Ontario College of Teachers v. Hyde, 2016 ONOCT 25

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Hyde, 2016 ONOCT 25

Date: 2016-04-22

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

Bruce Leslie Hyde, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Louis Sloan, OCT, Chair

Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT

Darlene Mead, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Eli Mogil,

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,

) Law Clerk

– and – )

BRUCE LESLIE HYDE ) Jerry Raso,

(CERTIFICATE #460267) ) Ontario English Catholic

) Teachers’ Association,

) for Bruce Leslie Hyde

) Marc Spector,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: February 2, 2015, October 7, 2015 and April 22, 2016

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on February 2, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated December 21, 2012 (Exhibit 1) was served on Bruce Leslie Hyde (the “Member”), requesting his presence on September 24, 2013 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for February 2, 2015.

On February 2, 2015, the parties brought a motion for adjournment on consent, which the Committee granted. The proceedings were adjourned until October 7, 2015. On October 7, 2015, the College sought a further adjournment of this matter because the Member unexpectedly failed to attend the hearing and had not yet signed the agreement that had been reached in principle. Member’s Counsel did not oppose the motion for adjournment and the Committee granted the adjournment.

The hearing continued and was concluded on April 22, 2016. 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 subsections 30(2) and 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 physically contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(e) he failed to comply to 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

Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Bruce Leslie Hyde is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information.

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

3. In or around the period of September 2010 to November 2010, the Member engaged in inappropriate physical contact with one or more students, which included:

(a) grabbing a student and/or students in a headlock;

(b) hitting a student and/or students in the face;

(c) pushing a student and/or students;

(d) stepping on the foot of a student and/or students;

(e) elbowing a student and/or students in the head.

4. During or around the period of September 2010 to November 2010, the Member made inappropriate comments and/or gestures to students of a vulgar and/or sexual nature, which included:

(a) using the words “asshole”, “fuck”, “shit”, “bullshit”, “dick”, “plug”, “dumbass”, “faggot”, and/or “prick”;

(b) calling a student a “greasy [XXX]”;

(c) calling a [XXX] student [XXX];

(d) instructing a student to “sit his fat ass down”;

(e) telling a student to stop “jerking off in the shower too hard”;

(f) when a student said that his school work was “too hard”, replying “that’s not what your mom said last night”;

(g) telling a joke in class with the punchline “a one-eyed yoghurt thrower”;

(h) when a student asked how he could raise his marks, unzipping and re-zipping his pants.

5. School administrators received complaints from students regarding the Member’s conduct, which they investigated. Attached to Exhibit 2 and Tab “B” is a copy of statements prepared by students in the Member’s class. Attached to Exhibit 2 and Tab “C” is a copy of the Vice-Principal’s notes from her interviews with students.

6. In November 2010, the Board investigated the student complaints regarding the Member’s conduct, and instructed the Member to not have any contact with any students.

7. Despite the Board’s instructions and the ongoing investigation, the Member contacted a student and/or students via telephone and/or Facebook to discuss the students’ complaints, thereby attempting to influence the Board’s investigation. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “D” is a copy of a student’s statement and the Facebook message he received from the Member.

8. Following the Board’s investigation of the Member’s conduct, a recommendation was made to terminate the Member’s employment. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “E” is a copy of the March 8, 2011 letter from the Board to the Member.

9. The Member’s employment with the Board was terminated on April 26, 2011.

10. On August 28, 2009, the Member was counselled by a panel of the Investigation Committee in relation to a complaint involving, in the academic year 2004-2005, the use of inappropriate language or gestures when speaking to students, engaging in horseplay with male students, and failing to ensure that discipline did not include physical touching of students. Attached to Exhibit 2 at Tab “F” is a copy of the August 28, 2009 Reasons for Decision, Decision and Orders of the Discipline Committee, pursuant to which the Member was also ordered to complete coursework on positive classroom management strategies, with particular emphasis on accepted methods for the disciplining of students.

GUILTY PLEA

11. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

12. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).

13. By this documents 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 otherwise 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 him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed 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.

14. In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

DECISION

Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, 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(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 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 10 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(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 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).

Paragraph 4 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).

Paragraph 3 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1).

Paragraph 4 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member committed acts that would be reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonorable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 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), Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:

1. direct that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three 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. direct that the Registrar 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) prior to commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and boundary issues, 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 Orders of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted 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) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

4. 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 Committee finds that the Member’s repeated pattern of inappropriate conduct, despite being sanctioned in 2009 for similar misconduct committed in 2004-2005, 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 three month suspension of the Member’s Certificate of Qualifications and Registration and its publication on the Register is also appropriate in the circumstances. The Member was found guilty of similar misconduct in 2009. He was ordered to take remedial courses with respect to classroom management and appropriate methods of disciplining students. Despite that sanction, the Member engaged in a repeated pattern of verbal and physical abuse of students in 2010 and 2011. Clearly, the Member did not “get” the message that this type of misconduct is unacceptable. The three month suspension and the publication of the Member’s name on the Register will serve as a specific deterrent to this Member. The Committee accepts College Counsel’s submission that the reprimand, three month suspension and publication with name send a strong message to the Member not to engage in this type of conduct again. The penalty will also serve as a general deterrent to the profession that this type of misconduct will not be tolerated and will attract a significant penalty. Furthermore, it educates and informs the profession as to what is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour.

The Committee finds that the courses of instruction regarding classroom management and boundary issues 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. In addition to the fact that publication of the Member’s name is part of the Joint Submission on Penalty, the Committee finds that 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 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 that such behaviour is not tolerated. Moreover, publishing the Member’s name ensures the transparency of and public confidence in 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: April 22, 2016

Louis Sloan, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Darlene Mead, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel