor’s administrative notes (see Exhibit 28) and testimony show that the Member was unwilling to do any planning, even with her mentor’s support. It is alarming that during the six weeks Ms. Dubois spent in the Member’s classroom, she never saw any daily planning by the Member.

2) Deficiencies in Teaching Methods

In the Committee’s estimation, the Member’s teaching methods were seriously deficient. During the incidents, the Member failed to demonstrate knowledge of a variety of effective classroom management strategies. She provided little feedback or comment in students’ notebooks to monitor their learning. The students’ notebooks showed little content from instruction in [XXX], [XXX] or [XXX]. There was little or no monitoring of her students’ work, notebooks and achievement. She did not provide written feedback during formative assignments to help her students to assimilate new skills. She did not demonstrate the use of observation and achievement charts, road maps or deadlines to provide structure for the steps in these learning projects. The students’ notebooks contained little instructional content and did not clearly demonstrate targeted learning outcomes or monitoring of learning. Her lessons were not always practical and she wasted valuable teaching time. The classroom resources selected were often irrelevant or inappropriate. In addition, no expectations, targeted learning outcomes, knowledge, marking or feedback were discernible in the learning projects set by the teacher.

The Committee accepted Ms. Hurtubise’s testimony and the fact that the Member’s teaching was seriously lacking. There was no link between the teacher’s preparation and students’ notebooks. The Committee also accepted the portion of Ms. Dubois’s testimony in which she explained that the Member had not taught a single lesson for an entire week, and that by Ms. Dubois’s fourth week as mentor, the Member still had not taught the skills she was supposed to evaluate.

Based on the Member’s comment in response to her second summative evaluation (Exhibit 25), the Committee found that the Member had not accepted that she was struggling significantly in her teaching. When her students failed their evaluation on the Cartesian plan, their failure was mystifying according to the teacher, although according to Ms. Dubois, there was no mystery involved: the concept had not been taught.

3) Deficiencies in Student Evaluation and Learning

In the Committee’s estimation, the Member was seriously deficient in the area of student evaluation and learning. She did not submit any evaluations to the principal for review and her programming was sporadic with no long-term evaluation.

The Committee finds that the Member’s report cards were postponed by four weeks because of her deficiencies in student evaluation and learning. Furthermore, Ms. Dubois testified that the Member had to give her students nine evaluations in six days [sic], which she said was impossible. This supports the evidence that evaluations in this case were seriously lacking for an entire semester. The Committee found that the Member failed to evaluate her students adequately during the period in question.

4) Deficiencies in Effective Discipline Strategies and/or Classroom Management

In the Committee’s estimation, the Member’s effective discipline strategies and/or classroom management were seriously deficient. She openly and publicly targeted students who were misbehaving. She failed to address students’ individual needs and did not always deal constructively with challenging situations. Her actions were not always appropriate and were unfair. She did not communicate effectively with students when administering disciplinary measures. Her ineffective management of challenging situations created a lack of discipline that affected the atmosphere in the classroom. In addition, she communicated inappropriately with parents concerning classroom management challenges in her classroom. For example, she imparted confidential information concerning certain students to parents, making them more fearful.

The Committee finds that the Member did not always treat her students equitably and with respect. According to the administrative notes made by Ms. Hurtubise beginning June 5, 2008 (Exhibit 21) and the Summative Report Form for Experienced Teachers dated December 2, 2008 (Exhibit 16), when a student broke a rule, the Member would consult the students in the class as a forum to vote on the penalty for the student. In the Committee’s opinion, this approach was damaging to students’ self-esteem, created friction among the students and was humiliating. Students became afraid of being publicly reprimanded. The atmosphere was neither positive nor respectful and did not inspire students’ trust. Teachers are responsible for classroom management, which requires discretion, tact and professionalism. The Member was seriously deficient in this regard.

The Committee also accepted the testimony of Ms. Hurtubise who explained that the Member targeted students publicly and inappropriately. The Committee found that a team of professionals had met to discuss the behaviour of one of the Member’s students and had determined that the student was not violent and did not pose any danger to himself or other students but the Member decided to prohibit all work tools in her classroom to protect her other students from the student whom she wrongly considered violent. This decision by the Member was inappropriate, targeted one of her students for no reason and demonstrated the Member’s classroom management deficiencies.

The Committee further determined that the Member humiliated some of her students by sharing their confidential information with the whole class. The Committee accepted Ms. Dubois’s testimony in which she described an incident that occurred on February 20, 2009. One student was unable to concentrate during a summative evaluation and handed in an incomplete evaluation to his teacher. Ms. Dubois offered to help the student, but the Member said in front of the whole class, “That child doesn’t need any help, he can do that test on his own. He doesn’t have an [XXX] like ________ and ________.” (Exhibit 28, Tab 6). The Committee found that this incident demonstrated the Member’s serious classroom management deficiencies.

The Committee also accepted Ms. Dubois’s testimony in which she described that a student had asked a question about the homework and the Member had answered as follows:

[…] I DON’T CARE whether you do your homework or not, I have other things to do. I don’t have 10 minutes to waste every day checking homework for nothing. […] If it was up to me, I wouldn’t even give tests, I would just put a mark on the report card. It won’t change my life if you don’t do your homework. I’m not going to kill you like a teacher in Egypt (Exhibit 28, Tab 6).

The Committee found that these comments were altogether inappropriate and demonstrated the Member’s serious classroom management deficiencies.

After reviewing the documentary evidence, which was supported by the testimony of the two witnesses, and the submissions by College Counsel, the Committee finds that the Member is incompetent and that her certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations. The Member’s significant deficiencies in the areas of planning, teaching methods, student evaluation and learning and discipline strategies and/or classroom management have convinced the Committee that the Member demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that she is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities.

The Committee also found that the Member was guilty of professional misconduct in that she contravened sections 1(5), 1(14) and 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Most of the deficiencies which resulted in the finding that the Member was incompetent are also related to professional misconduct. For example, the Member wilfully did not submit her planning to the principal, in spite of the principal’s requests. The Member identified students with an [XXX] in front of her class. She also shared private information concerning the student whom she wrongly considered violent with a number of parents, making them even more fearful. These facts, coupled with the deficiencies demonstrated by the Member in the above-mentioned four key areas of teaching practice, have led the Committee to find that professional misconduct occurred.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY BY COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE

According to College Counsel, the appropriate penalty would consist of the following:

1. a reprimand;

2. a one- to three-month suspension;

3. one or more courses addressing the deficiencies shown by the Member in the following four areas:

a. planning;

b. teaching methods;

c. student evaluation; and

d. discipline and/or classroom management;

4. a condition whereby the Member must notify the Registrar if she wishes to return to teaching;

5. a condition whereby this decision must be forwarded to the provider of the above-mentioned courses and to the Member’s employer before she can return to teaching; and

6. publication in summary form of the findings and orders of the Committee in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, including the Member’s name.

College Counsel produced four decisions by the Discipline Committee in support of the proposed penalties: Chenier, MacGregor, Lee and Joly.

According to College Counsel, the reprimand is related to the professional misconduct. The suspension demonstrates that the Member’s conduct was unacceptable and exposes her behaviour. The courses will correct the teacher’s deficiencies. The proposed courses have a rehabilitative purpose for the Member. The publication of the Member’s name in the College’s official publication is necessary to uphold the transparency of Discipline Committee proceedings and to protect the public. According to College Counsel, although it is unusual to make an order for both a reprimand and a suspension in the same case, the two penalties are appropriate in this case.

DECISION AS TO PENALTY

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for one month as of November 28, 2014. This decision is to be published immediately in the College’s public register.

2. Prior to accepting any teaching position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Discipline Committee directs that the Member must appear before the Committee at the College’s offices in Toronto to receive a verbal reprimand. This decision is to be published in the College’s public register;

3. The Committee directs the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and to publish this decision in the public register:

(i) Prior to seeking or accepting any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member must enrol, at her own expense, in one or more courses, at the Registrar’s discretion, in the four areas in which her teaching was inadequate; namely:

a) planning deficiencies;

b) deficiencies in teaching methods;

c) deficiencies in student evaluation and learning; and

d) deficiencies in effective discipline strategies and/or classroom management.

(ii) Within 30 days of completion of the aforementioned course or courses, the Member must provide the Registrar with written proof of her successful completion of the courses;

(iii) Prior to returning to teaching, the Member must notify the Registrar of the date of her return to teaching and, within 10 days of said date, the name of her employer and the nature of her employment;

(iv) When the Member has returned to teaching, she must make all reasonable efforts to have her employer carry out two appraisals of her performance within 18 months of the start of her employment;

(v) The Member must provide the Registrar with two satisfactory performance appraisals within 18 months of her return to teaching;

(vi) Prior to enrolling in the aforementioned course or courses, the Member must forward this decision to the course provider. She must also provide the Registrar, within 10 days of the date of so forwarding, with proof that the decision has been forwarded to the course provider;

(vii) Prior to returning to teaching, the Member must forward this decision to her employer. She must also provide the Registrar, within 10 days of the date of so forwarding, with proof that the decision has been forwarded to her employer;

4. 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 PENALTY DECISION

The Committee carefully weighed the arguments put forward by Counsel for the College and took into consideration that the purpose of the penalty is to serve and protect the public interest, uphold the standards of the teaching profession and promote public trust in the teaching profession.

The Member’s behaviour was inappropriate in a number of contexts and her performance was repeatedly unsatisfactory. Her conduct demonstrated unprofessionalism and a lack of commitment to her students.

The one-month suspension sends a clear message to the Member and to the members of the teaching profession that such conduct is taken very seriously and will not be tolerated. The profession must expose the type of conduct displayed by the Member. Although it is unusual to make an order for both a suspension and a reprimand in the same case, the Member’s unsatisfactory performance and the fact that she had support from her employer but decided to defy the latter’s instructions prompted the Committee to make an order for both of these penalties simultaneously. The one-month suspension is appropriate in light of the facts in the case.

In the Committee’s estimation, a reprimand is a penalty proportionate to the misconduct, which will serve as a specific deterrent for the Member and will impress upon her the seriousness of her misconduct. The reprimand is related to the Member’s professional misconduct. The fact that the reprimand will be published in the College’s public register of members will serve as a general deterrent and will also demonstrate to the public that the College continues to take such misconduct very seriously.

In the Committee’s estimation, prior to returning to teaching the Member must enrol in one or more courses covering planning, teaching methods, student evaluation and learning and effective discipline strategies and/or classroom management. These courses will help her to acquire the competencies needed to carry out her teaching responsibilities effectively. They will also serve the public interest, because they are designed to rehabilitate the Member. By successfully completing the courses, the Member will demonstrate to the public that she possesses the competencies expected of a teacher.

The Member must also provide the Registrar with two satisfactory performance appraisals within 18 months of her return to teaching. This will make it possible to monitor her progress closely and ensure that she is successfully putting into practice the theory she has acquired.

The Committee has also directed that this decision be forwarded to the Member’s course provider and to her employer. This condition has been put in place to give the course provider a better idea of the Member’s deficiencies and enable it to design a course to improve the Member’s competencies. In addition, it is important and in the public interest to forward this decision to the Member’s employer.

The Committee takes seriously its responsibility to hand down decisions which act as a general deterrent. With respect to the publication, the only way to make the members of the teaching profession aware of the seriousness of such misconduct is to publish the most comprehensive information possible, and particularly Lucie Robitaille’s name. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the publication of the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is appropriate and constitutes an important element of the penalty.

The Committee finds that this penalty is appropriate, preserves the integrity of the teaching profession, maintains public confidence in the teaching profession and serves and protects the public interest.

November 28, 2014

Robert Gagné,

Chair, Discipline Committee

Louis Sloan, OCT,

Member, Discipline Committee

Darlene Mead, OCT,

Member, Discipline Committee