Ontario College of Teachers v. Lowrie, 2015 ONOCT 53

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Lowrie, 2015 ONOCT 53

Date: 2015-04-23

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

John William Lowrie, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Wes Vickers, OCT, Chair

Stefanie Achkewich, OCT

Robert Gagné

BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Beverley Hodsdon,

) Law Clerk

– and – )

JOHN WILLIAM LOWRIE ) John William Lowrie was not

(CERTIFICATE #235824) ) present and did not have legal ) representation

) Marc Spector,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: April 15 and 16, 2015

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION, AND ORDERS

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 15, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated September 18, 2013 was served on John William Lowrie

(the “Member”), requesting his attendance before the Committee on November 1, 2013 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for April 15, 2015. The hearing continued on April 16, 2015.

The Member was not in attendance for the hearing and he did not have legal representation.

Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Beverley Hodsdon, sworn April 14, 2015 (Exhibit 2) to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty being sought. The Member was served with the Notice of Hearing and a disclosure brief on October 24, 2014. In this affidavit, Ms. Hodsdon, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, provides proof of service of all required documents. Despite numerous attempts to notify the Member of the allegations against him and the details of the hearing, the Member advised the College that he was not a member of the College and that he had no intention of becoming a member in his lifetime, and he refused to accept service. The Member was ultimately served personally at his last known address with the College, and he received the Notice of Hearing and the disclosure brief. The Member was notified that he is facing allegations of professional misconduct at the College and that the matter is proceeding. He has chosen not to respond.

In light of this affidavit, the Committee is satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and was made aware of the time and date of the hearing and the penalty being sought. The Committee therefore began to hear the matter in the absence of the Member.

OVERVIEW

This discipline hearing arose as a result of three alleged incidents involving the Member during

the 2011-2012 academic year, while he was a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Richmond Hill, Ontario.

First, the Member is alleged to have failed to comply with appropriate school procedures regarding a proposed school trip and to have disregarded his principal’s express instructions with regard to this proposed trip (the “School Trip Incident”). Second, the Member is alleged to have made inappropriate comments to students, which including telling students to “shut up” and calling students “losers” (the “Inappropriate Comments Incident”). Third, the Member is alleged to have made inappropriate and threatening comments about his principal, in the presence of staff and students (the “Threat Incident”). All of the alleged incidents reflect a common theme of insubordination and unprofessional conduct on the part of the Member.

The Committee’s task is to determine whether the facts giving rise to the allegations, set out below, 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 John William Lowrie 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to

Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) 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);

(e) 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

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

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. John William Lowrie is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

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

3. Between September and December 2011, the Member:

(a) failed to comply with the appropriate school procedures regarding school or trips:

(b) told students about a school trip prior to approval by the Board;

(c) failed to comply with the Principal’s instructions not to tell students about the school trip prior to approval by the Board.

4. In and around January 2012, the Member made inappropriate comments to students, including but not limited to:

(a) told a student and/or students to “shut up” in class;

(b) called students “losers” if they were not prepared with appropriate attire for [XXX] class.

5. On or about February 24, 2012, the Member made inappropriate comments about the Principal, including but not limited to:

(a) said “he was going to lose it” on the Principal and if he ever had to see the Principal anywhere else, he would “beat the crap out of him”;

(b) gestured in an agitated and upset manner with his arms in the air;

(c) used disrespectful and/or aggressive language about the Principal in the presence of staff and/or students;

(d) suggested he felt like striking or intended to hit the Principal.

On April 15, 2015, the College requested that allegation (c) contained in the Notice of Hearing dated September 18, 2013 be withdrawn. The Committee accepted the request and withdrew the allegation.

MEMBER’S PLEA

As the Member was not present or represented by counsel, 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 the following four witnesses to testify with respect to their knowledge of the Member’s conduct at the time of the events in question: Mr. Daniel Wu, Ms. Helen Edward-Tsivaras, Ms. Kelly Redpath, and Ms. Karen Friedman.

Testimony of Mr. Daniel Wu

Mr. Wu is currently the superintendent of schools with the Board. Prior to this position, he worked as a teacher for over a decade, and also served as a vice-principal and a principal. At the time of the events in question, he was the principal of the School. Mr. Wu had six years of prior experience as a principal before taking on the role of principal at the School in September 2009.

Principal Wu testified that when the Member began first began working as a teacher at the School, the superintendent at the time informed him that the Member had had some difficulties at his previous school. Principal Wu indicated that he did not treat the Member any differently as a result of this information, as he believed that everyone was entitled to a fresh start. The Member’s specialty was [XXX], so Principal Wu assigned him accordingly.

Principal Wu described the three separate incidents outlined in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the Notice of Hearing. The School Trip Incident occurred during the Fall 2011 semester, when the Member failed to comply with appropriate school procedures regarding school trips and failed to comply with Principal Wu’s instructions not to tell students about a school trip before receiving Board approval. The Inappropriate Comments Incident occurred in January 2012 when the Member made inappropriate comments to students, which included telling students to “shut up” and calling students “losers”. The Threat Incident occurred on February 24, 2012, when the Member made threatening comments about the principal, in the presence of staff and students.

The School Trip Incident

Principal Wu testified that the Member wanted to take his [XXX] to a three-day [XXX] festival in [XXX], but that he had not properly completed his application form. Among other things, the

Member did not include sufficient details regarding student supervision and he only selected students from the [XXX] program to attend the trip, which was not inclusive. Principal Wu, accordingly, told the Member that he was not in support of the trip. He further explained to the Member that he would bring the proposed trip to the attention of the Board for their approval, but he asked the Member not to share any details of the trip with students before the trip was approved. The Member was upset that he did not receive approval but agreed that he would not tell students about the trip. The Board ultimately did not approve of the trip.

The Board subsequently contacted Principal Wu and indicated that it had received complaints from parents who believed that the Board had canceled the trip. The principal had to then speak to parents to inform them that the trip had been proposed but was never approved. Principal Wu also met with the Member on December 2, 2011 to discuss the issue, at which point the Member acknowledged that he had told his students about the trip. Principal Wu also met with at least eight students from the Member’s [XXX], who said that the Member had told them about the trip and had encouraged them to have their parents contact the Board to complain about its “cancellation”.

Principal Wu further testified that this was not the Member’s first incident in which he did not follow proper procedure relating to a school trip. The principal had reprimanded the Member in 2010 with respect to a similar incident.

The Inappropriate Comments Incident

Principal Wu testified that the Member had told students to “shut up” in January 2012. The principal was first apprised of this incident when three or four students reported this to him. The students were shocked and upset. As a result, Principal Wu testified that he conducted an investigation. He spoke to four or five other students in the class who all confirmed what the Member had said. He also met with the Member and his union representative on January 25, 2012 to discuss the issue. According to the principal, the Member did not recall using the words “shut up” but he also did not recall not using them. Principal Wu inferred from this comment that the Member did tell students to shut up. The principal further noted that the Member had told him that he was frustrated with his class, and he added that the Member’s physical demeanor during the meeting was aggressive.

In addition, Principal Wu testified that a parent complained to him that the Member had called her child a “loser” in [XXX] class, because the student was not prepared to participate in the activity. When the principal met with the Member to discuss this incident, the Member admitted to having used the word “loser” but he attempted to contextualize it by explaining that the students were losers because they did not get to participate in the [XXX]class. Principal Wu described the Member’s demeanor as very defensive when they discussed this incident.

Principal Wu further testified that this was not the first incident in which the Member had directed inappropriate language towards students. On June 15, 2010, the principal had given the Member a written reprimand following a reported incident in which the Member had called students “retards, jackass, and idiot”. According to Principal Wu, the Member admitted to making those comments in June 2010, but also tried to contextualize and downplay them when he met with the principal about that issue.

The principal also described another incident in which the Member had told a [XXX] student of his to shut up, and the principal testified that he had told the Member, on several occasions, that it was inappropriate to use that language in class or at all. It was clear to the principal, based on the Member’s body language, that the Member became angry with him when the principal raised these concerns.

Principal Wu further testified that he had given the Member another written reprimand on February 14, 2012 as a result of these incidents involving inappropriate language. The reprimand indicated that this was a recurring issue and it imposed a one-day suspension without pay as a sanction. Principal Wu testified that the Member was extremely agitated and angry when he received this reprimand. He noted that he had not even finished reading the reprimand to the Member when the Member stood up, called the entire process “bull crap” in a loud voice, and stormed out of the principal’s office.

The Threat Incident

The Threat Incident arose on February 24, 2012. There was a snow day on this date due to inclement weather. Principal Wu testified that, as a result of lower student attendance, the Member took it upon himself to combine classes such that a supply teacher taught [XXX] to his students. The principal confronted the Member when he discovered that the classes had been combined without his authorization, and the Member became upset and uttered something under his breath to the effect of “I guess you’re going to write about this as well”. Principal Wu subsequently announced over the PA system that students should to return to their regular classes.

Principal Wu testified that, on the same day when students broke for lunch, he overheard a student in the hallway saying that the Member was going to “beat the shit out of Mr. Wu”. The principal followed up on this issue and spoke with Ms. Edward-Tsivaras, who was a teacher at the School and a union steward. Ms. Edward-Tsivaras indicated that she had an interaction with the Member that day where he said something to the effect of, if he saw the principal, he would beat him up or kill him.

Following this incident, Principal Wu contacted his superintendent to share the incident with her. He also conducted an investigation to determine what was actually said or done by the Member. To this end, the principal reviewed surveillance footage where he saw the Member flailing his arms in the air and looking flustered near the copy room, as Ms. Edward-Tsivaras had told him. He also interviewed four students, but none of them provided any useful information about the incident. Principal Wu testified that he did not follow up with the Member about this incident, but he was aware that the superintendent was going to conduct an investigation. He did not have any further interactions with the Member following this incident.

Testimony of Ms. Helen Edward-Tsivaras

Ms. Edward-Tsivaras began her teaching career in 2003. She has worked as an intermediate science teacher. She has also worked as a Special Education Resource Teacher (“SERT”). During the 2011-2012 academic year, she was the SERT and the literacy coach at the School. She was also the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (“ETFO”) steward at the School. She first met the Member in 2010 at the School.

The Threat Incident

Ms. Edward-Tsivaras described what she had observed with regard to the Threat Incident on February 24, 2012. She testified that she had been making photocopies in the copy room at the School and that, as she was leaving, the Member passed her in an agitated state and said something to the effect of “I’m going to fucking kill Daniel Wu” or “I’m going to fucking beat the crap out of Daniel Wu”. She testified that this had occurred at the recess bell when there were

many students in the hallways.

Ms. Edward-Tsivaras further explained that she tried to calm the Member down, but he was very agitated and his hands were shaking in the air. He had made these comments in a very loud voice. She added that she had felt shocked by this incident as she had never experienced a situation like it before. She was concerned that the Member had been swearing in a public setting with students present and that he was so agitated. She further noted that she had concerns for Principal Wu’s safety given the threatening nature of the Member’s outburst.

Ms. Edward-Tsivaras testified that she was approached by Principal Wu about this incident. The principal asked her if he should be concerned, and she described what she had heard the Member say about the principal. She also testified that Principal Wu remained very calm when they spoke about the incident, but that she could tell that he was worried. She did not discuss this incident with anyone else on the day of the incident, although she had attempted to call her union officer several times to report the incident. Ms. Edward-Tsivaras further noted that she was not approached by any students about this incident, but that she had heard people talking about it around the school.

Ms. Edward-Tsivaras also testified that she had met with senior administrators, including Superintendent Friedman, about this incident after it occurred. She had described the incident to the administrators while it was still fresh in her mind.

Testimony of Ms. Kelly Redpath

Ms. Redpath is currently a secondary school principal on assignment at the Board office. Her role is to support Human Resources Services within the Board. She has been a centrally-appointed principal for six years and worked as a principal and a guidance counsellor before that. During the 2011-2012 academic year, her position with the Board involved providing support to the Labour Relations Division of Human Resources as well as to the superintendent of Human Resources. Ms. Redpath testified that she had met the Member once, as part of an investigation in February 2012, following a report from Principal Wu who had a list of concerns with respect to the Member.

The Threat Incident

Ms. Redpath testified about the Threat Incident with the help of her contemporaneous notes from the investigation on February 29, 2012. Ms. Redpath assisted Superintendent Friedman at the investigation, and they interviewed Ms. Edward-Tsivaras, the Member, and two students that they thought might have overheard the incident. Ms. Redpath testified that they began by interviewing Ms. Edward-Tsivaras, who described the incident in which the Member said that “he was going to lose it” on the principal and that he would “beat the crap out of him” if he saw him again. Ms. Redpath explained that Ms. Edward-Tsivaras had tried to calm the Member down and that she was concerned that there were many students in the hallways when the Member had his loud, threatening outburst.

Ms. Redpath further testified that she had interviewed the Member, whose union representative was present as well. According to Ms. Redpath, the Member had explained why he was frustrated following the incident in which the principal told him that he could not combine classes on February 24, 2012 and made an announcement on the PA system to that effect. The Member felt that Principal Wu’s actions were demeaning towards him.

Ms. Redpath further testified that the Member then described the Threat Incident, but said that, although he had thought about it, he would never do anything to harm anyone. He had also told her that it was unfortunate that students had witnessed the incident. The Member had expressed that he was generally frustrated with Principal Wu and that he felt like “smacking him” because the principal never left him alone. The Member had also denied saying anything to the effect that he was going to “beat the crap out of Mr. Wu”. Ms. Redpath noted that the Member was upset and frustrated during the meeting and that he had to take a break. When the meeting ended, the Member was sent home until further notice.

With respect to the student interviews, Ms. Redpath testified that neither of the two students that were interviewed had any information that was relevant to the investigation.

Ms. Redpath further testified that the Member was respectful during the meeting but that she could tell that he was frustrated with Principal Wu. She believed that, during the investigative meeting, the Member was admitting that he had said something inappropriate and threatening, based on his history with the principal and his frustration. She also indicated that her involvement with this matter did not continue beyond the investigative meetings on February 29, 2012. She was not involved with any of the decisions that followed the investigation and was unaware of what transpired after the investigation.

Testimony of Ms. Karen Friedman

Ms. Friedman began her career in education in 1979 and worked as a teacher for 15 years before becoming a vice-principal and a principal. She is currently a superintendent with the Board. She first met the Member in 2009 when a principal at his previous school had brought concerns about the Member’s conduct to her attention.

The Threat Incident

Superintendent Friedman testified that when Principal Wu contacted her with concerns about the Member’s conduct, she was struck by the fact that the principal felt threatened by the Member. She noted that Principal Wu was very experienced and that it was unusual for him to have such grave concerns about one of his teachers. According to Superintendent Friedman, Principal Wu was very concerned for his safety.

Superintendent Friedman described the investigation that took place on February 29, 2012, but she had some trouble recalling certain events. For instance, she could not recall many details of her interview with Ms. Edward-Tsivaras. She could, however, recall that the Member appeared to contradict himself during the investigative meeting. Although she testified that she was not completely certain about some of the specific details of the Threat Incident, her feeling based on her numerous interactions with the Member was that there was truth to the allegations that the Member lost his temper and made inappropriate and threatening comments about Principal Wu. Superintendent Friedman could not recall if the Member was sent home or if the principal told him to go back to his classroom, but she did recall that he was eventually sent home.

Superintendent Friedman also testified that she had consulted with Human Resources to determine whether or not the Member’s employment with the Board should be terminated. She indicated that they had reached a point where they felt that there was enough evidence and accumulated incidents to make the recommendation to the Board that the Member’s employment be terminated.

On March 23, 2012, Superintendent Friedman met with the Member, his union representative, and staff from the Board, and she reviewed and provided the Member with a letter outlining his actions which constituted professional misconduct. She also advised the Member that she was recommending the termination of his employment to the Board. She noted that the Member was in her presence when he signed the letter indicating that he had received it, but that he wrote that he was signing it “under severe duress”.

Superintendent Friedman also testified that the Member had demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that included a disregard for policy and procedure, and a tendency to be extremely confrontational and aggressive when administrators addressed his conduct with him. She noted that the Member was disrespectful and rude at meetings that she had with him. She further indicated that the Member had received several reprimands for various incidents that contributed to this pattern of unprofessional conduct.

Finally, Superintendent Friedman testified that, following the recommendation to the Board that the Member’s employment be terminated (but before his employment was actually terminated), the Member resigned for the purposes of retirement. She further testified that, by April 2012, the Member was no longer at the School and she had no further dealings with the Member following the meeting on March 23, 2012.

SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

College Counsel submitted that the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence before the Committee supports a finding of professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing. According to the College, all of the evidence suggests that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. College Counsel did, however, withdraw allegation (c) contained in the Notice of Hearing, given that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Member had abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally.

With respect to the School Trip Incident, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional in that he failed to follow the proper procedures and he disregarded his principal’s instructions to not discuss the proposed trip with his students prior to receiving Board approval. The incident described by Principal Wu was also not the first incident of its kind. College Counsel submitted that the Member had engaged in similar unprofessional conduct in June 2009 and again in June 2010.

With respect to the Inappropriate Comments Incident, College Counsel submitted that Principal Wu’s evidence established that the Member had verbally abused students. He used inappropriate language directed at students on two occasions in January 2012 and he had also engaged in similar conduct on previous occasions. The Member told students to “shut up” and he called students “losers”. According to College Counsel, the Member admitted to Principal Wu that he had directed that inappropriate language towards students. College Counsel further submitted that a letter of reprimand dated June 15, 2010 refers to an incident in which the Member called students “retards, jackass, and idiot”. College Counsel submitted that this evidence demonstrates the Member’s failure to maintain the standards of the profession, and it proves that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional and unbecoming a member of the teaching profession.

With respect to the Threat Incident, College Counsel submitted that the Committee heard evidence from all four witnesses that the Member made inappropriate and threatening comments about Principal Wu on February 24, 2012. College Counsel added that notes and e-mails were submitted as evidence to demonstrate that the Member threatened the principal. According to the College, Ms. Edward-Tsivaras testified that she heard the Member make the comments that gave rise to the Threat Incident. She also described his agitated demeanor and the fact that she had to try to calm him down. She further noted that the Member swore in the presence of students, that his tone was aggressive, and that she was concerned for the safety of Principal Wu. College Counsel further indicated that the Member admitted to Board administrators that he felt like smacking Principal Wu.

College Counsel also submitted that the Committee ought to favour Ms. Redpath’s evidence over that of Superintendent Friedman, where their evidence differed, because Ms. Redpath had taken contemporaneous notes of her investigative meeting with the Member whereas Superintendent Friedman did not, and her recollection was spotty with respect to certain aspects of the investigation.

College Counsel submitted that the evidence with respect to the Threat Incident establishes that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, that his behaviour was disgraceful, dishonorable and unprofessional, and that his conduct was unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. Finally, College Counsel indicated that the theme of this case was the Member’s repeated insubordination of his superiors.

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, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that John William Lowrie committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee finds that the there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of professional misconduct against the Member. The Committee recognizes that the College bears the burden of proof in this case, which is proof on a balance of probabilities, and that the Member’s decision not to attend the hearing or to seek legal representation has no bearing on the Committee’s determination of whether or not the College has proven its case. The Committee also notes that, although it received some evidence that relates to incidents involving the Member that occurred prior to those alleged in the Notice of Hearing, the Committee has not relied on the evidence relating to those prior incidents in arriving at its decision in this matter.

The School Trip Incident

The Committee heard testimony from Principal Wu that the Member had failed to follow the proper procedures when seeking approval for a three-day school trip to [XXX]. In addition, the Member disregarded the principal’s instructions to not discuss the proposed trip with students until it was approved. Nonetheless, as Principal Wu testified, the Member admitted to telling his students about the trip. The principal further noted that, through student interviews, he became aware that the Member had encouraged his students to have their parents complain to the Board about the trip’s “cancellation”.

The Committee finds that there was clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the Member did

not follow appropriate school procedures regarding school trips, and that he failed to comply with the principal’s instructions to not tell students about the school trip prior to Board approval. The Committee further finds that the Member’s conduct with regard to the School Trip Incident gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. Taken together, the Member’s failure to follow appropriate school procedures and his subsequent insubordinate behaviour was unprofessional.

The Inappropriate Comments Incident

The Committee heard evidence from Principal Wu that the Member directed inappropriate language towards students on several occasions. Principal Wu testified that the Member told students to “shut up” in class. Following student complaints that the Member had told them to “shut up”, Principal Wu investigated this incident. During his investigation, he interviewed students and the Member. The students all confirmed that the Member had told them to “shut up”. The Member told the principal that he did not recall using the words “shut up” but he also did not recall not using them. The Committee finds that there is sufficient evidence, on a balance of probabilities, to prove that the Member told students to “shut up”.

Principal Wu also testified that parents had communicated with him that the Member had called students “losers” in [XXX] class. When the principal investigated this incident, the Member admitted to using the word “losers”, but attempted to contextualize it by stating that these students were only “losers” because they did not get to participate in [XXX] class. The Committee finds that, despite the Member’s explanation and his attempts to downplay the incident, his comments were inappropriate and unprofessional, and they give rise to a finding of professional misconduct.

The Threat Incident

With respect to the Threat Incident, the Committee heard evidence from all four witnesses that the Member made inappropriate and threatening comments about Principal Wu on February 24, 2012. The Committee also reviewed documentary evidence that proved the allegations with respect to the Threat Incident. The Committee heard testimony from Ms. Edward-Tsivaras, who was present when the Member made his threatening comments about the principal, within earshot of many students. She also described the Member’s aggressive and agitated demeanor and indicated that she was concerned for the safety of Principal Wu.

The Committee also heard evidence from Ms. Redpath and Superintendent Friedman that they had investigated the Threat Incident and that the Member had told them that he was frustrated with the principal and that he felt like smacking him. While the Member did not admit to saying that he was “going to beat the shit out of Mr. Wu”, as at least one student had overheard, he did admit that it was unfortunate that students had overheard him venting in the hallway. The Committee found that Ms. Redpath’s testimony with regard to the Threat Incident was credible, given that she had taken contemporaneous notes of the investigative meeting with the Member.

The Committee finds that there is sufficient evidence, on a balance of probabilities, to demonstrate that the Member made inappropriate and threatening comments about the principal in the presence of staff and students. The Committee finds that the evidence with respect to the Threat Incident gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct in that it establishes that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, that his behaviour was disgraceful, dishonorable and unprofessional, and that his conduct was unbecoming a member of the teaching profession.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

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. Directs that prior to any return to teaching or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall appear before the Committee on a date to be arranged by the Member through the Hearings Office, 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. Directs the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three months to six months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;

3. Directs 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, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management, with an emphasis on professional boundaries and sensitivity towards 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 Discipline Committee’s Decision, Reasons for Decision, and Orders; and

(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course.

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 also submitted two cases which dealt with threats and verbal abuse by members of the teaching profession. College Counsel submitted that, in one of the cases, the member’s conduct was less serious than that of the Member, and that member received a three month suspension. College Counsel submitted that the circumstances of the threat in the Member’s case, as well as the threat itself and the fact that the Board took it seriously enough to suspend the Member, warrants a higher penalty than three months.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. Prior to any return to teaching or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member is directed to appear before the Committee on a date to be arranged by the Member through the Hearings Office, 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. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of six months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;

3. The Registrar is directed 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, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management, with an emphasis on professional boundaries and sensitivity towards 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 Discipline Committee’s Decision, Reasons for Decision, and Orders; 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

The Committee carefully considered the submissions of College Counsel and the jurisprudence provided. The Committee also considered both the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.

The fact that this was the first time that the Member has appeared at a discipline hearing at the College and that nobody was physically harmed by his actions were mitigating factors. These mitigating factors, however, were outweighed by the following aggravating factors.

With respect to the School Trip Incident, the Member failed to follow proper procedures and he completely disregarded his principal’s express instructions. This conduct formed part of a pattern of insubordination and disregard for policy and procedure.

With respect to the Inappropriate Comments Incident, the Member verbally abused students by calling them “losers” and telling them to “shut up”. Once again, the Member had demonstrated a pattern of similar unprofessional behaviour.

With respect to the Threat Incident, the Member’s conduct also formed part of a pattern of confrontational and aggressive behaviour towards his superiors. The Committee finds that, either the Member did not care how he came across to others, or he was unable to control his temper. Both are equally concerning. The Member demonstrated a pattern of rude, disrespectful, and inappropriate behaviour.

Based on its consideration of the factors outlined above, the submissions of College Counsel, and the relevant jurisprudence, the Committee finds that the appropriate penalty in this case includes a reprimand, a six month suspension, a course on anger management, with an emphasis on professional boundaries and sensitivity towards students, and publication with name.

The Committee finds that the reprimand is important as it will reinforce for the Member the necessity to conduct himself in a professional manner with students, colleagues, and administration at all times. The reprimand will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member.

The Committee finds that a six month suspension is also appropriate in this case. The suspension reinforces the seriousness of the misconduct, both to the Member and to the profession, and it demonstrates that the College will not accept this type of conduct from its members. The suspension satisfies the objectives of specific and general deterrence as well as the protection of the public interest. The six month suspension is also reasonable based on the circumstances of this case and a review of the relevant jurisprudence provided. The Member’s conduct in this case was significantly more serious than that of a member in a similar case who had received a three month suspension.

The Committee further finds that the course on anger management, with an emphasis on professional boundaries and sensitivity towards students is appropriate in this case. The coursework is aimed at the rehabilitation of the Member and the protection of the public. It will help the Member to understand the acceptable limits with respect to teacher-administrator interactions, the effect that his inappropriate comments and conduct can have on students, and it will help him to control his temper.

The Committee also 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 will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

In sum, the Committee finds that the Member demonstrated a pattern of insubordination and unprofessional behaviour. The penalty above is proportionate to the Member’s conduct.

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

Dated: April 23, 2015

Wes Vickers, OCT, Chair

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Stefanie Achkewich, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Robert Gagné

Member, Discipline Panel