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 Matthew John Chiarot, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair Sara Nouini, OCT Ravi Vethamany, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Ava Arbuck, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Daniela De Bartolo, Law Clerk
– and –
MATTHEW JOHN CHIAROT (CERTIFICATE #286105) Jerry Raso, Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, for Matthew John Chiarot
Renée Kopp, Jones Litigation Counsel, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: July 27, 2016
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on July 27, 2016, at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated February 19, 2014, (Exhibit 1) was served on Matthew John Chiarot (the “Member”), requesting his presence on February 28, 2014, to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for July 27, 2016.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Matthew John Chiarot 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 failed to keep records as required by his professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);
(c) he signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);
(d) he falsified a record relating to his professional responsibilities, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(13);
(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).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
College Counsel advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Matthew John Chiarot is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Board (the “Board) as a teacher at the [XXX] School (the “School”) in Hamilton, Ontario.
At all material times, the Member was the coach of the School’s [XXX] team.
At all material times, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old male student who played on the School’s [XXX] team.
On February 10, 2010, Student 1 and another student from the School’s [XXX] team were penalized for fighting with students from the opposing team during a [XXX] game. Each of the students involved in the fight received a three-game suspension from the Board’s Athletic Convenor.
In accordance with the three-game suspension, Student 1 was not permitted to play for the School [XXX] team on February 11, February 18, and February 22, 2010 to serve his suspension.
On February 18, 2010, after having been formally advised that Student 1 was suspended from playing, the Member instructed Student 1 to play for the School’s [XXX] team in that afternoon’s game.
During the February 18, 2010 [XXX] game, students from the opposing team recognized Student 1 on the [XXX], playing for the School’s team despite his suspension.
The principal spoke with the Member at the conclusion of the game about the playing of a suspended player. The Member confirmed that he had indeed instructed Student 1 to play despite the suspension. The Member stated that he took these steps so that the School did not have to forfeit the game due to a shortage of players.
The Member was assigned to home duties on February 25, 2010, pending the Board’s investigation.
At the conclusion of their investigation, Board administrators found that the Member’s “actions violated the legal and moral obligations” expected of him as a teacher-coach with the Board and as a member of the College. The Board revoked all of the Member’s teacher-coach activities, effective immediately and indefinitely. Attached hereto and marked as “Exhibit “B” is a copy of the March 9, 2010 letter to the Member setting out the Board’s conclusions and decision.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-11 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
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.
- 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
College Counsel requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(10), 1(12) and 1(13) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, and the submissions of College Counsel 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, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 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 accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, Chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
Paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), College Counsel and Counsel for the Member jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member appear before the Committee, immediately following the hearing of this matter or within 90 days of the date of this Order on a date to be arranged by the Member, to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of one month 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;
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) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding ethics, subject to the following conditions;
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) the Member shall not coach any school-related team sport or activity, or any students for any school-related team, sport, or activity, for a period of 12 months from the date of this Order.
- direct that there be publication of the finding 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.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and makes an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of justice or the discipline process into disrepute. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case.
The penalty proposed by the parties is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Callaghan, 2013 LNONCTD 13; Ontario College of Teachers v. Canning, 2015 LNONCTD 20; Ontario College of Teachers v. McLean, 2015 LNONCTD 5; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Chiarot (9 June 2016). The Committee notes that the Member has a discipline history at the College. On November 25, 2015, the Member was found guilty of professional misconduct. The Member’s prior discipline history is troubling as it demonstrates the Member’s repeated poor judgment and his lack of professionalism.
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct, which consisted of him authorizing and instructing one of his students to participate in a School [XXX] game while suspended, warrants a reprimand by his peers. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee finds that a one month suspension is warranted in this case, as is the limitation on the Member’s coaching privileges for a period of 12 months. As a teacher and coach, the Member was expected to set a positive example for his students. Through his dishonest conduct, the Member was a poor role model. The one month suspension of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration and the 12 month limitation on the Member’s coaching privileges will provide the Member with the time to reflect on his inappropriate conduct.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
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. It acts as a specific deterrent to the Member as it holds the Member accountable for his actions. It also serves as a general deterrent by reminding the profession, and more specifically teacher-coaches, that such behaviour is not 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: August 4, 2016
Robert Gagné Chair, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Ravi Vethamany, OCT Member, Discipline Panel