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
Maria Margus, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers
PANEL: Shanlee Linton, OCT, Chair Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Marie-Claude Yaacov
BETWEEN: )
) Zirka Jakibchuk,
) Legal Counsel,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers
- and - )
) Adam Beatty,
MARIA MARGUS ) Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre
(CERTIFICATE # 214754) ) Cornish LLP,
) for Maria Margus
) Marc Spector,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: September 28, 2015
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on September 28, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated October 25, 2012 (Exhibit 1) was served on Maria Margus (the “Member”) requesting her presence on November 8, 2014 to set a date for a hearing and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for September 28, 2015.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) she 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) 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 28, 2015, Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely the allegation that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that, subject to ratification by the Committee, an agreement had been reached between the parties and a Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit 3) dated July 20, 2015 (the “MOA”) was introduced, which provides the following:
Agreed Statement of Facts
The parties hereby agree to the truth and accuracy of the facts that are hereinafter expressed and agree to the receipt of this document by the Discipline Committee.
On July 27, 2010, the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) notified the College about Maria Margus, a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in the Board, pursuant to its obligation under subsection 43.2(1) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.
Maria Margus is a member of the College in good standing.
On January 26, 2010, the mother of Grade [XXX] student [XXX]. contacted the vice-principal of the School about an allegation of physical and verbal mistreatment of [XXX]. by the Member.
On June 4, 2010, the Board gave the Member a letter of discipline for mistreatment of students. The Board has verified that the Member “acted inappropriately and in a manner which intimidated students on two occasions”. The Board cautioned the Member to moderate language, body language, and tone of voice. The Board gave the Member a 15-day suspension without pay and offered another school assignment upon her return. The Member was required to work with a mentor on classroom management upon her return. She was also required to attend anger management training and review Operational Procedure PR 560 with an administrator.
Students in the class stated that the Member:
frequently shouted at students in an angry voice;
spoke with an angry tone if the students did not accomplish tasks as per the Member’s expectations;
discarded students’ materials using an angry voice;
made some students afraid to attend class;
told students to stop using “shut up” and the “F” word when addressing each other;
told students, in an angry voice to stop calling each other “stupid”;
threatened students with detention and to call home if they did not stop talking about certain stolen items being “thrown out the window”;
when distributing student’s materials, made contact with child’s hand; and
pushed students’ heads if they did not accomplish tasks as per the Member’s expectations.
The College has been provided with a written report from the course practitioner confirming the Member’s successful completion of a course of instruction on anger management.
The Member has also successfully worked with a mentor on effective instructional strategies for [XXX] students and effective classroom management.
By this document, the Member pleads no contest to professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing, issued on October 25, 2012, and in so doing, accepts as true the particulars set out in this section of the MOA.
The Member voluntarily admits the above particulars and understands that by doing so, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to a contested hearing.
Joint Submission on Resolution
The parties agree to resolve the matter as follows:
The Member agrees and understands that for the purpose of considering this matter, the Discipline Committee will be provided with this MOA and the Notice of Hearing, which will be marked as Exhibits and will constitute the evidence upon which the plea of no contest will be accepted, the finding of guilt will be made, and the penalty will be imposed.
The Member agrees and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, the Discipline Committee shall find her guilty of professional misconduct and shall issue a reprimand.
The Member shall 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 of the Ontario College of Teachers. The reprimand shall be delivered at the offices of the College located at 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario.
The Member agrees and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, a notation shall be placed on the Public Register maintained by the Registrar, in accordance with section 23 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996. There may also be other amendments made to the Public Register to reflect this agreement between the parties, including amendments to the Member’s Status, Status History and Terms, Conditions or Limitations.
The Member agrees and understands that the College shall publish a summary of the complaint and its resolution as contained in this MOA. Such publication shall be made in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, on the College’s website, and in any other manner the Registrar deems appropriate. The Discipline Committee shall determine whether publication shall include the Member’s name.
The Member agrees and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, the College shall make the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Orders of the Discipline Committee available for review by the public in the College’s Margaret Wilson Library, on the College’s website and in any other forum the Registrar deems appropriate.
The Member agrees and understands that upon ratification of this MOA, the College may submit a copy of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Orders of the Discipline Committee to Quicklaw and/or any other on-line legal database.
The parties agree and understand that if any phrase or paragraph of this MOA is deemed null and void, the MOA shall be read as though the phrase or paragraph was stricken from the MOA and the amended MOA shall remain in force and effect.
The Member agrees and understands that this MOA is the entire agreement between her and the College and that there have been no oral or written representations made by the College as an inducement or threat to enter into this MOA.
The parties agree and undertake that upon ratification of this MOA, there shall be no further action taken, no appeal to any forum, and no application for judicial review of the terms of the MOA.
Each party may sign a separate copy of this MOA which, when so signed and delivered, shall be an original copy even though not signed by the other parties. All such separately signed copies shall together constitute evidence of all parties’ consent to be bound by this agreement.
DECISION
Having examined the exhibits filed, and based on the MOA, the Member’s plea of no contest and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member, the Committee ratifies the MOA. The Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the MOA and pleaded no contest 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(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the MOA demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the MOA demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students verbally, and psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7) and 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the MOA demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the MOA demonstrate that the Member 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).
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the MOA demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
During the 2010 academic year, the Member was the subject of discipline by her Board for mistreatment of students. The Board verified that the Member acted inappropriately and in a manner which intimidated students on two occasions. The Board cautioned the Member to moderate her language, body language and tone of voice and was given a 15-day suspension without pay and offered another school assignment upon her return. The Committee finds that the Member failed to provide a safe learning environment and foster a culture of caring. The Member failed to serve as a role model for her students, and she did not act in their best interests. The Committee therefore accepts the agreement of the parties and 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
SUBMISSIONS ON PUBLICATION
Submissions of College Counsel
Counsel for the College submitted that publication with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, is warranted in this case. Counsel for the College explained that publication with name responds to the following three penalty objectives: specific deterrence, general deterrence, and protection of the public interest by ensuring accountability and transparency.
Counsel for the College submitted that publication with the name of the Member will inform members of the profession that inappropriate behaviour is taken seriously by the College, and will accordingly serve as a general deterrent. Publication with name serves as a specific deterrent by motivating the Member not to commit further acts of professional misconduct.
Finally, publication with name upholds the principles of transparency and accountability. Publishing the name of the Member in the College’s official publication is important because it informs the public and other members of the profession that matters before the Committee are resolved in an open and transparent manner.
College Counsel referred the Committee to three cases involving inappropriate treatment of students: Ontario College of Teachers v. Ashford-Smith, 2014 LNONCTD 73, Ontario College of Teachers v. Courtney, 2014 LNONCTD 82, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gal, 2014 LNONCTD 46. College Counsel submitted that these cases were similar to the Member’s case and that publication with name was ordered in all three instances.
Submissions of Counsel for the Member
Counsel for the Member reminded the Committee that it had the discretion to publish or not publish the Member’s name and that there was no presumption in favour of publication of the Member’s name.
Member’s Counsel submitted that ordering publication with the name of the Member would be overly punitive and would not serve the goals of specific and general deterrence and transparency. Member’s Counsel noted that it has been five and one half years since the incident giving rise to these proceedings, and that the Member has successfully continued teaching without any further incidents.
Counsel for the Member submitted that the cases presented by College Counsel involved conduct that was far more serious than the Member’s misconduct and should not be relied upon in determining whether to publish the Member’s name.
RESOLUTION
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 of the College.
The finding and orders of the Committee shall be published in summary form, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR RESOLUTION
The Committee accepts the resolution 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 resolution proposed in the Joint Submission on Resolution is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case.
The Committee determined that the reprimand is an appropriate resolution for misconduct of this nature, and satisfies the objectives of specific deterrence. 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 publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted. Publication with the name of the Member identifies to the profession the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct and the consequences of such behaviour. Publication with name serves as a general deterrent by reminding the profession that teachers occupy a place of trust and that when this trust is violated it attacks the integrity of the entire profession and as such cannot be tolerated. Moreover, publishing 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 5, 2015
Shanlee Linton, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Marie-Claude Yaacov
Member, Discipline Panel