Ontario College of Teachers v Georgiopoulos, 2015 ONOCT 26

Ontario College of Teachers v Georgiopoulos 2015 ONOCT 26

Date: 2015-02-05

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 Vasilios Georgiopoulos, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Stefanie Achkewich, OCT, Chair

Monique Lapalme Arseneault

Shanlee Linton, OCT

BETWEEN: ) David Leonard,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,

) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Beverley Hodsdon,

) Law Clerk

-and- )

VASILIOS GEORGIOPOULOS ) Patricia D’Heureux,

(CERTIFICATE # 515861) ) Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre

) Cornish LLP,

) for Vasilios Georgiopoulos )

) Marc Spector,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,

) Independent Legal Counsel

) Heard: January 29, 2015

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on January 29, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated February 9, 2012 was served on Vasilios Georgiopoulos (the “Member”), requesting his presence on February 22, 2012 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for January 29, 2015.

The Member was in attendance for the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing, dated February 9, 2012 are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Vasilios Georgiopoulos is guilty of professional misconduct and/or incompetence as defined in subsections 30(2) and 30(3) 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);

(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 Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, including section 264 (1) (c) or the regulations made thereunder, 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);

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

(h) he displayed in his 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 he is unfit to continue to carry out his professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the Member under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

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:

At all material times, Vasilios Georgiopoulos was 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.
The Member was employed by the Simcoe County District School Board and at all material times was an [XXX] Teacher at the [XXX] School in Barrie, Ontario and at the [XXX] School in [XXX], Ontario.
Student #1 was a male student of the [XXX] School.
On or about June 23, 2010, while teaching at the [XXX] School, the Member unlocked the classroom door for Student #1 and another student who were delivering hotdogs to the classroom. Student #1 inadvertently dropped the hotdogs. When Student #1 bent down to pick up the hotdogs, the Member made physical contact with Student #1’s arm, which was in a [XXX], that hurt the student.
On or about June 23, 2010, while assigned as an [XXX] Teacher to a Grade [XXX] class, the Member responded to students who were being disruptive to the Member, and other students who were not following his directions in class, by sending them into the hallway without instructing them to go to the office and without notifying the office of their pending arrival.
Student #2 was a male student at the [XXX] School.
On or about October 14, 2010, the Member was assigned as an [XXX] Teacher to a Grade [XXX] class at [XXX] School. The Member attended the school office and received instructions on the assignment. The Member could not immediately locate the [XXX] Teacher’s Handbook on his own but proceeded to teach the class without having read it.
The Member did not permit Student #2 to go to the washroom in a timely manner when Student #2 asked for permission. Student# 2 was [XXX]. If called to testify, Student #2 will say that he informed the Member that he was [XXX]. The Member, if called to testify, will deny this.
Later this same day, when Student #2 had difficulty closing his umbrella, the Member grabbed Student #2’s umbrella and in attempting to close the umbrella, broke it.
The Member called Student #2 a “vandal”.
The Member drank Student #2’s pop, which was labelled as such, despite being advised by Student #2 and other students in the class that the pop was Student #2’s emergency pop because he was [XXX].
The Member was requested by the Board on July 8, 2010 and on December 17, 2010 to complete a course in classroom management. The Member completed this course on February 11, 2011.
On December 17, 2010 the Member was suspended from the [XXX] List. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a copy of the letter dated December 17, 2010 from the Board.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

By this document the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 through 13 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(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Member hereby admits the allegation of incompetence in that he has displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that his Certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations, as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act.
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 the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct and incompetence;

(e) 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;

(f) he understands that any agreement between Counsel for the College and himself with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) 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 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 and circumstances, 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(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Committee further finds the Member to be incompetent as defined in section 30(3) of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member acknowledged that the Uncontested Facts referred to above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. The Committee accepted the Member’s plea and the facts contained in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest.

The Member was an [XXX] Teacher at [XXX] School. On or about June 23, 2010, the Member made physical contact with Student #1 who inadvertently dropped hotdogs in his classroom. The student was hurt during the incident as his arm was in a [XXX] at the time.

On the same day, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the teaching profession by sending disruptive Grade [XXX] students into the hallway without instructing them to go to the office and without notifying the office of their pending arrival.

The Member repeated similar behaviour while [XXX] teaching at [XXX] School in October 2010.

On or about October 14, 2010, the Member attended at the office of [XXX] School and was given instructions on his teaching assignment. The teaching assignment included reading the [XXX] Teacher’s Handbook. The Member was unable to immediately locate the handbook on his own and proceeded to teach the Grade [XXX] class to which he was assigned, without having read the handbook.

While teaching, the Member refused to allow Student #2, a [XXX], to go to the washroom. The Member denies having been told Student #2 was [XXX]. That same day, the Member broke Student #2’s umbrella while attempting to close it and verbally abused Student #2 by calling him a “vandal”. He then drank Student #2’s emergency pop despite the drink being labelled as Student #2’s and being advised by other students that the pop belonged to Student #2 for [XXX] purposes.

On or about December 17, 2010, the Member was suspended from the [XXX] List and was requested by the Board to complete a course in classroom management.

The Committee finds the Member’s repeated conduct to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The Member had been advised by the Board on July 8, 2010 to complete a classroom management course, yet his behaviour continued at another school approximately three months later. As a result of his behaviour at [XXX] School, a second request was made by the Board for the Member to complete a course in classroom management. The Member ultimately completed the course on February 11, 2011.

The Committee finds that the Member demonstrated a lack of judgment and professionalism. The Member’s specific disregard for the medical and emotional welfare of Student #2 is shocking and unprofessional. He did not exercise the appropriate and professional boundaries that are mandatory when communicating with students. The Member’s disregard for the welfare of his students clearly demonstrates his incompetence as defined in section 30(3) of the Act.

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(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Committee further finds the Member to be incompetent as defined in section 30(3) of the Act.

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 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 60 days of the date of the Committee’s Order, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management;

(b) within 30 days of his 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 Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL AND MEMBER’S COUNSEL

Counsel for the College submitted that the Joint Submission on Penalty, which asks the Committee to direct that the Member receive a reprimand, complete a course on anger management and that there be publication of the Member’s name 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 asked the Committee to consider the mitigating factors in this matter which include the Member completing a course on classroom management as directed by his Board and entering a plea of no contest. By entering a plea of no contest, the Member spared the students from testifying in what could have been a lengthy hearing.

Member’s Counsel agreed with College Counsel that the proposed penalty fell within the proper range for conduct of this nature.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

The Member is directed to 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.
In accordance with section 30(3) of the Act, 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:

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

(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.

The reprimand of the Member by his peers in respect of his inappropriate conduct serves to emphasize the necessity to maintain appropriate professional standards. It further reminds the Member to uphold the standards of the profession and to not engage in conduct unbecoming a member. The fact that the reprimand will be recorded on the Register also serves as a specific deterrent to the Member.

The course on anger management will assist in the process of remediation and rehabilitation of the Member. The course will also address the misconduct of the Member and hopefully improve his professional judgment and decision making to avoid such errors in judgment in the future.

Publication with name has been agreed to by the Member and, in these circumstances, is warranted and appropriate. Publication with name satisfies the transparency component of the discipline process. It also provides both a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to the profession while advising and serving the public interest.

As a general deterrent, the public and the teaching profession will take note of the response of the College in matters such as this. Publication with name is an appropriate penalty in that it informs the profession that members are expected to act professionally with students at all times.

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.

Date: February 5, 2015

Stefanie Achkewich, OCT, Chair

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Monique Lapalme Arseneault

Member, Discipline Panel

Shanlee Linton, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel```