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
Andrea Roseanne Davidson, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair
Christine Bellini, OCT
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Caroline Zayid,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Beverley Hodsdon,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
ANDREA ROSEANNE DAVIDSON ) Howard Goldblatt,
(CERTIFICATE #296740) ) Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, ) for Andrea Roseanne Davidson
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: February 10, 2015
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on February 10, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated May 12, 2014 was served on Andrea Roseanne Davidson (the “Member”), requesting her presence on May 30, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for February 10, 2015.
The Member was not in attendance for the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Andrea Roseanne Davidson 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) she provided false information or documents to the College or any other person with respect to her professional qualifications, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(1);
(b) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(c) she abused a student physically contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) she abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) she signed or issued in her professional capacity, a document that she knows or ought to have known contains a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);
(f) 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);
(g) she 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
(h) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
- Andrea Roseanne Davidson 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 respecting the Member.
Previous Misconduct
The Member was criminally charged on or around March 19, 2007 with theft under $5,000.00, possession of stolen property obtained by crime, possession of a stolen credit card, use of a stolen credit card and fraud. These charges arose from her purchase of approximately $2,000.00 worth of merchandise including a video camera, gold earrings, cologne, and a cordless telephone using a credit card stolen from a colleague. The Member stole her colleague’s credit card from a briefcase kept under her colleague’s desk in her classroom.
On or about November 14, 2007, the Member pled guilty to five charges relating to the facts in paragraph 2 above. She was found guilty of those charges. The Court ordered a conditional discharge. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a copy of the Proceedings transcript before the Honourable Justice R.J. Richards at Oshawa dated November 14, 2007.
The Member was terminated by the Durham District School Board (“the Durham Board”) on or about December 3, 2007. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “C” is a copy of the letter of termination.
On November 5, 2008, the Member was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, based on the circumstances described in paragraphs 2 and 3 above. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “D” is the Reasons for Decision, Decision and Orders of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers dated November 5, 2008.
The Application to the York Region District School Board
In September 2009, the Member applied for an occasional teaching position with the York Region District School Board (the “York Region Board”). A copy of the letter of application and completed application is attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “E”.
In completing the application process for the York Region Board, the Member submitted a letter of application and responded to a screening questionnaire which contained incomplete or misleading information.
The screening questionnaire asked, “Have you ever been dismissed from a teaching position?” The Member responded “no” to this question.
The Member was in fact dismissed by the Durham Board, from a teaching position, on December 7, 2007. However, the termination was grieved and in December 2008, the parties settled the grievance on the basis that the Member resigned from the Durham District School Board effective December 3, 2007.
The 2009 application to the York Region Board, also contained the question: “Have you ever been convicted of any offence under the Criminal Code (Canada) for which a pardon has not been granted. She answered “no” to this question on the application form, and did not disclose the facts described in paragraph 3 above.
The Member responded “no” to this question because she received a conditional discharge instead of a conviction. A court may order a conditional discharge instead of a conviction when the court concludes that to do so would be in the best interest of the accused and not contrary to the public interest. In those circumstances, the accused is found guilty of the offence, but is not convicted. The conditional discharge continues to appear on police records.
The Member was hired by the York Region Board as an occasional teacher on or about December 3, 2009.
In January 2010, the York Region Board received a copy of a letter from the York Regional Police reporting the results of a Vulnerable Sector Screening. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “F” is the letter from the York Regional Police to the Member with regards to a Vulnerable Sector Screening dated January 4, 2010.
On January 20, 2010 the York Region Board wrote to the Member asking her to provide details of the charges described in the letter. A copy of the letter is attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “G”.
On February 2, 2010, the Member responded to the York Region Board inquiry. In her response she falsely stated that the criminal conduct “was an out of workplace occurrence”. In fact, as described above, the Member stole a credit card of a teacher colleague from the teacher’s classroom.
In February 2010, the Member applied for a full-time teaching position with the York Region Board.
In completing the application process with the York Region Board, the Member once again submitted a letter of application and application form. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “H” is the Member’s application form to the York Region Board.
In this application, the Member’s response to the question on the application form was again incomplete or misleading in that she stated that she had never been dismissed from a teaching position, and did not accurately disclose the circumstances of her past criminal conduct.
The York Region Board did not hire the Member at that time, although she continued as an occasional teacher.
In June 2011, the Member applied for a long-term occasional teaching position with the York Region Board. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “I” is a copy of the Member’s letter application form to the York Region Board.
The application asked, “Have you ever been dismissed from a teaching position?” The Member’s response again was incomplete or misleading and responded “no” to this question.
In the spring of 2011, the Member was interviewed for a long-term occasional teacher position at the Board. In the course of that interview, she was asked why she had left the Durham Board. In response, the Member did not acknowledge the circumstances under which she had left the Durham Board, but claimed she had resigned to take care of her ailing mother (mother-in-law). In fact, she left her teaching position at the Durham Board because her employment was terminated by that Board.
The York Region Board hired the Member to complete two long-term occasional teaching positions at [XXX] School and Blue Willow Public School.
In the fall of 2012, after the Member was hired to complete the two long-term occasional teaching positions, the York Region Board became aware of the decision of the Discipline Committee referred to in paragraph 5 above.
As a result, a Last Chance Agreement was entered into by the parties which outlined the conditions upon which her employment with the Board was contingent. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “J” is a copy of the Last Chance Agreement dated December 14, 2012.
The Tripping of a Student
During the 2012-2013 academic year (incorrectly dated 2011-2012 in the signed Agreed Statement of Facts), the Member was a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).
The Student was a male student who attended Grade [XXX] at the School.
On or about December 5, 2012, the Student was running in the hallway to go back to his homeroom class from French class. It was alleged that the Member:
(a) intentionally stuck her foot out and tripped the Student;
(b) caused the Student to fall and hit his face on the ground;
(c) said to the Student words to the effect of “that’s what you get for running”.
The Member’s employment was terminated by the Board on or about March 5, 2013.
The termination of the Member was grieved and eventually submitted to Arbitration. The arbitrator concluded that the Member tripped the Student and the termination of the Member by the Board was upheld. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “K” is a copy of the Arbitrator’s Decision dated April 27, 2014.
By this document, the Member admits, the truth of the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 30 above (the “Agreed Facts”).
GUILTY PLEA
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Agreed Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(1), 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(12), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she 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 her name, may be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between Counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Agreed Facts, circumstances and plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member, 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, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(1), 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(12), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member acknowledged that the Agreed Facts referred to above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. The Committee accepted the Member’s plea and the facts contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.
On or about March 19, 2007, the Member was indicted and faced five criminal charges arising from the theft of a colleague’s credit card. The Member subsequently pled guilty to five charges related to the incident and received a conditional discharge. As a result of her conduct, the Member was terminated from her employment with the Durham District School Board on December 3, 2007. Subsequently, on November 5, 2008 the Member was found guilty of professional misconduct by a Discipline Committee of the College for the same incident.
In September 2009, the Member applied for an occasional teaching position with the York Region Board. The application process required the applicant to answer certain questions. The Member was asked if she was ever dismissed from a teaching position and whether she had ever been convicted of any offence under the Criminal Code (Canada); she replied “no” to both questions. While the Member may have argued that her responses were technically accurate, she had the opportunity to provide the Board with a more detailed explanation but failed to do so.
On or about December 3, 2009, the Member was hired as an occasional teacher by the York Region Board.
In January 2010, as a result of a York Regional Police Vulnerable Sector Screening, the York Region Board wrote to the Member and queried her regarding the nature of her criminal charges. In response, the Member falsely stated that the criminal conduct “was an out of workplace occurrence”.
In February 2010, the Member unsuccessfully applied for a full-time teaching position within the York Region Board and again falsified information contained in her application. In June 2011, the Member applied for another position as a long-term occasional teacher. During the interview, the Member lied about her reason for leaving her teaching position at the Durham Board, advising that she had to care for her ailing mother-in-law. In the fall of 2012, the Board hired the Member to complete two long-term teaching positions at [XXX] School and Blue Willow Public School.
On December 5, 2012, while teaching at [XXX] School, the Member intentionally tripped a young student who was hurt during the incident. Not only did the Member cause the Student to hit his face on the ground, the Member said to the Student “that’s what you get for running”. This conduct clearly displayed a complete disregard for the Student’s safety and physical wellbeing.
Eventually, the York Region Board became aware of the 2008 decision of the Discipline Committee of the College which resulted in a Last Chance Agreement being entered into by the Member and the York Region Board on December 14, 2012.
As a result of the tripping incident with the Student, the Member was terminated from her employment with the York Region Board. The Member grieved her termination which ultimately went to Arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that the tripping incident did occur and was intentional. The Member’s termination from employment was upheld.
The Committee finds the Member’s ongoing pattern of lying disgraceful and unprofessional. The Member committed a serious breach of the ethical standards to which members of the teaching profession are held. The Committee finds that her conduct was deceptive and lacked the professional integrity expected of all teachers.
The Member’s verbal, physical and emotional abuse of a young student is reprehensible. The Committee finds the Member’s lack of sound judgment appalling. At no time did the Member attempt to apologize to the Student nor did she show any concern for the Student’s wellbeing.
In light of the Member’s behaviour, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(1), 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(12), 1(15), 1(18) 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 and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”). The reprimand will be delivered in person at the offices of the College, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario;
direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two years commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;
directs 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) prior to the Member returning to a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics;
(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:
(i) he or she has reviewed a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty, documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Orders of the Discipline Committee; and
(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course.
- 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 parties have not agreed on whether or not the Member’s name should be included and submissions will be made on that issue.
SUBMISSIONS RE: PUBLICATION
Submissions of College Counsel
Counsel for the College submitted that the Joint Submission on Penalty, which asks the Committee to direct that the Member receive a reprimand, a two year suspension, complete a course on professional ethics, and that there be publication in the official publication of the College, satisfies the principles of general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation of the Member and protection of the public interest.
Counsel for the College submitted that publication with the Member’s name serves as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to the profession. Counsel for the College reminded the Committee that the Member appeared before a Discipline Committee of the College in 2008 and was found guilty of professional misconduct at that time. In its decision, the Committee ordered publication without the Member’s name to give the Member a chance to rehabilitate herself and to reintroduce herself into the teaching profession. It did not work.
Counsel for the College further submitted that publication with name sends a message to the profession and to the public that lying on an employment application is not acceptable.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member submitted that publication with the Member’s name is not warranted in this case. Counsel for the Member further submitted that there is a heavy onus weighing on the Member in regards to her ability to return to the profession. Publication without the Member’s name would signal to the Member that this Committee was hopeful that the Member would be successful in returning to teaching. Counsel for the Member further submitted that the two year suspension is a clear message that dishonesty and abuse of a student is conduct that is not tolerated by the College.
Counsel for the Member submitted that the specific deterrent aspect of the penalty is not lost on the Member. The Member may never work again in the teaching profession, as she will be required to explain to potential employers the two findings of professional misconduct by two Discipline Committees of the College. Counsel for the Member further stated that the only “glimmer of hope” for the Member would be publication without name.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
Prior to undertaking any teaching position or any other position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall appear before the Committee, on a date to be arranged by the Member, to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two years commencing on February 10, 2015 and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed 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) prior to the Member returning to a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics;
(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that:
(i) he or she has reviewed a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty, documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Orders of the Discipline Committee; and
(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course.
- There shall 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 determined that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is appropriate under the circumstances. Therefore, the Committee accepted the proposed penalty presented by the parties.
As the Member did not attend the hearing, the parties consented, and the Committee agreed, to amend the original Joint Submission on Penalty within which the Member was to be reprimanded immediately following the hearing of this matter. The Committee’s penalty decision above reflects the agreed upon amendment allowing the Member to receive her reprimand prior to undertaking any teaching position or any other position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required.
The Committee agrees that the reprimand and the two year suspension are both warranted and appropriate in the circumstances. As a specific deterrent, this penalty will remind the Member of her responsibility to uphold the standards of the profession at all times and to not engage in conduct unbecoming a member.
The Committee further agrees that the course on professional ethics will assist in the process of remediation and rehabilitation of the Member. This course will address the misconduct of the Member and serve to improve her professional judgment and consideration of students.
The Committee finds that publication with the name of the Member in the official publication of the College provides a specific deterrent to the Member. The Committee recognizes that the Member had previously been given the opportunity by a Discipline Committee of the College to rehabilitate herself. Unfortunately, the Member’s repeated pattern of lying demonstrates that she has not taken her previous penalty or this profession seriously. As a general deterrent, publication with name will inform the public and the teaching profession that this type of conduct is not tolerated and that members of the profession are expected to act with integrity and honesty at all times.
Member’s Counsel suggested that by not publishing the Member’s name, the Member would be hopeful that she may return to teaching one day. The Committee did not agree. The Committee found it was more important that the public be informed of the Member’s repeated conduct, abuse of a student and the penalty ordered.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: February 17, 2015
Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel