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
Jeffrey Steven Williams, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Thomas (Tom) Potter, Chair
Sara Nouini, OCT
Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Christine Lonsdale,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
JEFFREY STEVEN WILLIAMS )
(CERTIFICATE # 422412) ) Kirsty Niglas-Collins,
) Student-at-Law, ) Ontario Secondary School Teachers’
) Federation,
) for Jeffrey Steven Williams
) Rebecca Durcan,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: April 22, 2016
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 22, 2016 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1), dated June 11, 2014 was served on Jeffrey Steven Williams (the “Member”), requesting his presence on July 9, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for April 22, 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 the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(e) 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
(f) 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 as follows:
At all material times, Jeffrey Steven Williams was 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 regarding the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] (the “School”). The Member taught [XXX].
The School’s population includes many students with [XXX]. The School’s curriculum is focused on teaching [XXX].
On or around February 21, 2012, school administrators received complaints regarding the Member’s classroom management and conduct. The Member had:
(a) used swear words in the classroom;
(b) made comments critical of students’ work and/or efforts, which were not appropriate for teaching.
As a result of the Member’s conduct, students were anxious and upset.
Following an investigation of the complaints, a Letter of Counsel from the School principal was given to the Member. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Letter of Counsel dated April 26, 2012.
During the Fall of 2012, the Member was assigned to teach a [XXX]class. During the class the Member spoke sharply when students were unable to complete assigned work, yelled at students, and used profane language. As a result of the Member’s conduct, a number of students with [XXX] were upset and reported the issue to their parents and the School’s administrators.
Following an investigation, a Letter of Reprimand from the School principal was given to the Member. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Letter of Reprimand dated December 7, 2012.
The Member retired from his position with the Board effective January 31, 2016.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs 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(7), 1(15), and 1(18) (unprofessional).
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 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 (c) and (f) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7.2) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
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(15) and 1(18) (unprofessional).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 8 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 professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), and 1(18) (unprofessional).
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 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).
Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 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)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 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 unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
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 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 of the Ontario College of Teachers (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) prior to commencing or returning to 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, with a focus on dealing with students with [XXX];
(b) within 30 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 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; and
(ii) the Member has successfully completed the course.
- direct that there be publication of the finding and order of the Committee in summary form in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession. The parties have not agreed on whether or not the Member’s name should be included and submissions will be made on this issue.
SUBMISSIONS RE: PUBLICATION
Submissions of College Counsel
College Counsel submitted that publication with the name of the Member is warranted in the circumstances. College Counsel argued that the Member’s conduct was not at the low end of the spectrum. College Counsel submitted that there was no evidence of rehabilitation. College Counsel added that publication with the name of the Member serves as a specific deterrent to the Member and as a general deterrent to the profession. Moreover, College Counsel stated that the Committee’s denunciation of the Member’s conduct through the publication of his name demonstrates to the public that acts of professional misconduct attract serious consequences. Furthermore, publication with the Member’s name is important, according to College Counsel, because it informs the public and other members of the profession that matters before the Committee are resolved in an open and transparent manner.
College Counsel referred the Committee to three cases (Ontario College of Teachers v. Courtney, 2014 LNONCTD 82, Ontario College of Teachers v. Ashford-Smith, 2014 LNONCTD 73, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Thompson, 2014 LNONCTD 67) which contained facts regarding inappropriate comments. College Counsel submitted that the facts in those cases were similar to the facts before the Committee and publication with name was ordered in those instances.
Submissions of the Member
Counsel for the Member submitted that publication with the name of the Member is not necessary in this case. Counsel for the Member submitted that the Committee has discretion with respect to the issue of publication of members’ names. Counsel for the Member argued that publication with name is a punitive power which “really matters to members” of the profession. Counsel for the Member submitted that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors and supported publication without name. According to the Member’s counsel, the following were mitigating factors: the Member is sincerely sorry for his misconduct; the Member had a nineteen year career with no previous discipline issues with the College; the Member retired as of January 31, 2016; the misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum; the misconduct occurred over three years ago, and the Member reached an agreement with the College and pleaded guilty to the misconduct, thus saving College resources.
Counsel for the Member referred the Committee to six cases (Ontario College of Teachers v. Mukts, 2013 LNONCTD 98; Ontario College of Teachers v. Kosonic, 2015 LNONCTD 72; Ontario College of Teachers v. Worthy, 2015 LNONCTD 82; Ontario College of Teachers v. Brame, 2014 LNONCTD; Ontario College of Teachers v. Brooks, 2015 LNONCTD 46, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Milsap, 2013 LNONCTD 52) where the misconduct and mitigating factors were similar to the Member’s case and the Committees determined that publication without name was appropriate in the circumstances.
Counsel for the Member argued that the cases relied on by College Counsel were distinguishable on their facts and not applicable to the Member.
Reply Submissions of Counsel for the College
In reply, College Counsel argued that the Committee could only take into account the evidence that was before it and should disregard Counsel for the Member’s submissions on mitigation where there was no evidence to support the submissions.
College Counsel submitted that the cases relied upon by Counsel for the Member were distinguishable on their facts and not applicable to the Member.
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.
With respect to the issue of publication, the Committee directs that there be publication of a summary of the finding and order of the Committee in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, with the name of the Member.
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 language and conduct directed at students with [XXX] 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 course of instruction regarding classroom management, with a focus on dealing with students with [XXX], 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. The Committee weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors submitted by College Counsel and Counsel for the Member. In mitigation, the Committee accepts that the Member had a long, unblemished career prior to this misconduct. The Committee also acknowledges that the Member saved College resources by entering into an agreement with the College. The Committee accepts that the misconduct occurred over three years ago.
The Committee finds, however, that the aggravating factors outweigh those in mitigation. The Member yelled and used profane language with students who were especially vulnerable because they have [XXX]. The Member was inappropriately critical of not just the work but the effort put in by these especially vulnerable students. The Member’s words and actions caused the students to become “anxious and upset.” The Member’s inappropriate language and behaviour continued approximately six months after he received a Letter of Counsel from the School principal for the same type of behaviour. The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct and inappropriate language is not at the lower end of the spectrum, especially in light of his repetition of the misconduct and the students involved.
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 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: May 10, 2016
Thomas (Tom) Potter,
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel