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
Caroline Anne Graham, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Marie-Claude Yaacov, Chair
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Caroline Zayid,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
CAROLINE ANNE GRAHAM ) Mandy Wojcik,
(CERTIFICATE #120848) ) Goldblatt Partners LLP,
) for Caroline Anne Graham )
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: September 30, 2015
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on September 30, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated December 18, 2013 (Exhibit 1) was served on Caroline Anne Graham (the “Member”), requesting her presence on January 9, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for September 30, 2015.
The Member was not in attendance for the hearing but did have 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 Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) she released or disclosed information about a student to a person other than the student or, if the student is a minor, the student’s parent or guardian, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(6);
(e) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264 thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(f) 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
(g) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)
At the hearing on September 30, 2015, Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
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 the following:
Caroline Anne Graham 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 Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).
At all material times, Students 1, 2, 3, and 4 were grade [XXX] and [XXX] students at the School.
2010-2011 Academic Year:
In or about the fall of 2010, the Member sent Student 1, a young male student in her class, back to his seat. According to a parent volunteer in the room at the time, the Member sighed and said, “he’s Chinese or whatever”, which suggested to the parent that was the reason the child did not understand what she was trying to communicate to him. The Member denies that she intended to make any racist or derogatory comment about the student or his ethnic origin.
During the week of October 11, 2010, the Member had a dispute with a parent. The Member went to her Vice-Principal to discuss what had occurred and during the course of the conversation said, “I hope he doesn’t come into my class with a bow and arrow”. The parent was of Aboriginal origin. The Member recognizes that the comment was inappropriate and that she was reactive in her conversation with the Vice-Principal.
Board administrators investigated the above incidents and concluded that the Member made inappropriate comments about Student 1 in conversation with another child’s parent, and made an inappropriate and racial comment to the Vice-Principal about a student’s parent. She was given a Letter of Discipline and required to participate in Equity and Human Rights training. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a copy of the Letter of Discipline dated November 8, 2010, setting out the Board’s concerns.
On or about Saturday January 29, 2011, the parent of a student in the Member’s class telephoned the Member to discuss the fact that her [XXX] year old son had been picked on by two other students at the School the previous day. The Member told the parent that it was not the first time the two boys had picked on others. The Member said that one of the two boys was actually a nice child that liked to be with the “in crowd”, while the other child regularly picked on three smaller, younger children, including the parent’s child.
Following a complaint from the parent, administrators concluded that the Member made inappropriate, derogatory comments about one child, to the parent of another child. The Member was suspended without pay for one day and was required to review the Ethical Standards of the Teaching Profession with her Principal. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “C” is a copy of the Letter of Discipline to the Member dated Tuesday April 5, 2011, setting out the Board’s concerns, including the fact that the Member had been previously cautioned for providing information about a student to parents of another student.
2011-2012 Academic Year:
On February 27, 2012, a group of Grade [XXX] male students were in the school playground at recess. The Member directed the students to play in another area as they were blocking other students from entering the playground. According to the students, the Member screamed at them to “shut up” when they protested. The Member has no recollection of yelling at the students. She recalls, however, being frustrated with the students, and acknowledges that it is possible that she told the students to “shut up” in frustration.
Following a complaint from parents, the Principal investigated the incident and concluded that the Member used a tone of voice described by the students as “yelling”, and she told them to “shut up”. The Principal met with the Member on March 23, 2012, at which time the Member told him she did not recall telling the students to “shut up”. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “D” is a copy of the Letter of Expectation concerning this incident, dated March 29, 2012.
On June 13, 2012, a group of Grade [XXX] and [XXX] students complained that the Member called them “stupid”. The Member recalls being frustrated with three female students and telling them to stop being or acting like “silly children”. Later in the day, when the Member was told by a student that she was alleged to have called the class stupid, she engaged in conversation with the students, in front of their teachers, and denied that she used that word. Her colleagues described the Member staring face-to-face at the children as she spoke.
Following the Principal’s investigation, the Member was given a Letter of Discipline and suspended without pay for five days. In addition, she was required to attend anger management counselling and to view some demonstration classes. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “E” is a copy of the Letter of Discipline concerning this incident, dated June 28, 2012.
The Member attended two demonstration classes on October 29, 2012, and met with the Principal for a debriefing session. The Member attended four counselling sessions in October and November, 2012.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted 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(5), 1(6), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] 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 Admitted 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 her counsel and counsel for the College 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 Admitted Facts and circumstances and the 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 Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, 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(6), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(6), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraph 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member released or disclosed information about a student to a person other than the student or, if the student is a minor, the student’s parent or guardian, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(6).
Paragraphs 4, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264 thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18) [unprofessional].
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), 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 Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter, or on a date to be arranged by the Member within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, 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, and the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations is to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled;
(a) prior to returning to any teaching position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and professional boundaries, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course provider approved by the Registrar, 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;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course provider will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(iii) the course shall be completed no more than three months before commencing or returning to a Teaching Position;
(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) the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
- direct that there be publication of the finding 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 ON PUBLICATION
Submissions of College Counsel
College Counsel submitted that publication with the name of the Member is warranted in this case, and that it is an important aspect of the penalty. It serves important specific and general deterrent purposes as it sends a message to the Member and to the profession as a whole that the College will not tolerate the type of treatment of students in which the Member engaged.
College Counsel submitted that the Member was involved with five incidents which occurred over two school years. Although the incidents, when viewed in isolation, might be at the low end of the spectrum of professional misconduct, due to the repeated nature of the Member’s conduct, in spite of warnings from the Board, the Member’s conduct must be viewed more seriously.
College Counsel stated that publication with name serves to emphasize to members of the profession that they will be held accountable for their conduct, and ensures the transparency of the discipline process.
College Counsel referred the Committee to two cases involving inappropriate language and yelling at students: Ontario College of Teachers v. Bryant, 2014 LNONCTD 80 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Ashford-Smith, 2014 LNONCTD 73. College Counsel urged the Committee to rely on these cases where the members’ conduct was less serious than that of the Member and publication with name was still ordered.
Submissions of Member’s Counsel
Counsel for the Member submitted that publication with the name of the Member is not warranted in this case and noted that the Committee has the discretion to order publication with or without the name of the Member.
Counsel for the Member submitted that all objectives of the penalty would still be met without publishing the Member’s name in the College’s official publication. Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member had been teaching for over 50 years and that this was her first appearance before the College. Counsel for the Member further submitted that the incidents in question were at the low end of the spectrum of incidents that come before the College. Counsel for the Member submitted that they were minor incidents which occurred over the course of two years and which came at the end of the Member’s teaching career.
Lastly, Counsel for the Member distinguished the cases submitted by College Counsel on the basis that the conduct in those cases was more serious than that of the Member.
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 finding and order of the Committee in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, with 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 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 inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by her 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 on classroom management and professional boundaries will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will assist her in communicating with students in an appropriate and sensitive manner, in the event of her return to teaching.
The Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted. The Member’s inappropriate conduct recurred despite disciplinary measures imposed by the Board.
The Committee finds that publication with the name of the Member is justified in this case because of the Member’s use of inappropriate language and the racist nature of some of her remarks and the breach of confidentiality respecting student information. Moreover, publication with name will signal to members that conduct of this nature is taken seriously by the College. The Committee notes that the Member missed an opportunity to instill in her young, impressionable students values which are free of prejudice.
Furthermore, publication with the Member’s name ensures the transparency of the discipline process and reassures the public that the College acts decisively and does not shield its members when matters of this nature are brought to its attention.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: October 7, 2015
Marie-Claude Yaacov
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel