Ontario College of Teachers v Foucault, 2015 ONOCT 22

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Foucault, 2015 ONOCT 22

Date: 2015-06-29

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

Leonard Samuel Foucault, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Christine Bellini, OCT, Chair Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Wes Vickers, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Eli Mogil, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Beverley Hodsdon, ) Law Clerk – and – ) LEONARD SAMUEL FOUCAULT ) Jerry Raso, (CERTIFICATE #367327) ) Ontario English Catholic ) Teachers Association, ) for Leonard Samuel Foucault, ) neither was present ) Julie Maciura, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: May 21, 2015

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION, AND ORDERS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on May 21, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated September 1, 2011 was served on Leonard Samuel Foucault (the “Member”), requesting his attendance before the Committee on September 27, 2011 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for May 21, 2015.

Neither the Member nor his lawyer was present at the hearing; however, the Committee was provided with written submissions on the Member’s behalf (see Exhibit 2).

OVERVIEW

This case involves numerous allegations brought by the College against the Member, who was a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) at the time of the events in question. During the 2009-2010 academic year, the Member allegedly yelled at or reprimanded Educational Assistants (“EA”) in the presence of students, made inappropriate physical contact with students on several occasions, made insensitive and inappropriate comments in the presence of students, and failed to provide medical attention to a student in a timely manner.

The Committee’s task is to determine whether the facts alleged in the Notice of Hearing have been proven on a balance of probabilities, and if so, whether they give rise to a finding of professional misconduct. For the reasons that follow, the Committee has determined that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Leonard Samuel Foucault is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers 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 verbally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) he abused a student or students physically contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(e) he failed to comply with the Act and the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under those Acts, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) 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

(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. At all material times, Leonard Samuel Foucault was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Sudbury Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School.

3. At all material times, Students “A” and “C” were male students, and Students “B” and “D” were female students in the Member’s [XXX] class. All of the students were [XXX] students.

4. During the period from September 2009 to April 2010, the Member:

(a) bullied the Educational Assistants by yelling at and/or reprimanding them in front of others;

(b) grabbed Student “A” by the back of the head and yelled “focus”;

(c) grabbed Student “A” by the face and screamed instructions to him;

(d) on two occasions, pulled Student “B”, by the ponytail;

(e) pushed Student “C” by the back of his head while he sat rigid in his [XXX];

(f) sang a song using the words, “Wheels of the bus go round and round and the kids under the bus go flop”;

(g) when asked to explain a cooking instruction to Student “D”, he stated, “she is [XXX] anyway so what is the use of teaching her”; and

(h) insisted on waiting for the nurse to arrive at the school before allowing medical attention to an ill student with a temperature of 99.8 degrees.

5. The Member was placed on disciplinary unpaid suspension from September 2, 2010 to October 3, 2010 inclusive.

MEMBER’S PLEA

As neither the Member nor his legal counsel was present, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.

THE EVIDENCE

The College called three witnesses – Ms. Rossella Bagnato, Mr. Derek Zaher and Ms. Eileen Kennedy – who provided their accounts of the various incidents involving the Member.

College Counsel noted that there was some confusion contained in the Notice of Hearing with regard to the students involved in allegations 4(b) and 4(c). The Committee resolved this confusion by identifying the student involved in allegation 4(b) as Student A1 and the student involved in allegation 4(c) as Student A2.

Testimony of Ms. Rossella Bagnato

Ms. Bagnato, the superintendent of education with the Board, has had an extensive career in the teaching profession, in which she worked as a teacher, a vice-principal, and a principal prior to becoming a superintendent. She was the superintendent of education with the Board at the time of the events in question, and has devoted a significant portion of her career to [XXX].

Ms. Bagnato described her communications with the EAs in the Member’s [XXX] class, and her investigation into the Member’s conduct. The superintendent testified that she first learned about the incidents involving the Member when the EAs’ union representative requested a meeting regarding the Member’s conduct. Ms. Bagnato subsequently met with several of the Member’s EAs.

Ms. Bagnato testified that on April 6, 2010, she met with Ms. Eileen Kennedy, an EA in the Member’s class (see Exhibit 4 at Tab 1). During this meeting, Ms. Kennedy stated that she was concerned with the Member’s inability to ensure the safety of students, his poor teaching practice, his lack of lesson preparation, and his abrupt and intimidating conduct towards EAs and students.

Ms. Bagnato testified that on April 9, 2010, she met with Ms. Joanne Nauss, a new EA at the time in the Member’s class (see Exhibit 4 at Tab 2). Ms. Nauss told Ms. Bagnato that she was concerned with the Member’s lack of supervision of students in his care. When Ms. Nauss attempted to speak to the Member about these concerns, the Member ignored her. Ms. Bagnato testified that Ms. Nauss felt that the Member was demeaning to Student D, who was [XXX].

Ms. Bagnato testified that she also met with Ms. Anne Zimijowskyj, an EA with 24 years of experience who had worked with the Member’s class (see Exhibit 4 at Tab 3). Ms. Bagnato described an incident, which was observed by Ms. Zimijowskyj, where the Member changed the words of a song by saying, “Wheels of the bus go round and round and the kids under the bus go flop”. Ms. Bagnato described a second incident in which an EA had requested that the Member provide cooking instructions to Student D, to which the Member dismissively responded, “she is [XXX] anyway so what is the use of teaching her.” Ms. Bagnato added that Ms. Zimijowskyj had described the Member as confrontational, and she had once observed him yelling at Ms. Nauss.

Ms. Bagnato testified that on April 14, 2010, she met with Ms. Barb Jennings, an EA in the Member’s class who had witnessed an incident in the fall of 2009 where the Member pulled Student B’s head up by her ponytail (see Exhibit 4 at Tab 7). Although Ms. Jennings was disturbed by this incident and described it as being so horrible that she did not think it had actually occurred, she did not report it to the principal. Ms. Bagnato further testified that Ms. Jennings had described another incident in which the Member forcibly pushed Student A1’s head. The student was [XXX] years old at the time and suffered from [XXX].

Ms. Bagnato testified that, on April 14, 2010, she also met with Ms. Carrie Anne Pyott and Ms. Shannon Duguay, who were EAs in the Member’s class (see Exhibit 4 at Tabs 8 and 9). Ms. Pyott described the Member as someone who was “reckless”, “careless”, and “did not think”. Both Ms. Pyott and Ms. Duguay indicated that the Member would often place his hands on Student A2, forcefully turning the student’s head.

Ms. Bagnato further testified that, on April 14, 2010, she met with Mr. Derek Zaher, another EA in the Member’s class, to address his written concerns about health and safety issues involving the Member (see Exhibit 4 at Tab 10). Ms. Bagnato noted that Mr. Zaher was very emotional and cried during the meeting. She described how Mr. Zaher appeared to be particularly fearful of the Member.

Ms. Bagnato testified that, on April 15, 2010, the Board placed the Member on an immediate reassignment of duties at home, with pay, pending the outcome of its investigation (see Exhibit 4 at Tab 11). The Member was also advised that the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) had been contacted as a result of some of the allegations. On May 18, 2010, the CAS informed Ms. Bagnato that it had completed its investigation and concluded that the Member’s conduct caused a risk of harm to the children in his class (see Exhibit 4 at Tab 12).

Ms. Bagnato testified that on April 9 and June 15, 2010, she conducted investigative meetings attended by the Member and his union representative. Ms. Bagnato raised a number of concerns with the Member’s treatment of staff and students (see Exhibit 4 at Tabs 4 and 16). The Member submitted written responses on April 12 and June 24, 2010, in which he denied or tried to explain all of the allegations of inappropriate conduct reported to the Board (see Exhibit 4 at Tabs 5 and 15).

Ultimately, the Board determined, through its investigation, that the Member posed a risk to children with [XXX] and particularly those who were not [XXX]. The Board found that the severity and the frequency of the Member’s conduct warranted disciplinary action. Accordingly, the Board placed the Member on a disciplinary unpaid suspension from September 2 to October 3, 2010 (see Exhibit 4 at Tab 16).

Testimony of Mr. Derek Zaher

Mr. Zaher has worked as an EA since 2006 and he worked with the Member’s class at the time of the events in question. Mr. Zaher described several incidents in which the Member’s conduct towards EAs and students was inappropriate, disrespectful, and unprofessional.

Mr. Zaher testified that, on more than one occasion, the Member verbally insulted him and other EAs. Whenever they tried to discuss their concerns regarding the Member’s classroom environment with him, the Member was flippant and insulting in front of all who were present. Mr. Zaher described the work environment as a “nightmare” and he felt anxious and would sometimes vomit before going to work. In addition, Mr. Zaher described a meeting between the principal, the EAs and members of the Board, which the Member unexpectedly demanded to attend, causing the EAs to feel uncomfortable expressing their concerns about the Member to the administration.

Mr. Zaher further testified that, on one occasion, the Member yelled at him during a class trip to the [XXX], in front of staff and students. According to Mr. Zaher, the Member yelled at and humiliated him when he suggested cancelling the trip because of the uncleared, snowy sidewalks, which made it extremely difficult to transport students who used [XXX].

In addition, Mr. Zaher testified that the Member gave “the finger” to a colleague. When some staff members were opposed to spending too much money on a gift for a custodian at the School, the Member yelled at them and directed his obscene hand gesture towards one of his colleagues.

Mr. Zaher also testified with regard to the incidents involving Student A1, Student A2, Student B, Student C, and Student D, and corroborated Ms. Bagnato’s testimony. Mr. Zaher was present for the incidents involving the Member outlined in allegations 4(b), 4(c), 4(d); he could not remember the incident outlined in allegation 4(e); although he was not present for the incident outlined in allegation 4(f), he witnessed the reaction of other EAs following the incident; and, while he was present for the incident outlined in allegation 4(g), his recollection was limited. Mr. Zaher’s testimony with respect to allegation 4(c) was particularly powerful.

Mr. Zaher further testified with respect to the incident outlined in allegation 4(h) where the Member insisted on waiting for a nurse to arrive at the School before allowing medical attention to an ill student with a fever. The Member was aware that this student was at risk of having [XXX] when the student had a high temperature.

Testimony of Ms. Eileen Kennedy

Ms. Kennedy testified that she has worked as an EA intervenor for 27 years, specializing in the education of [XXX] and [XXX] students. Ms. Kennedy worked at the School from 2005 until 2014, when she retired. She described the significant negative impact that the Member’s conduct had on staff and students in his class.

Ms. Kennedy testified that the Member was rude, demeaning, and interacted poorly with students with [XXX]. She indicated that the Member acted as though he were superior to his colleagues, and that he consistently disregarded classroom suggestions from new EAs. Ms. Kennedy added that the Member’s students regressed, as a result of the negative classroom environment and the Member’s mistreatment of those in his class. According to Ms. Kennedy, the Member’s conduct was worse than any of the 20 other teachers with whom she had worked during her career.

Ms. Kennedy recounted a time when Ms. Nauss walked a student out of the class at the end of the day to transfer him to his mother who was picking him up, and when Ms. Nauss came back into the classroom she was sobbing. When Ms. Kennedy asked her what was wrong, Ms. Nauss told her that the student’s mother had asked him if he had had a good day, and Ms. Nauss said that she started crying because she knew what was really going on in the classroom.

Ms. Kennedy testified that the 2009-2010 academic year was tense and difficult, given the poor working environment created by the Member.

SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL ON FINDING

College Counsel submitted that the facts alleged in the Notice of Hearing have been proven, on a balance of probabilities, and that they amount to professional misconduct. The Member repeatedly used excessive physical force on his students with [XXX], he made demeaning and offensive comments to staff and students, and he yelled at or reprimanded EAs in the presence of staff and students.

College Counsel further submitted that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, and that his conduct was unprofessional and unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. According to College Counsel, the evidence established that the Member blatantly disregarded his professional responsibilities and caused continual harm to his students and colleagues.

College Counsel added that the CAS conducted a full investigation and determined that the Member’s students were “in need of protection.” College Counsel urged the Committee to consider the significant and concerning findings of the CAS, when making its decision. According to College Counsel, the Member’s conduct negatively impacted his students and colleagues, and created a poisonous work environment.

In response to the written submissions of Member’s Counsel that there was no public interest in pursuing this matter because the Member had already retired, College Counsel submitted that the Member should not be shielded from the disciplinary process simply because he has retired from the teaching profession. Discipline proceedings serve an important function by informing the public and the profession that there are consequences for engaging in unprofessional conduct.

SUBMISSIONS OF MEMBER’S COUNSEL ON FINDING

Member’s Counsel provided the Committee with written submissions regarding the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member denied all of the allegations, but chose not to participate in this hearing because he is permanently retired from teaching, he has no intention of teaching again, and he resigned his membership with the College on November 20, 2014. Moreover, the Member could not handle the stress of a contested hearing due to a chronic medical condition.

According to Member’s Counsel, there is no public interest in pursuing this matter for two reasons: first, since the Member is permanently retired, there is no issue of his continuing fitness to teach; second, there is no general deterrence purpose served by pursuing this matter. Member’s Counsel relied on Cressman v. Ontario College of Teachers 2005 CanLII 1406 (ON SCDC), [2005] O.J. 565 in support of the proposition that there is no public interest in pursuing a case against a teacher who has permanently retired.

Finally, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member’s non-participation in this hearing would not cause harm to anyone; rather, it can be seen as a benefit because it will reduce the time and resources expended in this matter.

DECISION

Onus and Standard of Proof

The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, which is proof on a balance of probabilities. The allegations must be supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence in order for the Committee to make a finding 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 Leonard Samuel Foucault committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee carefully considered the College’s evidence and submissions, as well as the Member’s written submissions and jurisprudence, when arriving at its decision that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct. The Committee recognizes that the College bears the burden of proof in this case, and that the Member’s decision not to attend the hearing has no bearing on the Committee’s determination of whether or not the College has proven its case.

Although Member’s Counsel submitted that there is no public interest in pursuing this matter, the Committee disagrees. Given the circumstances of this case, where students have been verbally, physically, and psychologically or emotionally abused, there is a public interest in hearing the matter. [XXX] and [XXX] students are among the most vulnerable in a school environment. There is a clear interest in demonstrating to the public and the profession that the College takes seriously its regulatory responsibilities, and that matters of this nature are dealt with. Moreover, it is important to ensure that matters before the College are addressed in a transparent manner, and that the public and members of the profession are made aware of the consequences of engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The evidence before the Committee demonstrates that the allegations of professional misconduct contained in the Notice of Hearing have been proven, on a balance of probabilities. The Committee received uncontradicted evidence from three credible witnesses whose testimonies regarding the Member’s conduct were consistent. The Committee accepts the evidence of Ms. Bagnato, Mr. Zaher, and Ms. Kennedy, all of whom had significant experience in [XXX].

The Committee finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. For instance, the Member insisted on waiting for the provision of medical attention to a student who had a fever, and who was prone to [XXX] when he had a high temperature. The Committee was troubled that the Member did not respond to this situation in a timely manner. Moreover, the Member’s egregious conduct negatively impacted students and staff, and occurred repeatedly over the course of several months, in the face of repeated complaints from staff. The teaching profession expects more of its members.

The Committee further finds that the Member abused a student or students verbally, and psychologically or emotionally. The Committee accepted the evidence of Ms. Bagnato and Mr. Zaher regarding the Member’s inappropriate interactions with students. The Member made several demeaning and insensitive comments about students or their circumstances, including the following: he changed the words of a song by saying, “Wheels of the bus go round and round and the kids under the bus go flop”; he commented that Student D “is [XXX] anyways so what is the use of teaching her”, in response to an EA’s request to provide instructions to the student; and he lost his temper with students who were non-compliant to his instructions. Conduct of this nature, directed towards students, is abusive and falls far below the standards of the teaching profession.

Moreover, the Committee finds that the Member physically abused students. The Committee accepts the following evidence with respect to the Member’s physical abuse of students: he pulled student B’s head up by her ponytail; he forcibly pushed a student by the back of his head while the student sat rigid in his [XXX]; he often placed his hands on Student A2, forcefully turning the student’s head; and he was dismissive of issues impacting the health of students (see Exhibit 4 at Tabs 7, 8, 9, and 16). The Committee also recognizes the findings from the investigations of the Board and the CAS (see Exhibit 4 at Tabs 12 and 16), which indicate that the Member’s conduct posed a risk of harm to students.

In addition, the Committee finds that the Member has failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act. Through his abusive conduct, the Member has not fulfilled the duties of a teacher, as defined in the Education Act.

Finally, the Committee finds that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional and unbecoming a Member of the teaching profession. The Committee accepts the evidence of Mr. Zaher and Ms. Kennedy that the Member was rude and demeaning to his colleagues and that he created a poisonous work environment. The Member insulted Mr. Zaher in front of others on more than one occasion, he yelled at and humiliated Mr. Zaher during a class trip, and he made an obscene hand gesture towards another colleague, by giving him “the finger”. Ms. Kennedy testified that the Member consistently disregarded any suggestions from new EAs to improve his class, and that his conduct was worse than any of the 20 other teachers with whom she had worked during her career. The Committee notes that teachers do not only have obligations towards their students, but they are also expected to maintain a level of professionalism with their colleagues. The Member demonstrated a lack of professionalism on numerous occasions.

Accordingly, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL ON PENALTY

College Counsel submitted that the principles of sanction to be addressed through penalty are the following: specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the public. Given that the Member is not currently teaching, the principles of general deterrence and protection of the public are particularly important according to College Counsel.

College Counsel submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:

1. direct the Member to appear before the Committee 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”);

2. direct that prior to any return to teaching or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Registrar is to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 30 days and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;

3. direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) prior to any return to teaching or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, two courses of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar. One course regarding classroom management with a focus on students with special needs and the second course regarding staff and workplace relations;

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the courses outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certification from the course provider stating that:

(i) he or she has reviewed a copy of the Committee’s Decision, Reasons for Decision, and Orders; and

(ii) the Member has successfully completed the courses;

4. 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.

College Counsel presented the Committee with three cases which addressed the verbal, physical, and psychological or emotional abuse of students by members of the teaching profession. College Counsel submitted that, in each of the cases, the members’ conduct was less serious than that of the Member in this case, and that those members received reprimands and 30-day suspensions.

College Counsel further submitted that publication with name is in keeping with the openness and transparency of Discipline Committee proceedings.

The Committee invited both parties to provide further submissions addressing the question of whether revocation would be an appropriate penalty in this case, rather than suspension. College Counsel submitted that, in lieu of a 30-day suspension, the Committee could order a two year suspension, being the maximum suspension available under the Act. College Counsel recognized the tenor and seriousness of the evidence which supported the findings of professional misconduct, but indicated that there is little precedent to support an order of revocation for such misconduct. College Counsel further submitted that a two year suspension is an appropriate penalty, as revocation should be reserved for only the most serious offenses.

SUBMISSIONS OF MEMBER’S COUNSEL ON PENALTY

Member’s Counsel provided written submission on the sole question of whether or not the Committee could revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration. Member’s Counsel submitted that, because the Member’s Certificate was cancelled on November 20, 2014, there is no Certificate to revoke.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Registrar is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar.

2. 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

The Committee carefully considered the penalty submissions of College Counsel and Counsel for the Member, as well as the supporting jurisprudence presented by College Counsel, in arriving at its decision. The Committee rejects part of the proposed penalty presented by the College and finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and publication with name, is the appropriate penalty in this case.

Pursuant to subsection 30(4)1 of the Act, “Where the Discipline Committee finds a member guilty of professional misconduct or to be incompetent, it may make an order […] Directing the Registrar to revoke any certificate held by the member under this Act.” While the Committee received submissions from Member’s Counsel indicating that the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration could not be revoked because it had already been cancelled on November 20, 2014, no authority was provided to support the proposition that a cancelled certificate cannot be revoked. Even if revocation will not have any tangible effect on the Member, who has permanently retired from teaching, revocation serves as an important general deterrent as it informs other members of the profession that there are serious consequences associated with the type of conduct in which the Member engaged.

While the Committee recognizes that the College proposed a lengthy suspension instead of revocation because there was little case law to support revocation, the Committee finds that revocation is the appropriate penalty in the circumstances of this case. First, while case law is persuasive and the Committee recognizes that like cases should be treated alike, the Committee is not bound by past decisions of the Discipline Committee.

Second, the fact that the Committee was not presented with analogous cases where members had their Certificates revoked does not mean that revocation is inappropriate in the Member’s case; it simply means that the Committee received limited guidance from the jurisprudence presented. The Committee was presented with no relevant jurisprudence to suggest that revocation was either appropriate or inappropriate.

The three cases that the Committee received were unhelpful because the members’ conduct in each of those cases was less serious than that of the Member in this case. In addition, the cases presented were all decided by agreement and through joint submissions on penalty. Given that these cases were the result of a compromise between the parties, they provide limited assistance in the Member’s contested matter. Accordingly, with no analogous cases to guide its decision with respect to penalty, the Committee turned to first principles when determining whether the Member’s conduct warranted the most severe penalty available – revocation. Subsection 3(2) of the Act provides that, “In carrying out its objects, the College has a duty to serve and protect the public interest.” The principle of public protection is particularly important in this case.

The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct was egregious and that revocation is warranted, in this case, to meet the principles of specific deterrence, general deterrence and public protection. The Member, on numerous occasions, verbally, physically, and psychologically or emotionally abused several extremely vulnerable students with [XXX], whose parents trusted that their children would be taken care of at school only to have that trust violated in the most reprehensible way. The Member also bullied and humiliated his colleagues and created a poisonous work environment in which at least one of his EAs feared him and was anxious about working with him. Not only did the Member disregard the well-being of his students and his colleagues, but he actively engaged in abusive behaviour, which both the Board and the CAS found to pose a risk of harm to his students.

Through his conduct, the Member has forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching Certificate in Ontario. He has repeatedly disregarded his professional obligations, and he has put at risk the physical and emotional safety of those entrusted to his care. Revocation, in this case, is proportionate to the Member’s misconduct.

Finally, the Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name is appropriate in the circumstances, given the serious nature of the Member’s conduct. Publication with name will inform and reassure the public and the profession that such conduct will not be tolerated. It also ensures transparency in the discipline process and it serves as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

The Committee is satisfied that the finding and penalty protect the public interest and uphold the standards of the teaching profession.

Dated: June 29, 2015

Christine Bellini, OCT, Chair Chair, Discipline Panel

Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Wes Vickers, OCT Member, Discipline Panel