Ontario College of Teachers v Hockin, 2015 ONOCT 38

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Hockin, 2015 ONOCT 38

Date: 2015-02-27

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

Clinton Jeffery Hockin, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Monique Lapalme Arseneault, Chair

Irene Dembek, OCT

Wes Vickers, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,

) Law Clerk

– and – )

CLINTON JEFFERY HOCKIN ) Vanora Simpson,

(CERTIFICATE #420510) ) Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP ) for Clinton Jeffery Hockin

) Marc Spector,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: February 20, 2015

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on February 20, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated June 11, 2014 was served on Clinton Jeffery Hockin (the “Member”), requesting his presence on July 3, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for February 20, 2015.

The Member was in attendance for the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

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

IT IS ALLEGED that Clinton Jeffery Hockin is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teacher’s Act, 1996 (the Act”) in that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) he abused a student or students 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 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);

(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).

At the hearing of this matter on February 20, 2015, Counsel for the College requested the withdrawal of allegation (e) above, namely subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Committee granted this request, and the allegation was subsequently withdrawn.

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:

1. At all material times, Clinton Jeffery Hockin 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 with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (“the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. During the 2012-2013 academic year, the Member taught a core Grade [XXX] class at the School. He taught his core students, ages [XXX], all subjects with the exception of [XXX].

Inappropriate Comments:

4. On more than one occasion, the Member used the words “damn” or “darn”, and “hell” in the classroom, although “hell” was not used as an expletive. While talking with a colleague, he said “I work my ass off” in an audible fashion such that he was overheard by many of his students. The Member acknowledges that he should have taken greater care to ensure this latter conversation was not overheard by students.

5. On another occasion Student No. 1, a male student new to the School, urinated into a water bottle during lunch time. He did so, on a dare from other students. The Member stated to a group of students he was standing near, “I wonder if he has a pee plan” and suggested that he would not like to stand near that student. Student No. 1 reacted nervously while the group of students who overheard the Member’s comments laughed. An Educational Assistant who was nearby overheard the Member’s comments and observed the nervous reaction of Student No. 1 while the others students were laughing.

6. The Member gave some of his students nicknames in what he intended to be a jocular or light-hearted manner. While the nicknames of the male students were often variants of their first or last names, and sometimes used to differentiate between two students with the same first name, the nicknames he gave to some of his female students included “Mother” and “Grumpy”. He also referred to one female student as having “blonde moments”. The female students did not appreciate these nicknames because they felt they were demeaning and offensive.

Inappropriate Behaviour:

7. Student No. 2, a female student in the Member’s core Grade [XXX] class, was talking during class. The Member approached Student No. 2 and stated words to the effect of, “I am done with this,” and, in a joking manner, took a large quantity of masking tape and wrapped it around her forehead, head and hands. Student No. 2 felt awkward.

8. The Member immediately recognized his actions were inappropriate and attempted to assist Student No. 2 in removing all of the tape, which took a long time. When trying to remove it from her hair, some of Student No. 2’s hair was pulled out and it hurt. The Member apologized to Student No. 2.

9. The Member occasionally played music on his iPhone during class time. On one occasion, the Member played the uncensored version of the song “Thrift Shop”. The song contains profanity and inappropriate lyrics, which some students found offensive. He stopped the song from playing when the problematic lyrics were brought to his attention. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “B” is a copy of the lyrics to the song “Thrift Shop”.

Inappropriate Disclosures:

10. On one occasion when a group of female students from his core Grade [XXX] class came to school in shorts that appeared to be in violation of the dress code, the Member used a personal anecdote which he intended to explain to the class why students should dress appropriately. He told his students about an incident that occurred when he was a teacher for a different board. He told the class he had been removed from his classroom by police, due to an allegation of having had an inappropriate relationship with a female student. His disclosure made some of the female students feel uncomfortable and they did not understand the connection between their attire and the Member’s personal experience. The Member acknowledges it was unwise of him to disclose this personal incident to his class.

11. During a [XXX] class, a male student asked the Member a question about condoms. The question bore no relation to the [XXX] lesson taught by the Member. The Member therefore delayed the discussion until [XXX] class. Then, the Member provided a detailed explanation to the entire class about the importance of wearing condoms, the types of condoms to be used, and how to buy them. He told the class about a Grade [XXX] student who became pregnant to illustrate the fact that condoms are not 100% effective. At least three female students left the class because the discussion made them feel uncomfortable, although the Member was not aware of that at the time. The male students were not disturbed by the conversation.

12. Following the Board’s investigation and conclusions, the Superintendent of Education provided the Member with two letters dated June 26, 2013. The Member was suspended for three (3) days without pay at the start of the 2013-2014 academic year and transferred to another school of the Board.

GUILTY PLEA

13. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-12 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

14. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty 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(18 – unprofessional), 1(19).

15. 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that depending on the penalty ordered by the Discipline Committee, the decision of the Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, may be published in the official publication of the College;

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

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

16. 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 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(18 – unprofessional) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 12 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged, and the Committee finds, that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(18 – unprofessional) and 1(19).

The Committee accepts the Member’s guilty plea, and finds that the facts contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea amount to professional misconduct as pleaded to by the Member.

On more than one occasion during the 2012-2013 academic year, the Member made numerous inappropriate comments in front of several young students. The Member acknowledges that he should have taken greater care to ensure that at least one conversation, in which he used mild profanity intended to only be heard by a colleague, was not overheard by his students. The Committee agrees. Whether the comments were not intended to be overheard by his students is irrelevant. Members of the teaching profession must always be mindful of the language they choose to use in the presence of students or anywhere in a school setting.

During the same academic year, the Member unilaterally gave his students nicknames which included the names “Mother” and “Grumpy” for some of his female students. The Committee finds that the Member’s behaviour in this regard was insensitive and inappropriate. Although the Member thought the nicknames were light-hearted in nature, he did not take into account the fact that his students may have found the nicknames demeaning or offensive. More importantly, the Member ought to have known that by calling his students by names other than their given names, he crossed the line in regards to student/teacher boundaries.

The Committee was concerned by the Member’s conduct towards Student No. 2. The Member displayed an extreme lack of judgment when he wrapped Student No. 2’s head and hands in masking tape and subsequently pulled some of her hair out when he attempted to remove it. Although the Member eventually realized that his actions were inappropriate, the Committee finds that the Member’s inability to determine beforehand that this type of behaviour was inappropriate demonstrated a lack of judgment and was unprofessional.

The Committee was also concerned with the Member’s inability to ensure that the music he played in his classroom had lyrics that were suitable and appropriate for his young students. As in previous incidents, the Member tried to correct his behaviour once he was made aware that it was inappropriate. However, he was too late in doing so and as a result, his students were subjected to offensive lyrical content.

Furthermore, the Member disclosed personal information to his class about being accused of having had an inappropriate relationship with a female student and having been removed from the school by police. He also advised his class that condoms were not 100% effective and used a Grade [XXX] student who became pregnant as an example of this. His comments made some female students uncomfortable. The Committee finds the Member’s conduct unprofessional. Members of this profession must have a clear understanding of what constitutes appropriate discussion with their students. Classroom discussions should not have a negative impact on students, especially young students who are easily influenced.

The incidents above clearly demonstrate the Member’s lack of good judgment. Even if the Member, in some instances, recognized the inappropriateness of his behaviour and attempted to fix the situation, the Committee is concerned that he repeatedly made poor decisions. Communication is essential when teaching students, especially young students. As a teacher, the Member must always prioritize the best interests of his students. The Member’s conduct demonstrates that he did not do so. Such poor judgment can be detrimental to his students.

In light of the Member’s behaviour, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct.

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:

1. 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”);

2. 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) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, within 90 days of the date of this Order, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding adolescent development and professional boundaries with students;

(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 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.

3. 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 asks the Committee to direct that the Member receive a reprimand, complete a course on adolescent development and professional boundaries with students, and publish the findings, in the official publication of the College. Counsel indicated that these penalties satisfy the principles of general and specific deterrence, serve to rehabilitate the Member and protect the public interest.

Counsel for the College submitted that publication with the name of the Member informs both the profession and the public that the College will not shield the names of members who have been found guilty of professional misconduct. Publication with name also addresses the need for transparency.

Counsel for the College further submitted that publication with the Member’s name serves as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to the profession. As a general deterrent, publication with name informs the public and the profession that the Member has been sanctioned by the Committee.

Submissions of Member’s Counsel

Counsel for the Member submitted that publication with the Member’s name is not warranted in this case. Member’s Counsel indicated that the fact that the decision is published on the College’s Register satisfies the need for transparency.

Member’s Counsel stated there is no need for specific deterrence as the Member has acknowledged his mistakes, has taken steps towards rehabilitation and has successfully integrated into a new school setting, without further incidents. Publishing the Member’s name risks poisoning the beneficial relationship with the Member’s colleagues. Member’s Counsel submitted Reference Materials of Clinton Jeffery Hockin (Exhibit 4), which included reference letters, a teacher performance appraisal and a supervisor’s letter demonstrating the Member’s current teaching practice.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. 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.

2. 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) the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, within 90 days of the date of this Order, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding adolescent development and professional boundaries with students;

(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 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.

4. 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 by his peers will act as a specific deterrent to the Member. It will reinforce to the Member the inappropriate nature of his actions and the importance of maintaining appropriate student/teacher boundaries.

The course of instruction in adolescent development and professional boundaries with students will serve to clarify for the Member why his conduct was unprofessional. The course will also reinforce to the Member the need to maintain appropriate boundaries with students. The successful completion of this course will assist the Member in his daily practice and effective communication with students.

The Member engaged in a pattern of misconduct over the period of one school year. This misconduct included disregard towards female students by making demeaning and offensive comments, sharing with students inappropriate personal information, binding a student with masking tape, playing songs with inappropriate lyrics, calling students names and making reference to sexual orientation, and making inappropriate comments to colleagues that could be heard by students. The Committee found this continued misconduct to be very serious.

The Committee ordered publication with the name of the Member in the official publication of the College in light of the repeated, serious misconduct displayed by the Member. Publication, with name, acts as specific deterrent to the Member and as a general deterrent to the teaching profession. It is important to inform the public and the teaching profession that this type of conduct is not tolerated and will be dealt with accordingly.

Publication of the findings and order of the Committee, in summary form, with the name of the Member, in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession serves as a specific deterrent and encourages the Member not to repeat his actions. It serves as a general deterrent to all members of the profession by reminding them of the level of professionalism that is expected of teachers and that this type of behaviour will warrant publication. Publication with name serves the public interest by ensuring transparency in the discipline process.

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

Date: February 27, 2015

Monique Lapalme Arseneault, Chair

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Irene Dembek, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Wes Vickers, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel