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 Ronald William Woltman, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair
Christine Bellini, OCT
Irene Dembek, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Shane D’Souza,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Bev Hodsdon,
) Law Clerk
-and- )
RONALD WILLIAM WOLTMAN ) Susan Luft,
(CERTIFICATE #180391) ) Ontario Secondary School Teachers’
) Federation,
) for Ronald William Woltman
) Erica Richler,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: April 29, 2015
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR PENALTY
On February 20, 2015, a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) rendered a written decision finding Ronald William Woltman (the “Member”) guilty of professional misconduct.
The Committee considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, as well as the submissions made by the parties and ultimately found that the facts supported a finding of professional misconduct.
The Committee determined that the Member’s involvement in a number of incidents gave rise to the finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member made unprofessional comments on a student’s Report Card by writing, “Love the jeans with spike heels” (the “Comment”); he made threatening statements to his principal in response to a request to attend a meeting in relation to the Comment, by writing a note to the principal saying, “Now it’s your job to make this go away. Any disciplinary action will be grieved”; and, his conduct and communications towards a colleague were disrespectful and unprofessional.
The Committee was satisfied that the facts of this case supported a finding of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19). The Member’s conduct towards his student, his colleague, and his principal was unprofessional, and the Member displayed a complete lack of accountability.
The Committee reconvened the hearing on April 29, 2015 to hear submissions on penalty. The Member was present during the penalty hearing and had legal representation.
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
College Counsel submitted that, of the four main allegations in this matter, the Committee found that the Member’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct with respect to three of these allegations: the Member made an inappropriate Comment on a student’s Report Card; the Member threatened his principal; and the Member’s conduct and communications towards a colleague were disrespectful and unprofessional.
Given the Committee’s findings, College Counsel submitted that the following penalties would be appropriate:
a reprimand;
a one-month suspension of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration;
a requirement that the Member successfully complete coursework with an emphasis on boundaries and positive communication skills; and
publication of a summary of the findings and Order of the Committee, with the Member’s name, in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
College Counsel further submitted that, in arriving at its decision with respect to penalty, the Committee ought to consider its findings on the merits, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.
College Counsel highlighted five aggravating factors. First, the College submitted that the Member denied all of the allegations initially, but then reluctantly admitted that two of the allegations were unprofessional during his cross-examination. According to College Counsel, this should be considered an aggravating factor.
Second, College Counsel submitted that the Member did not apologize to the student or her family and did not apologize to his colleague, “A”, following his unprofessional conduct. According to College Counsel, this was indicative of the Member’s consistent failure to take responsibility for his actions, and should be considered an aggravating factor. The College noted that it was remarkable that the Member failed to apologize to his colleague, “A”, despite the fact that they continued to work together following the Member’s professional misconduct.
Third, College Counsel submitted that the fact that the Member produced various Report Cards for students who were not involved in this case, during the open hearing process, and that he gave details about these students that made them readily identifiable, should be considered an aggravating factor. According to the College, this demonstrates the Member’s disregard for these students’ privacy and it also shows that the Member’s inappropriate Report Card comments extended to other students.
Fourth, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s complete lack of accountability for his conduct should be considered an aggravating factor.
Fifth, College Counsel submitted that this case involved multiple incidents spanning two academic years, which the Committee should consider to be an aggravating factor. College Counsel added that it was remarkable that the incidents involving the Member’s colleague, “A”, occurred after the Member had received a suspension from his School Board.
College Counsel further submitted that the aggravating factors in this case outweigh the mitigating factors. Although the College acknowledged that the Member has no prior history of professional misconduct, College Counsel noted that this was not very unique or compelling.
College Counsel also acknowledged that the Member had already received a suspension from the School Board, but noted that the Member’s misconduct continued following that suspension, which indicates that the prior suspension did not fully serve its purpose.
Finally, College Counsel acknowledged that the Committee did not make a finding of professional misconduct with respect to each of the allegations, but noted that the only allegation that was not proven was the least serious of all of the allegations; the Member had allegedly not followed a directive from his principal to vacate his office in a timely manner. College Counsel submitted that all of the other allegations that were proven were serious and that the Member’s penalty should reflect the gravity of his misconduct.
College Counsel also made submissions with respect to each of the four penalties sought. First, the College noted that the reprimand will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and will remind him of the importance of upholding the values of the profession and the need to act in a professional manner with his students and his colleagues.
Second, College Counsel submitted that the course component of the penalty is targeted at the specific misconduct that was found and it is meant to rehabilitate the Member and to address his shortcomings.
Third, College Counsel submitted that the one-month suspension sought has a specific and a general deterrence component, and is appropriate given the circumstances of this case. College Counsel noted that the Committee did not simply make one finding of professional misconduct in this matter, but rather that it found three separate incidents that each amount to professional misconduct. According to College Counsel, the suspension will serve as a specific deterrent in that it will communicate to the Member how seriously the Committee treats instances of repeated misconduct. The suspension will also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the teaching profession as it will inform them of the importance of treating their colleagues with respect and the level of care that is expected when producing written documents for students that are made public, such as Report Cards.
Fourth, College Counsel submitted that publication with name is appropriate in this case and that it addresses the goals of specific and general deterrence, as well as accountability and transparency. The College added that it is ironic that the Member is seeking anonymity when he brought other students into these proceedings by presenting exhibits that made their identities readily identifiable.
College Counsel did not present any jurisprudence to support the penalty sought. According to the College, the facts of this case were so unique and outrageous that there were simply no analogous cases. The unique nature of this case, according to the College, makes it even more important for the Committee to send a clear message and to strike the proper balance with respect to penalty. College Counsel submitted that the penalty it has recommended is entirely appropriate and proportionate to the Member’s professional misconduct.
SUBMISSIONS OF MEMBER’S COUNSEL
Counsel for the Member agreed with College Counsel that a reprimand and a course with an emphasis on boundaries and positive communication skills would be reasonable, given the circumstances of this case. Member’s Counsel, however, did not agree that a suspension or publication with name was warranted.
Member’s Counsel submitted that suspensions should be reserved for the most serious cases and that the Member’s conduct was at the lower end of the spectrum and, therefore, did not warrant suspension. According to Member’s Counsel, the Committee ought to look at similar cases when determining whether or not a one-month suspension is appropriate. To this end, Member’s Counsel presented a Book of Authorities containing numerous cases to assist the Committee with its task. Member’s Counsel submitted that the cases presented, which have resulted in a one-month suspension or greater, were far more serious than the Member’s case and generally involved serious boundary violation issues or instances of grooming. Of the cases that were similar to that of the Member, the penalties generally included a reprimand and coursework, but no suspension.
In the alternative, Member’s Counsel submitted that, if the Committee were to find that a suspension is warranted in this case, the suspension should be limited to seven days and it should be retroactive to the time of the suspension already served for the School Board. If the Committee were to order a lengthier suspension, Counsel for the Member requested that it be served during the summer so that the Member would not suffer any potential adverse consequences with respect to his current employment.
Counsel for the Member also highlighted seven mitigating factors for the Committee’s consideration. First, Member’s Counsel indicated that the Member has had a 27-year teaching career in which he has had no disciplinary issues prior to this case.
Second, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Comment that the Member wrote on a student’s Report Card was not intended to have any sexual overtones.
Third, Member’s Counsel reiterated that all of the incidents involving the Member were at the lower end of the spectrum of professional misconduct.
Fourth, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Committee ought to consider it a mitigating factor that the events in question took place over a discrete period of time.
Fifth, Counsel for the Member noted that the Member has had a successful return to work and has not been involved in any incidents following those that gave rise to these proceedings.
Sixth, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member has already served a two-day suspension and a subsequent five-day suspension through his School Board, which ought to limit the need for the Committee to impose any further suspension.
Seventh, Counsel for the Member urged the Committee to consider that a lengthy suspension could have a significant negative impact on the Member and could possibly cause him to lose his job.
Counsel for the Member also presented the Committee with several cases in which members had already served a suspension with their School Boards and where panels of the Discipline Committee found that it was unnecessary to impose any further suspensions. Member’s Counsel submitted that these cases indicate that a prior suspension could be viewed as a mitigating factor.
With respect to the issue of publication, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Committee should not order the publication of the Member’s name in the College’s official publication. According to Member’s Counsel, there is no presumption that a member’s name will be published with the summary of their case, and publication with name is not necessary or appropriate in this case.
Member’s Counsel noted that publication without name already serves as a specific and a general deterrent and that publishing the Member’s name does not add any further value. According to Counsel for the Member, the reprimand and the coursework will adequately serve the interests of transparency and the protection of the public interest. Member’s Counsel added that full decisions are posted on the College’s website, so it is unnecessary to also publish the Member’s name in the Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. Counsel for the Member also submitted several cases to support her position that publication without name was appropriate in this case, given that it would be unduly punitive to publish the Member’s name in this case.
REPLY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
During his reply submissions, College Counsel first addressed the jurisprudence presented by Counsel for the Member. College Counsel noted that none of the cases presented can be considered binding precedents. In addition, Counsel for the College indicated that almost all of the cases contained in the Member’s Book of Authorities were cases that were decided on agreement, either through an Agreed Statement of Facts or a Statement of Uncontested Facts, and a Joint Submission on Penalty.
This distinction is critical, according to College Counsel, because these decisions are the result of a compromise between the College and the Member, in which neither party necessarily gets everything that it wanted. Although several of the cases presented by Member’s Counsel did not result in a suspension for the members, this could easily have been attributed to the fact that the College had to make compromises in those cases in order to come to an agreement. Moreover, panels of the Discipline Committee in cases that are resolved by agreement do not have the same ability to tailor specific penalties to specific circumstances; they are generally advised to accept the penalty put forward by the parties, unless it is too egregious to accept. Accordingly, College Counsel urged the Committee not to rely on the cases presented by Member’s Counsel that were the result of an agreement.
With respect to the few contested cases presented by Member’s Counsel that were not the result of an agreement, College Counsel submitted that these cases were all distinguishable on their facts from the Member’s case. Given that they were not comparable cases to that of the Member, College Counsel submitted that the Committee should not rely on them when formulating its decision with respect to penalty.
College Counsel also disagreed with the submission of Member’s Counsel that the allegations in this case were on the lower end of the spectrum. The Member made an unprofessional Comment on a student’s Report Card that the student maintained was inappropriate and concerning to her, even years after the incident. The Member also sent a threatening note to his principal, he berated a colleague about his body odour, he moved the colleague’s personal belongings to a different room without telling him, and he sent his colleague rude and unprofessional communications.
Counsel for the College also replied to the submissions of Member’s Counsel with respect to suspension. First, College Counsel submitted that the Committee was not presented with any evidence to support the submission that the Member’s job might be in jeopardy if he were suspended by the College.
In addition, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s prior suspensions through his School Board should not be considered a mitigating factor. According to College Counsel, these prior suspensions clearly had no significant impact on the Member. Following his two-day suspension, he still acted unprofessionally towards his colleague, “A”, and following his subsequent five-day suspension, he never apologized to anyone that he had wronged and he never took responsibility for his actions.
College Counsel also replied to the submissions of Counsel for the Member with respect to publication. College Counsel advised the Committee that it ought to exercise caution when reviewing older cases that dealt with publication. In addition, College Counsel submitted that, after the Member presented information and evidence that identified other students over the course of these open hearings, the Committee should not now accept the Member’s request that his anonymity be maintained in the College’s official publication.
Moreover, College Counsel replied to the submissions of Member’s Counsel that a reprimand and coursework would adequately serve the interests of transparency and that publication with name was therefore unnecessary. According to College Counsel, this is simply not true. Reprimands are conducted in private and are not transparent processes. Similarly, coursework is done on the Member’s own time and does not respond to any transparency interests.
Finally, College Counsel submitted that Counsel for the Member has provided no evidence that publication with name would have any negative impact on the Member’s life, his family, or his career.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee 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 “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 15 consecutive days and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register. The suspension is to commence within one week of the effective date of this Order;
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, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar with an emphasis on boundaries and positive communication skills;
(b) within thirty 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 Committee’s Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision dated February 20, 2015, and the Penalty Decision and Reasons for Penalty in regard to this matter; and
(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course;
- There shall be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Committee carefully considered the submissions of College Counsel and Member’s Counsel as well as the supporting jurisprudence presented by Member’s Counsel in arriving at its decision. The Committee also considered the aggravating and mitigating factors presented by both parties in arriving at its decision.
The Committee has determined that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors in this case. With respect to the mitigating factors presented by Member’s Counsel, the Committee recognizes that the Member has had a lengthy and relatively unblemished teaching career, notwithstanding the events that gave rise to these proceedings. The Committee also accepts that the Member has had a successful return to work with no subsequent incidents of professional misconduct. The Committee is also cognizant of the fact that the Member has already served a two-day and a five-day suspension with his School Board, although the Committee remains concerned that the Member’s conduct did not improve significantly following these suspensions.
The Committee does not accept the following mitigating factors presented by Counsel for the Member. First, the Committee does not find it relevant that the Member did not intend his Comment on the student’s Report Card to be sexual in nature. Regardless of the Member’s intent, the Comment could be perceived as sexual and sexist, and it should never have been included on a student’s Report Card; there are clear government policies with respect to Report Cards with which the Member certainly did not comply.
Second, the Committee does not accept that the Member’s conduct was at the lower end of the spectrum, as suggested by Counsel for the Member. The Member’s misconduct was repeated, and it involved multiple people and multiple incidents. The Member humiliated a student by writing an inappropriate Comment on the student’s Report Card, he wrote a threatening note to his principal, and his repeated inappropriate and unprofessional conduct directed towards his colleague was shameful.
Moreover, the Committee finds that there were several important, aggravating factors that influenced its decision with respect to penalty. First, the Member demonstrated a complete lack of accountability throughout this process. The Member never apologized to the student who received the inappropriate Comment on her Report Card and he never apologized to the student’s family.
In addition, the Member never apologized to his colleague, “A”, whom he treated with a complete lack of respect. The Committee finds it remarkable that the Member’s unprofessional behaviour towards his colleague occurred after the Member had already been suspended once by his School Board. The Committee finds it equally troubling that the Member never took responsibility for his actions or apologized to his colleague as they continued to work together following the events that gave rise to these proceedings.
Furthermore, the Committee finds that the Member’s involvement with multiple incidents over the course of two academic years is an aggravating factor. Not only did the Member write an inappropriate Comment on a student’s Report Card and write a threatening note to his principal, but he also verbally abused his colleague on numerous occasions and acted completely unprofessionally towards this colleague. The College expects more of its members.
Accordingly, the Committee has determined that the appropriate penalty in this case is to order a reprimand, to direct the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of 15 consecutive days, to direct that the Member successfully complete a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar with an emphasis on boundaries and positive communication skills, and to publish a summary of the case with the Member’s name in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
The Committee finds that a reprimand is appropriate in this case, as agreed by both parties. A reprimand addresses the need for specific deterrence and will encourage the Member to consider his actions in the future. It will ensure that the Member hears from the Committee directly that his conduct was unacceptable, unprofessional, and did not meet the College’s standards or the public’s expectations.
The Committee finds that a 15-day suspension is also appropriate given the circumstances of this case. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent in that it will communicate to the Member that his conduct will not be tolerated. It is also intended to encourage the Member to pause and reflect on the inappropriate and unprofessional nature of his conduct. The suspension will also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the teaching profession as it will remind them of the importance of treating their colleagues and their students with respect.
When determining the length of the Member’s suspension, the Committee considered several factors. For instance, the Member was involved in three separate incidents that amounted to professional misconduct, at least one of which involved multiple instances of inappropriate and unprofessional conduct. While the Committee heard submissions from Member’s Counsel that a lengthy suspension might jeopardize the Member’s career, the Committee received no evidence to this effect and was unpersuaded by this submission.
The Committee also carefully reviewed and considered the jurisprudence presented by Counsel for the Member. Although the Committee recognized that several of the cases presented involved serious allegations in which members received no suspensions, the Committee ultimately found that the cases were largely unpersuasive. The vast majority of the cases had been resolved on agreement, which the Committee finds to be a significant distinguishing factor from the Member’s case. These cases do not assist the Committee in determining whether or not to order a suspension, or the appropriate length of the suspension, because the penalties reached in these cases came as a result of a compromise between the parties, and not as a result of a reasoned evaluation by panels of the Discipline Committee who had turned their minds to the issue of suspensions.
With respect to the cases presented by Member’s Counsel that were not the product of an agreement or a Joint Submission on Penalty, the Committee draws little assistance from these cases as they are not sufficiently analogous to the Member’s case. These cases were generally distinguishable on their facts and did not persuade the Committee that a suspension would be inappropriate in the Member’s case.
The Committee is also not convinced that the fact that the Member has served two prior suspensions through his School Board, with a total duration of seven days, signals that a further suspension from the College would be inappropriate in this case. The Member did not demonstrate that his prior suspensions have had a significant effect on his conduct. Following his two-day suspension, the Member acted unprofessionally towards his colleague, “A”, and after his five-day suspension, the Member still did not apologize to those whom he had wronged and he continued to display a lack of accountability for his conduct.
The Committee finds that a 15-day suspension is warranted and reasonable in these circumstances. Although College Counsel submitted that a one-month suspension would be appropriate in this case, the Committee finds that the Member’s return to the teaching profession without incident following the events that gave rise to these proceedings justifies a slightly shorter suspension, in light of all of the circumstances in this case.
The Committee has further determined that a course of instruction with an emphasis on boundaries and positive communication skills is appropriate in this case, as agreed by both parties. The coursework will provide the Member with strategies for effective communication with colleagues and administration, as well as insight into the appropriate boundaries to maintain with students. As such, the coursework will help to rehabilitate the Member and to ensure that
his return to the teaching profession will be successful.
Finally, the Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is appropriate in this case. Publication with name serves the goals of specific and general deterrence, and transparency. The Committee finds that publication with name will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member as it will reinforce that his conduct was unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Publication with the Member’s name will serve as a general deterrent to the profession as it will inform members of the profession that there are serious consequences to engaging in incidents of professional misconduct. Furthermore, publication with name ensures that the discipline process remains open and transparent and that the College is not shielding its members from the public.
The Committee disagrees with the submission of Member’s Counsel that publication without name already serves as a specific and a general deterrent and that publishing the Member’s name does not add any further value. There is significant value added by publishing the findings and order of the Committee in summary form, with the name of the Member. Publication with name ensures that there is no suppression of information and that the College’s processes remain transparent. This, in turn, inspires public confidence in the discipline process. Publication with name also sends a strong message to the Member, the profession, and the public that misconduct of any nature will not be tolerated.
The Committee agrees with College Counsel that a reprimand and coursework alone will not adequately ensure the transparency of the discipline process. Reprimands are conducted in private and are therefore not transparent. Similarly, coursework is a private endeavour that the Member must complete on his own, and it does not respond to any transparency interests.
Given that the Member has not provided any evidence that publication with name will negatively impact his life, his family, or his career, the Committee finds that publication with name is entirely appropriate in this case.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: May 5, 2015
Robert Gagné
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Christine Bellini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Irene Dembek, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel