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
Steven William Aldoroty, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Thomas (Tom) Potter, Chair
Sara Nouini, OCT
Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Alyssa Brierley,
) Legal Counsel, ) for Ontario College of Teachers
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS )
– and – )
STEVEN WILLIAM ALDOROTY ) Lauren Sheffield,
(CERTIFICATE #463861) ) Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre ) Cornish LLP,
) for Steven William Aldoroty
) Rebecca Durcan,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: August 31, 2015
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on August 31, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated June 3, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Steven William Aldoroty (the “Member”), requesting his presence on June 22, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for August 31, 2015.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teacher’s Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he abused a student, or students, physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(c) he 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) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
At the hearing on August 31, 2015, Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
Steven William Aldoroty is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Mississauga, Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student at the School during the 2013/2014 academic year.
On May 23, 2014 before the beginning of classes, the Member attempted to enter the School gymnasium where approximately 20 students from the [XXX] Club were rehearsing for an upcoming assembly. He was unable to enter the gym because the door was locked. According to the Member, he motioned to one of his female students, Student 2, to open the door for him. Student 2 stood up to open the door but then sat down after another student appeared to say something to her. Another student ultimately opened the door for him.
After the door was unlocked, the Member approached Student 2 to speak with her and Student 1 stepped between the Member and Student 2. After asking Student 1 to move out of the way and trying to move around him, the Member physically moved Student 1 out of the way. Student 1 reported to the office that he had hit his head against a wall as a result, but the Member maintains that he directed Student 1 away from the wall, not towards it, as they were standing in the centre of the gym.
As a result of the events described in paragraph 5 above, the Member received a disciplinary letter issued by the Board. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a letter from the Board dated September 18, 2014. The Board required the Member to attend anger management counselling and a classroom management course, which the Member did.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member pleads no contest to the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-6 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18-unprofessional) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that depending on the penalty ordered by the Discipline Committee, the decision of the Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, may be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between the parties with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts, circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18-unprofessional) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections1(5), 1(15), 1(18-unprofessional) and 1(19).
Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrates that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, failed to comply with the Education Act, committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, and engaged in conduct unbecoming a member contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional), and 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) within 30 days of the hearing of this matter, August 31, 2015, the Member shall provide to the Registrar:
(i) written confirmation from the course practitioner that the Member successfully completed a full-day course covering classroom management; and
(ii) written confirmation from the counselling provider that the Member successfully completed four two-hour sessions of anger management counselling.
- direct that there be publication of the findings and order of the Committee in summary form in the official publication of the College Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. The Discipline Committee shall determine whether publication shall include the Member’s name.
SUBMISSIONS ON PUBLICATION
Submissions of College Counsel
College Counsel submitted that publication with the name of the Member is warranted in this case. Publication with the name of the Member serves as a general deterrent to the profession, since members will be warned that their names might be published in similar circumstances. Further, publication of the Member’s name promotes openness and transparency of the discipline process. In addition, College Counsel submitted that publication of the Member’s name is warranted given that the misconduct involved physical contact with a student.
College Counsel referred the Committee to six cases, five of which involved inappropriate contact by a member towards students and one of which involved the physical assault of an adult, non-student by a member: Ontario College of Teachers v. Andreacchi, 2013 LNONCTD 6 (“Andreacchi”); Ontario College of Teachers v. De Petrillo, 2014 LNONCTD 1; Ontario College of Teachers v. George, 2014 LNONCTD 85 (“George”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Jarzylo, 2014 LNONCTD 16; Ontario College of Teachers v. Montpellier, 2013 LNONCTD 54 (“Montpellier”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Templeton, 2013 LNONCTD 69 (“Templeton”). College Counsel submitted that these cases were similar to the Member’s case, and that publication with name was ordered in all six instances.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member submitted that publication with the name of the Member is not warranted in this case. Member’s Counsel noted that the cases provided by College Counsel involved physical interactions of a more serious nature than the case under consideration and that publication with name is therefore not warranted. The Member was involved in an isolated incident that fell at the low end of the spectrum of professional misconduct, he has no subsequent history of professional misconduct, and he continues to teach without incident.
Counsel for the Member submitted that the penalty objectives of specific deterrence, general deterrence, and transparency are met since the proceedings are public, the decision will be published on the College’s website and a summary of the decision and findings will be published in Professional Speaking/Pour parler profession.
Counsel for the Member read from a portion of a letter from the Member’s spouse, indicating that her career as a teacher at an independent school might be compromised by publishing the name of her husband in the College’s official publication. Member’s Counsel submitted that this was a compelling reason to not publish the Member’s name.
Reply Submissions of College Counsel
In reply, College Counsel submitted that publication bans occur in criminal cases only for the purpose of protecting witnesses or victims, and not to protect family members of an accused.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and makes an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above. With respect to the issue of publication, the Committee directs that there be publication of a summary of the findings and order of the Committee in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, without the name of the Member.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining only whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of justice or the discipline process into disrepute. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case.
The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. The reprimand will allow the College to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction in classroom management and anger management counselling already completed by the Member will assist in his rehabilitation. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and the counselling will help him to refrain from engaging in any physical exchanges with students in the future.
With respect to the issue of publication, the Committee received submissions from Member’s Counsel that publication with the Member’s name would negatively impact the career of the Member’s spouse, who is a teacher at an independent school, and the Committee notes that the parties did not agree on this issue. The Committee is not persuaded by this submission for the following two reasons. First, insufficient evidence was advanced to prove that publishing the Member’s name would negatively impact his spouse’s career. Second, the Committee is not convinced that the hypothetical impact that publishing the Member’s name would have on his spouse’s career is a compelling enough reason to not order publication with the Member’s name.
Nevertheless, the Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is not warranted. Although the Committee acknowledges that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional and that he breached professional boundaries, the Committee finds that the Member’s conduct was at the low end of the spectrum of professional misconduct. While it was inappropriate for the Member to physically move Student 1 out of his way, the Committee was not presented with sufficient evidence to demonstrate the degree of force used to move Student 1, and there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Member’s conduct caused injury. The Committee further notes that allegation (b) of the Notice of Hearing, which relates to the alleged physical abuse of a student, was withdrawn at the College’s request.
The College presented the Committee with six cases in which publication was ordered with the name of the member, but the Committee finds that these cases are distinguishable from the Member’s case, and should therefore not be relied on when determining the issue of publication. The Member’s conduct was less serious and less aggressive than the conduct in the College’s cases, which includes the following: in Templeton, the member came from behind a student and applied inappropriate force to the student’s chair such that it came out from under him, causing him to fall to the ground and injure his wrist; in George, the member struck a student’s face with his hand, causing the student’s head to hit a wall behind him; in Montpellier, the member dragged a student across the floor by his ankles; and in Andreacchi, the member grabbed a female by her wrists and crossed her arms across her neck, causing her to gasp for air.
Given the circumstances of the Member’s case, the Committee finds that the penalty objectives of deterrence and transparency will be adequately met without publishing the Member’s name in the College’s official publication. The Committee notes that its finding and orders will still be published on the College’s website. The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: September 7, 2015 ______________________________
Thomas (Tom) Potter
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel