Ontario College of Teachers v Blier, 2016 ONOCT 4

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Blier, 2016 ONOCT 4

Date: 2016-02-18

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Denis Sinai Blier, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Jean-Luc Bernard, Chair, OCT

Stéphane Vallée, OCT

Ravi Vethamany, OCT

BETWEEN: )

) Christine Lonsdale and Alexandre Blanchard,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers,

) assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk

– and – )

) Denis Sinai Blier

DENIS SINAI BLIER ) was not present or represented

(CERTIFICATE #447741) )

) Renée Kopp,

) Jones Litigation Counsel LLP,

) Independent Legal Counsel ) )

) Heard: January 19 and 20, 2016

DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on January 19, 2016 at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated April 11, 2013 (Exhibit 1) was served on Denis Sinai Blier (“the Member”) requesting his attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on June 3, 2013 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for January 19, 2016 and continued on January 20, 2016.

The Member was not in attendance at the hearing and was not represented by legal counsel.

Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Annie Lacroix sworn January 13, 2016 (Exhibit 3), to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that could be sought by the Committee. In the affidavit, Ms. Lacroix, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, describes in detail her communication with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents. The Member decided not to attend at the hearing. On the basis of the affidavit, the Committee is satisfied that the Member was served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents, and was aware of the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that could be sought by the Committee. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

SUMMARY

At all material times, the Member was an experienced teacher employed by the Conseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’Ontario, where he previously held a principal’s position. During the 2008-2009 school year, the Member was teaching at École [XXX] (the “School”). The Member received three unsatisfactory performance appraisal ratings during the 2008-2009 school year. Specifically, the Member was significantly deficient in five key areas of teaching practice, that is, in classroom management, in planning, in teaching methods, in adaptive teaching methods for a student with [XXX] and in supervision. In spite of support from the School administration and other sources, the Member refused all assistance and demonstrated no significant improvement in his performance.

In addition, the Member’s conduct contravened the standards of the teaching profession. He disregarded the [XXX] of one of his students, he was late for his class and his supervisory shifts on numerous occasions, he used inappropriate disciplinary measures with his students and he failed to supervise them adequately.

For the following reasons, the Committee finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct in that he contravened sections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and that he is incompetent as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”).

ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing, dated April 11, 2013, are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Denis Sinai Blier is guilty of professional misconduct and/or incompetence as defined in subsections 30(2) and 30(3) of 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 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);

(c) 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);

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

(e) he displayed in his professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that he is unfit to continue to carry out his professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by him under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Denis Sinai Blier (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) in good standing.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’Ontario as a teacher. During the 2008-2009 school year, the Member was teaching at École [XXX].

3. On December 15, 2008, the Member received an unsatisfactory performance appraisal.

4. On March 27, 2009, the Member received a second unsatisfactory performance appraisal.

5. On June 18, 2009, the Member received a third unsatisfactory performance appraisal.

6. On June 25, 2009, the Board dismissed the Member.

7. The Member’s performance is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

A. Commitment to Students and Student Learning

1. The Member does not demonstrate commitment to the well-being and development of all students, in that:

(i) he does not create a healthy environment for learning.

2. The Member does not demonstrate dedication in his efforts to teach and support student learning and achievement, in that:

(i) he does not utilize a variety of teaching strategies when teaching the different subjects;

(ii) he does not motivate students to improve their learning;

(iii) he intervenes infrequently when students are disruptive in the classroom;

(iv) he does not teach a variety of strategies for reading comprehension;

(v) he does not clearly communicate the expectations for reading;

(vi) he does not provide follow-up to encourage students to progress to stages 2, 3 and 4 of their learning.

3. The Member does not value and promote fairness and justice in his teaching, in that:

(i) he does not demonstrate care and respect for students by maintaining positive interactions with them;

(ii) he does not address inappropriate student behaviour in a positive manner.

4. The Member does not provide an environment for learning that encourages students to be problem solvers, decision-makers, life-long learners and contributing members of a changing society, in that:

(i) he does not provide guidance and appropriate feedback to students to clarify teaching tasks;

(ii) he does not employ effective questioning techniques that clarify and inform learning tasks.

5. The Member does not demonstrate dedication in his efforts to teach and support student learning and achievement, in that:

(i) he does not employ effective questioning techniques that encourage higher level thinking skills;

(ii) he does not provide guidance and appropriate feedback to learners on attainment of new concepts/skills;

(iii) he does not provide constructive criticism on student assignments.

B. Professional Learning

1. The Member does not know his subject matter, the Ontario curriculum or education-related legislation, in that:

(i) he does not demonstrate a mastery of his subject matter, the Ontario curriculum or education-related legislation.

2. The Member does not know a variety of effective teaching and assessment practices, in that:

(i) he does not communicate clear expectations for learning activities;

(ii) he makes no attempt to engage students in their learning.

3. The Member does not know a variety of effective classroom management strategies, in that:

(i) he does not systematize routine procedures and tasks to engage students in varied learning experiences, allowing them, more than once, to redo work they have already completed;

(ii) he does not ask questions to verify the learning of all students;

(iii) he does not use appropriate strategies to manage discipline;

(iv) he does not implement the behaviour code with consistency.

4. The Member does not know how students learn or factors that influence student learning and achievement, in that:

(i) he does not communicate clear learning expectations;

(ii) he provides inadequate follow-up concerning completed assignments;

(iii) he does not prepare supporting materials prior to a learning activity and sometimes uses inappropriate materials;

(iv) he provides confusing explanations to students and moves on too quickly to materials handling;

(v) he does not provide students with the instruction they require to complete learning activities;

(vi) he does not use different motivational strategies to encourage students in developing competence in all areas;

(vii) he does not take into account various learning styles with the selection of materials/media;

(viii) he does not provide constructive criticism as part of reading evaluation;

(ix) he does not use a variety of appropriate teaching techniques to engage students;

(x) he does not use a variety of assessment strategies and instruments to make both short-term and long-range decisions to improve student learning.

C. Teaching Practice

1. The Member does not use his professional knowledge and understanding of students, curriculum, legislation, teaching practices and classroom management strategies to promote the learning and achievement of his students, in that:

(i) he does not develop clear and achievable classroom expectations with the students;

(ii) he does not provide instructions or problem-solving assistance when students are working in groups.

2. The Member does not communicate effectively with students, parents or colleagues, in that:

(i) he does not communicate clear, challenging and achievable expectations for students in all subjects and grades;

(ii) he presents the same learning activities over a number of weeks;

(iii) he does not break down overall or specific learning expectations or activities to encourage full learning of a concept;

(iv) he does not provide the full explanations students require to complete assignments in all of the subjects observed;

(v) he does not demonstrate a positive, professional attitude when communicating with parents, students and colleagues.

3. The Member does not conduct ongoing assessment of his students' progress, evaluate their achievement or report results to students and parents regularly, in that:

(i) he does not use a variety of appropriate assessment and evaluation techniques;

(ii) he does not provide follow-up after formative tests to encourage students to improve their achievement or understand a concept;

(iii) he does not maintain a grades record with a broad scale of achievement indicators, including tangible evidence of students’ ability to apply their knowledge and skills independently;

(iv) he does not provide evidence of the following elements in his assessment record: basic data before, during and after learning, reading behaviour data, personal reading lists, students’ reading reflection (logbook) and teaching and learning tasks;

(v) he does not chart progress as set out in the improvement plans;

(vi) he does not engage in meaningful dialogue with students to provide feedback during the teaching/learning process;

(vii) he does not use ongoing reporting to keep both students and parents informed and to chart student progress;

(viii) he does not gather accurate data on student performance or keep comprehensive records of student achievements;

(ix) he does not keep comprehensive records charting student progress.

4. The Member does not adapt and refine his teaching practices through continuous learning and reflection, using a variety of sources and resources, in that:

(i) he does not modify programs effectively to respond to needs of exceptional students;

(ii) he does not gather data on student performance to respond to student needs and improve their learning;

(iii) his lesson plans do not provide information that is responsive to student needs and improves their learning;

(iv) he does not divide assignments to facilitate observation and help struggling students absorb their learning;

(v) he does not ensure that every student has understood and does not provide students with strategies for reflection and setting new objectives;

(vi) the Member does not modify learning activities or assessments effectively to respond to needs of exceptional students.

D. Leadership and Learning Communities

1. The Member does not collaborate with other teachers and school colleagues to create and sustain learning communities in their classrooms and in their schools, in that:

(i) he does not consistently carry out his assigned supervisory duties at the end of the school day.

E. Ongoing Professional Learning

1. The Member does not engage in ongoing professional learning and apply it to improve his teaching practices, in that:

(i) he does not apply advice and feedback from colleagues or the school principal to enhance his teaching practices.

8. During the 2008-2009 school year, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession in that:

A. he failed to prepare lessons for his students who were identified as special needs students;

B. he failed to arrive on time in class to meet with his students;

C. he failed to ensure that his students were ready to go out on time after lunch.

9. In November 2008, the Member pulled the chair out from under a Grade [XXX] student (“Student 1”), who fell to the ground.

10. On or about January 20, 2009, the Member sent Student 1 out into the hallway as a disciplinary measure, contrary to the Board’s instructions.

11. In May 2009, the Member failed to provide adequate supervision for Grade [XXX] students during a period of computer work, leaving them free to view inappropriate web sites, including the Bloody Mary site.

MEMBER’S PLEA

Because the Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was he represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the assumption that he denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

EVIDENCE

At the hearing, the College called five witnesses: Francine DeMars (“Ms. DeMars”), Isabelle Ouellet (“Ms. Ouellet”), Student 1, Student 2 and Parent 1. Except for Ms. DeMars, all of the witnesses testified by videoconference, in accordance with a motion granted by the Committee on January 19, 2016.

The Committee found that the witnesses were all credible. They had all interacted with the Member on numerous occasions and were able to observe his performance. They also had clear recollections of the events. Their testimony was supported by firsthand examples and was consistent.

The relevant portions of the witnesses’ evidence will be described in greater detail, where required, in the Reasons for Decision, below.

Ms. DeMars

Ms. DeMars retired in 2014, but she was an experienced principal with nearly 30 years of professional experience. During the 2008-2009 school year, she was Principal of the School where the Member was teaching. Ms. DeMars testified concerning what transpired during the Member’s three unsatisfactory performance appraisals. Her testimony gave particulars concerning the significant deficiencies demonstrated by the Member in key areas of teaching practice, that is, in classroom management, in planning, in teaching methods, in adaptive teaching methods for a student with [XXX] and in supervision, as well as in other areas. Ms. DeMars testified that she was surprised that the performance of an experienced teacher who had previously been a principal should be so disappointing. At one point in her testimony, Ms. DeMars started to cry when expressing her disappointment that the Member’s students should basically have lost an entire school year under his tutelage.

Ms. Ouellet

Ms. Ouellet began her teaching career in 2002. She is currently a teacher, and Principal of the School. During the 2008-2009 school year, Ms. Ouellet was a teacher at the School and a colleague of the Member. She was also a designated teacher during the 2008-2009 school year. Ms. Ouellet was in daily contact with the Member and their classrooms were adjacent during the 2008-2009 school year, so she was able to share her observations of the Member at that time. She testified concerning the problems she observed with reference to the Member’s classroom management, his frequent tardiness and his failure to supervise the students.

Student 1

Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class at the School during the 2008-2009 school year. He testified concerning the Member’s tardiness and his inappropriate disciplinary measures.

Student 2

Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class at the School during the 2008-2009 school year. She testified concerning the Member’s inadequate supervision and his classroom management, describing the “Bloody Mary” incident which occurred in the Member’s class.

Parent 1

Parent 1 was a teacher at the School and her son was a student in the Member’s class during the 2008-2009 school year. Her son had [XXX]. Parent 1 testified concerning the adapting of teaching methods for a student with [XXX], and the Member’s supervision. She explained that the Member disregarded her son’s [XXX] and that the Member’s supervision was unsatisfactory.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE COLLEGE WITH RESPECT TO FINDINGS

College Counsel submitted that the evidence produced supported the case for professional misconduct and incompetence, and that the Committee ought to find the Member guilty of professional misconduct and of incompetence as defined in subsections 30(2) and 30(3) of the Act. According to College Counsel, the Member was significantly deficient in several key areas of teaching practice, that is, in classroom management, in planning, in teaching methods, in adaptive teaching methods for a student with [XXX] and in supervision, all of which is evidence of his incompetence. On the score of professional misconduct, College Counsel submitted that the Member failed to uphold the standards of the teaching profession, failed to provide supervision and used inappropriate disciplinary measures.

Counsel for the College produced three decisions of the Discipline Committee in support of their contention of professional misconduct and incompetence: Ontario College of Teachers v. Bartlett, 2009 LNONECD 13; Ontario College of Teachers v. Robitaille, 2014 LNONECD 125 (“Robitaille”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Joly, 2013 LNONECD 36 (“Joly”). According to College Counsel, Robitaille is a case similar to the Member’s, in which the Committee found that the evidence which supported the case for incompetence also supported the case for professional misconduct. Counsel maintained that in Joly, although the facts were less serious than in the Member’s case, Mr. Joly’s inadequate supervision and tardiness without cause resulted in the finding of professional misconduct. Counsel urged the Committee to base its decision on these cases.

DECISION

Onus and Standard of Proof

The College is required to prove the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] SCR 53; that is, the balance of probabilities, which consists in determining the likelihood of the occurrence of the alleged events. The Committee relies on clear and convincing evidence.

Finding

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 the Member was guilty of professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19), as set out in the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee also finds that the facts produced support the case for incompetence as defined in section 30(3) of the Act and finds that the Member demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that he is unfit to continue to carry out his professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee carefully reviewed the submissions by Counsel for the College and the evidence submitted. In the reasons that follow, it gives an opinion solely on those portions of the evidence that most closely correspond to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. In the interests of clarity and orderliness, the Committee addresses first the allegations of incompetence and then the allegations of professional misconduct against the Member. The Committee is aware that there is some overlapping of the evidence in support of some of the allegations of professional misconduct and the allegation of incompetence. It assesses the evidence for each allegation and makes findings of fact for each. It then determines that these findings of fact lead to a finding of professional misconduct and incompetence.

The facts produced support the case for incompetence

The three summative evaluation reports and the testimony of the Member’s colleagues and students, and of the parent of one of his students, demonstrated that the Member displayed in his professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that he is unfit to continue to carry out his professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by him under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

The Committee was struck, in particular, by the Member’s numerous significant deficiencies in key areas of his teaching practice, including:

1. classroom management;

2. planning;

3. teaching methods;

4. adaptive teaching methods for a student with [XXX]; and

5. supervision.

Moreover, despite all the support the Member received to improve his techniques and teaching methods, he failed to apply the advice and comments provided by his colleagues, teaching consultants and the School administration.

1. Deficiencies in Classroom Management

In the Committee’s estimation, the Member demonstrated significant deficiencies in classroom management. During his first appraisal in December 2008, Ms. DeMars observed that the Member’s students were noisy, they continued to talk over the Member and did not listen to him and a number of them were playing and did not take part in a revision (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 10, page 44). The Committee finds that the Member did not intervene satisfactorily to manage his students’ behaviour.

During his second appraisal in February 2009, the Member’s classroom management had not improved. As observed by Ms. DeMars, the Member did not intervene to correct his students who were speaking English (when they knew they were supposed to be speaking French). In addition, during his Physical Education class, one Kindergarten student hid in the equipment room and refused to come out when the Member went looking for him, so the Member left him at the back of the gym and the Principal had to intervene (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 21, page 76).

Ms. DeMars described several incidents which took place during the Member’s third appraisal in June 2009. When a student complained that the Member had been unfair in his correction of the student’s dictation, the Member replied, “You’re just jealous, don’t be a baby” (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 45, page 133). In addition, he refused to explain an assignment in Mathematics and Science to some students who did not understand the exercises (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 45, page 133). He also used inappropriate disciplinary measures: the Member pulled one student’s ear and shoved another student’s chair and then made fun of him in his apology (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 45, page 133).

Ms.Ouellet also observed that the Member had some classroom management problems, and reported them to the Principal. For example, Ms.Ouellet stated that the Member could not control his students. On one occasion, six of the 12 students were singing, pulling faces and using inappropriate language in the Member’s class, after which they were “worked up” when they came into Ms.Ouellet’s class (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 26, page 99). Student 2 confirmed that students in the Member’s class (of whom she was one) were more excited and uninhibited than in their classes with other teachers. They would fool around and talk in his class instead of working.

Ms.DeMars, Ms.Ouellet and Student 2 also described the “Bloody Mary” incident which took place in the Member’s class. As Student 2 described it, “Bloody Mary” is a summoning ritual which involves standing in a bathroom with the lights out and counting to three before turning the lights back on, at which time Bloody Mary’s terrifyingly disfigured and bloody face is supposed to appear in the mirror. The Member’s Grade [XXX] students wanted to know more about Bloody Mary, so they looked up the topic on the Internet in front of the Member, who was supposed to supervise his class. The students looked at images of naked men and women on the computer, and scary images of a bloody witch (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 29, page 102, and Exhibit 7, Tab 30, page 103).

Ms.Ouellet explained, “The students came back from the Member’s class in a panic after seeing and hearing horrible things involving a mirror and a witch and blood. My Grade 2 girls would no longer go to the washroom on their own, another student told me he couldn’t get the images of a girl covered in blood out of his mind” (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 30, page 103). After the Bloody Mary incident, Ms.Ouellet received a number of calls from parents who were concerned for their children’s safety (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 32, page 106).

Consequently, the Committee finds that the Member’s classroom management was sorely lacking.

2. Planning Deficiencies

In the Committee’s estimation, the Member demonstrated significant planning deficiencies. During the meeting between the Member and Ms.DeMars before his first classroom observation, the Principal asked the Member to give her lesson plans for several of his classes (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 9). Instead, he submitted a few lesson plans on the actual morning of the classroom observation and others the day after the observation (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 10, page 43). Ms.DeMars also said that the Member often lacked teaching material for his classes, which was a result of his lack of planning (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 10, page 46).

In spite of the support he received after his first unsatisfactory appraisal, there was no improvement in the Member’s planning. During the Member’s second performance appraisal, the Principal noted that “not all elements of the literacy block are integrated into his monthly, weekly or daily planning. The missing elements are: study of the grammar and language conventions related to the text being studied; vocabulary for the text being studied; reading situations; shared and guided reading, reading to students. In writing, no writing situations are referenced in his planning” (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 21, page 77).

During the Member’s final performance appraisal, his planning continued to be unsatisfactory. During a Mathematics lesson in which the Member was trying to explain how to measure the volume of an object, his lesson was poorly prepared. As observed by Ms.DeMars, he had not gathered everything he needed before starting the lesson. His explanations concerning volume and capacity were unclear. The container he was using for the exercise provided an inaccurate measurement, because its sides were different sizes. Because of the Member’s lack of planning, his students wasted their time fooling around in the water (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 45, page 136).

The Committee finds that the Member’s planning was deficient. He knew that his third appraisal was crucial, but showed no signs of improvement. The Committee finds that the Principal followed the performance appraisal procedure properly. In spite of the support he received from the School administration and several learning consultants (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 48), the Member failed to apply the suggestions he was given and his performance showed no improvement.

3. Deficiencies in Teaching Methods

In the Committee’s estimation, the Member demonstrated significant deficiencies in teaching methods. He does not explain the learning expectations in his teaching. Furthermore, there was no variety in his teaching methods and assessment and evaluation strategies. During his first performance appraisal, for example, the Member’s students read for 25 minutes while the Member sat at his desk. He did not circulate around the class during the reading period, he did not provide any strategies for understanding new words and he did not show any interest in his students (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 10, page 45).

The Member’s teaching methods were similarly unsatisfactory during his second performance appraisal. His lesson preparations did not integrate strategies and learning activities into several subject areas of the curriculum, nor did he familiarize himself with the assessment and evaluation procedure. He did not chart each student’s progress through frequent, carefully planned and structured intervention (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 21, page 82), as expected by the School administration.

Again, during his third performance appraisal, the Member’s teaching methods had not improved, in spite of the support he was given. Ms.DeMars described a Science class in which the activities were not tied to the curriculum and did not reflect the students’ level. During this class, the Member instructed the students to colour in a bus, cut it out and fold it. The discussion focused on the colours and how to cut it out (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 45, page 134) and had nothing to do with science. In another class during which the Member’s students were supposed to learn about erosion, he gave his students very little explanation and did not ask any questions to verify their learning (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 45, page 134).

The Committee finds that the Member’s teaching methods were deficient. According to the evidence, the Member did not employ effective questioning techniques, did not know strategies to use in group work and was not sufficiently familiar with the curriculum. The Committee is astounded that the Member demonstrated so little effort with regard to his students, even when he knew that his job was at stake.

4. Deficiencies in Adaptive Teaching Methods for a Student with [XXX]

In the Committee’s estimation, the Member demonstrated significant deficiencies in adaptive teaching methods for a student with [XXX]. Parent 1 testified concerning the disregard for his son’s [XXX] in the Member’s class. Her son was struggling with areas including writing, reading, concentration, focus and organization. Parent 1 also confirmed that her son needed [XXX] system (to help him [XXX] his teachers), as indicated in his [XXX] (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 5, page 28), but the Member did not use the system consistently. When Parent 1 went to check her son’s device with the Member to make sure it was working, she found that it was not even charged (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 8, page 37).

According to Parent 1, the Member disregarded her son’s [XXX], as she expected. Her son had the same assessments as his classmates and there was no assurance that he was wearing his [XXX]. Furthermore, Parent 1’s son did not always receive the assistance requested from the Member and the teacher often ignored him. Parent 1 testified that the Member could not explain or justify her son’s report card marks and the competencies to develop on his report card were not consistent with the Member’s comments (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 20, page 72, and Exhibit 7, Tab 25, pages 96-97). In June 2009, Parent 1 withdrew her son from the School for the rest of the school year, “because the atmosphere in the Member’s class is not conducive to his learning” (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 43, page 126).

Ms. DeMars corroborated the testimony of Parent 1. During the Member’s first performance appraisal, the Principal observed, “There is no sign of adaptation or modification for the student with [XXX]” (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 10, page 46). During the Member’s second appraisal, Ms. DeMars indicated, “The student who has [XXX] fooled around for the whole period; he fooled around with his ruler and eraser, made the student behind him laugh and prevented him from listening. The Member did not intervene once” (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 21, page 77). During the Member’s third appraisal, the Principal observed, “The Member does not modify tests for struggling students but skips the unanswered questions when they are being marked. In dictation, he set all of the students 20 words to write and when they were being marked he awarded 15 out of 15 to one student because he did not count the five words that were not written correctly” (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 45, page 140).

Consequently, the Committee finds that adaptive teaching methods for a student with [XXX] were non-existent in the Member’s case. He was not responsive to the teaching needs of all of his students, he did not use specialized equipment consistently for his student with [XXX] and he did not differentiate his instruction.

5. Deficiencies in Supervision

In the Committee’s estimation, the Member demonstrated significant deficiencies in supervision. His inadequate supervision demonstrated his disregard for the welfare and safety of his students, and his poor professional judgement. The Committee admitted evidence that the Member was often late for his class and his supervisory shifts, that his supervision was often unsatisfactory even when he was present and that he sent Student 1 into the hallway unsupervised on numerous occasions.

Several witnesses testified that the Member was often late for his class and his supervisory shifts. According to Ms. DeMars, the Member “arrived late to relieve his colleagues” (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 10, page 47), he came outside “almost always late and did not provide appropriate supervision” (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 21, page 81) and on a number of occasions, Ms. DeMars “received complaints from the Principal of the English-language school and teachers to the effect that the Member’s supervision did not ensure proper safety” (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 45, page 140). Ms. Ouellet, too, stated that on numerous occasions the Member did not come outside on time for his supervisory shifts, and sometimes not until there were no students remaining in the playground (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 6, page 34, and Exhibit 7, Tab 27, page 100). Student 1 also confirmed that the Member was often late for his class.

The Committee finds that the Member’s supervision was often unsatisfactory even when he was present. Ms. Ouellet and Parent 1 described one incident in which the Member’s unsatisfactory supervision compromised the students’ safety. During this incident, some students were playing on their bicycles in the street across from the playground where the Member was doing his supervisory shift. A car honked as it approached the students, but the Member did not intervene. Ms. Ouellet and Parent 1 had to intervene by whistling and shouting at the students to get out of the way, while the Member stayed at the back of the playground (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 6, page 34, and Exhibit 7, Tab 31, page 105). The Member’s supervision was similarly unsatisfactory during the aforementioned Bloody Mary incident in which he failed to intervene adequately when his students were viewing inappropriate and scary images on the Internet.

The Committee also admitted evidence that the Member sent Student 1 into the hallway (as a disciplinary measure) unsupervised on numerous occasions. This form of discipline is inappropriate and shows poor professional judgement on the Member’s part. Student 1 testified that the Member sent him into the hallway by himself several times a week. Ms. Ouellet confirmed that Student 1 spent a great deal of time by himself in the hallway and she could see him from her classroom. She added that the door to the Member’s classroom was often closed when Student 1 was in the hallway and the Member could not supervise the student from inside his classroom because the door did not have a window.

Consequently, the Committee finds that the Member’s supervision was clearly inadequate and jeopardized his students’ safety.

Finding as to Incompetence

After examining all of the evidence, the Committee finds that the Member is incompetent as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act. As stated above, the Member was significantly deficient in numerous key areas of his teaching practice. His unsatisfactory performance prevented his students from achieving their full potential and, at times, compromised their safety. Moreover, in spite of all the support he received towards improving his techniques and teaching methods, the Member refused assistance (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 45, page 141). His teaching and learning practice and professionalism failed to improve throughout his three unsatisfactory performance appraisals.

The facts produced support the case for professional misconduct

The Committee finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct in that he contravened subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In view of the overlapping of the evidence in support of the finding of incompetence and the evidence in support of the finding of professional misconduct, the Committee refers to the aforementioned evidence, where applicable, instead of reiterating the evidence in the reasons that follow.

1. Failure to maintain the standards of the profession

As alleged in paragraph 8 of the Notice of Hearing, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, by disregarding the [XXX] of one of his students and because of his frequent tardiness. The Committee expects members of the teaching profession to comply with students’ [XXX] and adapt their lessons so that all students have an equal opportunity to learn and achieve. The Member did nothing to assist the academic development of his student with [XXX], as described above.

Furthermore, the Member was often late for his class and supervisory shifts, as testified by Ms. DeMars, Ms. Ouellet and Student 1. According to Ms. Ouellet, she and her students wasted time every day because she had to escort her students to the Member’s class, even though it was his responsibility to come and get them. The Member’s tardiness also jeopardized the safety of his students who were left unsupervised, as described above. The Member’s constant tardiness showed his disregard for his professional responsibilities and for his students’ welfare.

Consequently, the Committee finds that the facts concerning the failure to maintain the standards of the teaching profession support the case for professional misconduct.

2. Inappropriate disciplinary measures

As alleged in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Notice of Hearing, the Member used inappropriate disciplinary measures with his students on several occasions. Firstly, the Member pulled the chair out from under Student 1, who fell to the ground. Student 1 testified that the Member pulled out his chair because he would not stop talking during a group project and refused to leave the classroom. Student 1 narrowly missed hitting his head on the table. Ms. DeMars reported the incident to the Superintendent of Education (refer to Exhibit 7, Tab 7, page 35). Secondly, as Student 1 testified, the Member grabbed him by the neck of his T-shirt to drag him out of the classroom when Student 1 would not pay attention to him. Thirdly, as mentioned above, the Member sent Student 1 out into the hallway unsupervised on several occasions as a disciplinary measure.

The Committee finds that the facts concerning the inappropriate disciplinary measures support the case for professional misconduct. The intentional use of force against a student is completely unacceptable. Likewise, sending a student into the hallway unsupervised is not an appropriate disciplinary measure. Teachers are responsible for students’ safety and welfare. The disciplinary measures used by the Member on multiple occasions ran counter to his professional responsibilities.

3. Inadequate supervision

As alleged in paragraph 11 of the Notice of Hearing, the Member failed to provide adequate supervision for his students. The Committee admitted evidence concerning the Bloody Mary incident, as described above, and finds that the Member’s supervision was completely inadequate. Because of his lack of supervision, young students were traumatized.

The Committee also admitted evidence concerning the Member’s supervisory shift in the playground during which students were playing in the street as a car approached them, honking its horn, and the Member failed to intervene. The Committee also finds that the Member did not always come outside for his supervisory shift when he was supposed to do so. By failing to take his supervisory responsibilities seriously, the Member jeopardized his students’ safety.

Consequently, the Committee finds that the facts concerning the Member’s inadequate supervision support the case for professional misconduct.

Finding as to Professional Misconduct

The Committee finds that the aforementioned facts demonstrate that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct in that he contravened sections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY BY COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE

According to College Counsel, the purposes of penalty include specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation of the Member, the transparency of the discipline process and protection of the public. It is also intended to maintain the high standards of the teaching profession.

According to College Counsel, the appropriate penalty in the Member’s case would consist of the following:

1. a reprimand;

2. a three-month suspension;

3. one or more courses leading to an Additional Basic Qualification and covering curriculum, lesson planning, teaching methods and evaluation and assessment of student learning; and one or more courses on classroom management and effective student discipline techniques;

4. compliance with a number of conditions or restrictions before the Member can resume teaching, and compliance with a number of conditions or restrictions if he does return to teaching; these conditions or restrictions are intended to protect the public and assist with the Member’s rehabilitation; and

5. publication in summary form of the findings and orders of the Committee, with respect to the professional misconduct only, in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, including the Member’s name.

College Counsel produced three decisions by the Discipline Committee in support of the proposed penalties: Ontario College of Teachers v. MacGregor, 2005 LNONECD 18; Robitaille; and Joly.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following penalty order:

1. The Discipline Committee directs that, prior to accepting any teaching position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member must appear before the Committee at the College’s offices at 101 Bloor Street West in Toronto, Ontario, to receive a verbal reprimand. This decision is to be published in the College’s public register;

2. The Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of three months from the date of the Committee’s order and to publish this decision immediately in the College’s public register;

3. The Committee directs the College Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and restrictions on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and to publish this decision in the public register until the conditions have been met:

(i) prior to seeking or accepting any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member must enrol, at his own expense, in the following courses, pre-approved by the Registrar:

a) one or more courses leading to an Additional Basic Qualification and covering curriculum, class planning, teaching methods and evaluation and assessment of student learning;

b) one or more courses on classroom management and effective student discipline techniques;

(ii) prior to enrolling in the aforementioned courses, the Member must forward this decision to the course provider. He must also provide the Registrar, within 10 days of the date of so forwarding, with proof that the decision has been forwarded to the course provider;

(iii) within 30 days of completion of each of the aforementioned courses, the Member must provide the Registrar with written proof of his successful completion of the courses;

(iv) prior to returning to teaching, the Member must notify the Registrar of the date of his return to teaching and, within 10 days of said date, the name of his employer and the nature of his employment;

(v) prior to returning to teaching, the Member must forward this decision to his employer. He must also provide the Registrar, within 10 days of said date, with proof that the decision has been so forwarded;

(vi) when the Member has returned to teaching, he must make all reasonable efforts to have his employer carry out two appraisals of his performance within 18 months of the start of his employment;

(vii) the Member must make all reasonable efforts to provide the Registrar with two satisfactory performance appraisals within 18 months of his return to teaching.

4. The findings and orders of the Committee, with respect to the professional misconduct only, are to be published in summary form in the next regular issue of the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, including the Member’s name.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Committee carefully weighed the arguments put forward by Counsel for the College and took into consideration that the purpose of the penalty is to serve and protect the public interest, uphold the standards of the teaching profession and promote public trust in the teaching profession. The Member’s behaviour was inappropriate in a number of contexts and his performance was repeatedly unsatisfactory. His conduct demonstrated unprofessionalism and a lack of commitment to his students.

In the Committee’s estimation, a reprimand is a penalty proportionate to the misconduct, which will serve as a specific deterrent for the Member and will impress upon him the seriousness of his misconduct. The reprimand is related to the Member’s professional misconduct. The fact that the reprimand will be published in the College’s public register of members will serve as a general deterrent and will also demonstrate to the public that the College continues to take such misconduct very seriously.

The three-month suspension sends a clear message to the Member and to the members of the teaching profession that such conduct is taken very seriously and will not be tolerated. The profession must expose the type of conduct displayed by the Member. The length of the suspension is reasonable and appropriate given the facts in the Member’s case, and in similar cases produced by Counsel for the College. The Committee was struck by the Member’s unsatisfactory performance and by the fact that he refused all assistance in spite of the support he received towards improving his techniques and teaching methods. The Committee also has serious concerns with respect to the Member’s inadequate supervision, his inappropriate disciplinary measures and his disrespect for his students and colleagues and for the teaching profession as a whole.

In the Committee’s estimation, prior to seeking or accepting any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member must enrol in one or more courses leading to an Additional Basic Qualification and covering curriculum, lesson planning, teaching methods and evaluation and assessment of student learning; and one or more courses on classroom management and effective student discipline techniques. These courses will help him to acquire the competencies needed to carry out his teaching responsibilities effectively. They will also serve the public interest, because they are designed to rehabilitate the Member. By successfully completing the courses, the Member will demonstrate to the public that he possesses the competencies expected of a teacher.

The Committee finds that the conditions or restrictions imposed above are reasonable and appropriate. They are designed to protect the public and to rehabilitate the Member. They will make it possible for the Registrar and the Member’s employer to monitor his progress closely and ensure that he is successfully applying the theory he has acquired.

The Committee finds that publishing a summary of its findings and orders with the Member’s name in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, is warranted. The summary will deal only with the Member’s professional misconduct, in accordance with subsection 30(5) of the Act. 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 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 profession 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, preserves the integrity of the profession, maintains public confidence in the teaching profession and serves and protects the public interest.

Date: February 18, 2016

Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT

Chair, Discipline Committee

Stéphane Vallée, OCT

Member, Discipline Committee

Ravi Vethamany, OCT

Member, Discipline Committee