Ontario College of Teachers v. Chéry, 2016 ONOCT 73

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Chéry, 2016 ONOCT 73

Date: 2016-11-09

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and Ontario Regulation 437/97 thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Pierre Léozert Chéry, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Sara Nouini, OCT, Chair

Marie-Thérèse Hokayem

BETWEEN: )

) Alexandre Blanchard and Christine Lonsdale,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for the Ontario College of Teachers,

) assisted by Annie Lacroix,

) Law Clerk

– and – )

) Pierre Léozert Chéry

PIERRE LÉOZERT CHÉRY ) was not present or represented

(CERTIFICATE #465374) )

) Renée Kopp,

) Jones Litigation Counsel LLP,

) Independent Legal Counsel ) )

) Heard: October 25 and 26, 2016

DECISION, REASONS FOR 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 October 25, 2016 at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated February 14, 2014 (Exhibit 1) was served on Pierre Léozert Chéry (the “Member”), requesting his presence before the panel on April 22, 2014 to set a date for the hearing. The hearing was set for October 25, 2016 and continued on October 26, 2016.

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

Shortly after the commencement of the hearing, after the Notice of Hearing had been recorded as Exhibit 1, Mr. Robert Gagné recused himself from the Committee in this matter because of his discovery of a conflict of interest concerning one of the witnesses for the College. He recused himself before the College had called its first witness. Pursuant to section 4.4 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, the remaining two members completed the hearing and gave a decision without Mr. Gagné’s participation.

College Counsel submitted the Affidavit of Annie Lacroix sworn October 24, 2016 (Exhibit 3) to prove that the College had fulfilled its service requirements and had even taken additional steps to attempt to inform the Member of the allegations against him, the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that might be sought by the Committee. In the affidavit, Ms. Lacroix, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, describes in detail her attempts to contact the Member and provides proof of service of the Notice of Hearing and all required documents to the Member’s last known address and e-mail address, in accordance with Rules 2.03 and 4.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee. Ms. Lacroix also performed additional online searches, but was unable to find any information for the Member. On the basis of the affidavit, the Committee is satisfied that adequate efforts were made to contact the Member and service is deemed to have been provided in the circumstances. The Committee therefore proceeded with the hearing in the Member’s absence.

SUMMARY

At all material times, the Member was an [XXX] teacher employed by the Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est (the “Board”). On December 13, 2011, while working as an [XXX] teacher, the Member behaved aggressively and abusively towards at least 19 students in seven different classes from Grade [XXX] to Grade [XXX]. He abused numerous students verbally, physically and psychologically or emotionally.

For the following reasons, in the Committee’s estimation, the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (the “Act”), in that he contravened sections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 14, 2014 are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Pierre Léozert Chéry is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) 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 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 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

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

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Member is a member of the College.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est as an [XXX] teacher. The Member taught at École [XXX] (the “School”) from August to December 2011.

3. In December 2011 the Member allegedly:

(a) lashed out at the Grade [XXX] students;

(b) said to Student 1, an [XXX] Grade [XXX] student, “No, you retard, don’t touch that” or “No, don’t touch that, you retard”;

(c) hit Student 2, a Grade [XXX] student, on the hand;

(d) with his hand, shoved Student 3, a Grade [XXX] student, from behind, and dug his nails into the student’s back;

(e) grabbed Student 4, a Grade [XXX] student, and/or Student 5, a Grade [XXX] student, by his sweatshirt and shoved him;

(f) used inappropriate language with the Grade [XXX] students, such as: “I’m gonna kick you out!” “Shut up,” “Shut it,” and/or “Bend down, or get the hell out!”;

(g) pressed down on the heads of Student 6, Student 7, Student 8, Student 9 and/or Student 10, five Grade [XXX] students, and gripped them by the arm, wrist and/or shoulder to force them to bend down to pick up objects from the classroom floor;

(h) using both hands, shoved Student 11, a Grade [XXX] student, out of the classroom;

(i) grabbed Student 12, Student 13, Student 14 and/or Student 15, four Grade [XXX] students, by the arm and pulled them, and shoved them in the chest and/or by the shoulders;

(j) forced Student 16 and Student 17, two Grade [XXX] students, to pick up objects from the floor by gripping their forearms and forcing them towards the floor;

(k) seized the puppet belonging to Student 12, a Grade [XXX] student, and destroyed it;

(l) threatened Student 18, a Grade [XXX] student, with a pair of scissors; and

(m) tugged on the hair of Student 19, a Grade [XXX] student, to make him change direction in the classroom.

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.

THE EVIDENCE

At the hearing, the College called three witnesses: Jean-François Bard (“Mr. Bard”), Student 19 (as he is referred to in the Notice of Hearing) and François Laperle (“Mr. Laperle”).

The Committee found that the witnesses were all credible. They had clear recollections of the events, their testimony was plausible and reasonable, and their evidence was internally and externally consistent. Their testimonies were satisfactorily detailed and direct, and were supported by notes made at the time of the incidents in question.

The Committee acknowledges that the Notice of Hearing concerns at least 19 students, but that the College called only one student to testify. The Committee concurs with the explanation provided by the College in the Supplemental Affidavit of Annie Lacroix [sic] sworn October 24, 2016 (see Exhibit 4).

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

Mr. Bard

Mr. Bard is an experienced educator who began his career in education in 2000. Since then, he has occupied positions as a teacher, vice-principal, principal and Superintendent of Education. He was Vice-Principal of the School at the time of the incidents in question, and he led the investigation into the Member’s conduct.

Mr. Bard testified concerning his in-depth investigation into the Member. During his investigation, Mr. Bard met with a number of students from Grades [XXX] to [XXX] and obtained written statements from some students. He questioned the students in groups or individually, depending on their age. He met one-on-one with the older students. He made detailed notes during his investigation which were subsequently transcribed onto computer (see Exhibits 6 and 7). On the basis of his notes, and shortly after completing his investigation, Mr. Bard used his notes to prepare a clear, precise account of the problematic incidents involving the Member when he was an [XXX] teacher at the School on December 13, 2011 (see Exhibit 8). Mr. Bard then followed up with the Board.

The College asked the Committee to consider Mr. Bard as a participant expert in classroom management and communication with students. The College based its request on paragraphs 6, 60 and 61 of the recent case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”). The Committee found that Mr. Bard fulfilled the criteria set out in Westerhof in view of his education experience as a teacher, vice-principal, principal and Superintendent of Education. He was very familiar with the Standards of the Teaching Profession, was directly involved in the investigation into the Member’s conduct and had formulated an opinion concerning the Member and whether he had maintained the standards of the profession. Accordingly, the Committee considered Mr. Bard a participant expert in classroom management and communication with students.

Student 19

Student 19 was a Grade [XXX] student in December 2011. The Member was his [XXX] teacher on the day in question. He testified concerning the atmosphere in the Member’s classroom and the teacher’s aggressive tone. According to Student 19, he had never had such an [XXX] teacher, who shouted at the students in the class for no reason. During his testimony, Student 19 referred to Exhibit 10, a written and signed transcript of his account of the incidents with the Member and given by Student 19 to Mr. Bard.

Mr. Laperle

Mr. Laperle was a Human Resources manager with the Board during the incidents in question and is currently Director of Human Resources with another school board. He testified concerning the investigation he conducted into the matter involving the Member and the resulting disciplinary measures taken by the Board.

Mr. Laperle referred to a report he wrote after meeting with the Member in January 2012, in which the Member gave his version of the incidents in question (see Exhibit 18). According to Mr. Laperle, the Member utterly denied all the allegations and there was no consistency between his version of the events and the version given by the numerous students who were questioned by Mr. Bard. After the meeting between the Member and the Board, Mr. Bard carried out additional verifications, questioning some students and teachers to re-substantiate certain situations. None of the people with whom he met contradicted the version of the facts that was originally given to Mr. Bard.

After his in-depth investigation, Mr. Laperle determined that the Member had shown a lack of professionalism and that his actions were very dangerous. Mr. Laperle based his conclusions on the following considerations:

• the many testimonies from the Complainants were credible and well documented;

• for each action of which he was accused, three or four witnesses also confirmed the various incidents;

• the Respondent was never able to justify any of the actions, instead citing a conspiracy;

• the incidents took place during one period after another and the Complainants were not able to confer with one another, despite the Respondent’s claim;

• the seriousness of the actions committed;

• the Member was capable of discerning that his actions were inappropriate; and

• the Member did not admit to the actions (see Exhibit 18, page 11).

As a result, Mr. Laperle recommended that a complaint be filed with the Children’s Aid Society, that the Member be removed from the [XXX] teachers’ list, that the Member take training in classroom management and that a complaint be submitted to the College.

Mr. Laperle produced several letters that he had sent to the Member concerning the investigation and the disciplinary measures levied by the Board (see Exhibits 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21). He testified that the Board sent the Member a notice of meeting to present him with the findings of its investigation, but the Member informed the Board that he would not attend the meeting in April 2012 (and he did not do so). Consequently, the Member was suspended indefinitely from the [XXX] teachers’ list maintained by the Board, until it could present him with the findings of its investigation into his conduct. The Board also took note of the insubordination he exhibited by choosing not to attend the meeting (see Exhibit 21).

THE COLLEGE’S SUBMISSIONS ON THE FINDING

College Counsel submitted that the evidence produced supported the case for professional misconduct, and that the Committee ought to find the Member guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act. Although the Committee did not have direct evidence from all of the students involved in the matter, Mr. Bard’s investigation was methodical and exhaustive and his proof was credible and reliable. College Counsel urged the Committee to rely on Exhibit 8, in particular, which sets out the many incidents involving the Member on the December 13, 2011 school day.

According to College Counsel, all of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing were proven on a balance of probabilities. The Member’s conduct was flagrant and abusive and the incidents involving him were numerous and recurrent. The Member verbally, physically and psychologically abused at least 19 students in seven different classes (from Grade [XXX] to Grade [XXX]) in one day. He clearly contravened the standards of the teaching profession (see Exhibit 13).

College Counsel produced two decisions of the Discipline Committee in support of the finding of professional misconduct: Ontario College of Teachers v. Blier, 2016 LNONECD 14 (“Blier”) and Ontario College of Teachers v. Foucault, 2015 LNONECD 48 (“Foucault”). Although the facts in these two cases are not identical to the Member’s case, they are similar and resulted in a finding of professional misconduct. College Counsel urged the Committee to rely on these cases when giving its decision.

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] SCC 53, that is, the balance of probabilities, which consists in determining the likelihood of the occurrence of the alleged events.

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 Pierre Léozert Chéry is guilty of 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), as set out in the Notice of Hearing.

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 paragraphs 3(a) to 3(m) of the Notice of Hearing and makes findings of fact for each. It then determines whether these findings of fact are sufficient for a finding of professional misconduct.

The Committee concedes that the Member denied the allegations during his investigation with the Board, but finds that the aforementioned evidence provided by Mr. Laperle demonstrates that the Member’s version of events is not credible. The Committee did not receive any evidence during the hearing in support of the Member’s version of events.

Findings of Fact

3(a) – The Member lashed out at the Grade [XXX] students

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 9:15 and 10:05 a.m., the Member lashed out at the Grade [XXX] students after several incidents in the classroom: one student was whistling, another was talking over him and a third would not stay in his chair. According to Mr. Bard, the behaviour by the Member’s young students was completely normal. The Member’s reaction was problematic and excessive in the circumstances. The Committee agrees with this analysis.

3(b) – The Member said to Student 1, an [XXX] Grade [XXX] student, “No, you retard, don’t touch that” or “No, don’t touch that, you retard”

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 10:05 and 10:55 a.m., when some Grade [XXX] students were working with gears and an [XXX] student took only one gear instead of three (and then tried to take two others), the Member became angry and said, “No, you retard, don’t touch that” or “No, don’t touch that, you retard.” According to Mr. Bard, three Grade [XXX] students told him basically the same facts, in one-on-one interviews. Mr. Bard’s notes made at the time, transcribed in Exhibit 7, page 2, support his testimony.

3(c) – The Member hit Student 2, a Grade [XXX] student, on the hand

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m., the Member hit a Grade [XXX] student fairly hard on the hand and shouted, “Don’t touch that!” when the student was about to take a sheet of construction paper to make his puppet. Mr. Bard testified that he questioned three students as a group during his investigation into this incident and they all told the same story. Mr. Bard’s notes made at the time, transcribed in Exhibit 7, page 2, support his testimony.

3(d) – With his hand, the Member shoved Student 3, a Grade [XXX] student, from behind, and dug his nails into the student’s back

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that, in order to send a Grade [XXX] student back to her work table between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m., the Member shoved her from behind with his hand and dug his nails into her back. Mr. Bard testified that this incident was highly concerning. Mr. Bard’s notes made at the time, transcribed in Exhibit 7, page 2, support his testimony.

3(e) – The Member grabbed Student 4, a Grade [XXX] student, and Student 5, a Grade [XXX] student, by the sweatshirt and shoved them

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m., the Member grabbed a Grade [XXX] student by his sweatshirt and shoved him towards the door. Later that day, during a Grade [XXX] class, the Member grabbed two other students by the cuffs of their sweatshirts and shoved them towards their work table.

3(f) – The Member used inappropriate language with the Grade [XXX] students, such as: “I’m gonna kick you out!” “Shut up,” “Shut it,” and “Bend down, or get the hell out!”

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m., the Member used inappropriate language, such as: “I’m gonna kick you out!” “Shut up,” “Shut it,” and “Bend down, or get the hell out!” on several occasions. This evidence is corroborated by Exhibit 11, a written and signed transcript of the account of the incidents with the Member which Student 9 had given to Mr. Bard. Mr. Bard’s notes made at the time, transcribed in Exhibit 7, page 3, also support this evidence.

3(g) – The Member pressed down on the heads of Student 6, Student 7, Student 8, Student 9 and Student 10, five Grade [XXX] students, and gripped them by the arm, wrist and shoulder to force them to bend down to pick up objects from the classroom floor

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m., the Member gripped two students (Student 6 and Student 7) by the arm and shoulder, pressed down on the heads of two other students and gripped them by the arm (Student 8 and Student 9), and gripped Student 10 by the wrist, forcing them to bend down to pick up objects from the classroom floor. This evidence is corroborated by Exhibit 11, a written and signed transcript of the account of the incidents with the Member which Student 9 had given to Mr. Bard. Student 9 explained that the Member engaged in the above-mentioned actions with him and Students 6, 7, 8 and 10, among others. Mr. Bard’s notes made at the time, transcribed in Exhibit 7, pages 1 and 3, also support this evidence.

3(h) – Using both hands, the Member shoved Student 11, a Grade [XXX] student, out of the classroom

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m., the Member used both hands to shove a Grade [XXX] student out of the classroom when she came back from the washroom. This evidence is corroborated by Exhibit 11, a written and signed transcript of the account of the incidents with the Member which Student 9 had given to Mr. Bard.

3(i) – The Member grabbed Student 12, Student 13, Student 14 and Student 15, four Grade [XXX] students, by the arm and pulled them, and shoved them in the chest and by the shoulders

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m., the Member grabbed and pulled Student 12 by the arm to send him back to his work table; shoved Student 13 in the chest and shoulders five times to force him out of the classroom because he was standing up instead of sitting at his work table; and shoved Student 14 in the back three or four times to force him out of the classroom because he was standing up instead of sitting at his work table. Similarly, between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m., the Member punched Student 15 fairly hard with a closed fist and, in the same movement, jabbed him with his forearm to push him towards his work table. This evidence is corroborated by Exhibit 9, a written and signed transcript of the account of the incidents with the Member which Student 15 had given to Mr. Bard. Mr. Bard’s notes made at the time, transcribed in Exhibit 7, page 3, also support this evidence.

3(j) – The Member forced Student 16 and Student 17, two Grade [XXX] students, to pick up objects from the floor by gripping their forearms and forcing them towards the floor

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m., the Member forced two Grade [XXX] students to pick up objects from the floor by gripping their forearms and forcing their arms towards the floor. Mr. Bard testified that these students were two of the smallest in Grade [XXX].

3(k) – The Member seized the puppet belonging to a Grade [XXX] student and destroyed it

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m., the Member seized the puppet belonging to a Grade [XXX] student and destroyed it because she asked him a question instead of sitting at her work table during a [XXX] class. Mr. Bard testified that this was a model student and the Member destroyed her puppet for no good reason. Mr. Bard’s notes made at the time, transcribed in Exhibit 7, page 3, also support his testimony.

3(l) – The Member threatened a Grade [XXX] student with a pair of scissors

Mr. Bard’s testimony and Exhibit 8 prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m., the Member threatened a Grade [XXX] student with a pair of scissors by brandishing the scissors at him. This evidence is corroborated by Exhibit 12, a written and signed transcript of the accounts of the incidents with the Member which two Grade [XXX] students had given to Mr. Bard. Exhibit 12 confirms that the Member snatched the scissors out of a student’s hands and almost hit another student in the face with the sharp end of the scissors. Mr. Bard’s notes made at the time, transcribed in Exhibit 7, page 1, also support this evidence.

3(m) – The Member tugged on the hair of Student 19, a Grade [XXX] student, to make him change direction in the classroom

The testimony of Mr. Bard and Student 19, and Exhibit 8, prove, on a balance of probabilities, that between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m., the Member tugged on Student 19’s hair to make him change direction in the classroom during the clean-up period. This evidence is corroborated by Exhibit 10, a written and signed transcript of the account of the incidents with the Member which Student 19 had given to Mr. Bard. Student 19 also confirmed, at the hearing, that the Member was very aggressive during the December 13, 2011 school day. Mr. Bard’s notes made at the time, transcribed in Exhibit 7, page 1, also support this evidence.

Findings of Professional Misconduct

The Committee finds that the above-mentioned facts support the case for professional misconduct. Specifically, the Committee finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct in that he contravened sections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The facts show that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the teaching profession; he abused a number of students verbally, physically and psychologically or emotionally; he failed to comply with the Education Act; he committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional; and he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member.

1) The Member contravened section 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

Mr. Bard, whom the Committee considered a participant expert in classroom management and communication with students, testified concerning the standards of the teaching profession and expressed his opinion that the Member had clearly failed to maintain them. The Committee agrees. Mr. Bard confirmed that the professional standards consist of the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession and the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession (see Exhibit 13).

According to Mr. Bard, the Member contravened all four ethical standards for the teaching profession: 1) care, 2) respect, 3) trust and 4) integrity. The Committee agrees with his analysis. Firstly, the Member showed his students no compassion and demonstrated disregard for their well-being. His lack of empathy is clearly apparent. Secondly, the Member showed a lack of respect. His actions showed disregard for the students’ dignity. The Committee finds his remarks to an [XXX] Grade [XXX] student of particular concern. Thirdly, the Member’s actions undermined public trust in the teaching profession. On the contrary, he abused the trust and authority associated with his role as a teacher. Fourthly, the Member demonstrated a lack of integrity, which embodies honesty, reliability and moral action. The fact that the Member never took responsibility for his actions and denied the allegations in his meeting with the Board, even when confronted by clear proof to the contrary, shows his lack of integrity.

Where the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession are concerned, the Committee finds that the Member contravened two of the standards, as testified by Mr. Bard. The Member demonstrated 1) a lack of commitment to students and student learning and 2) a lack of professional knowledge. Firstly, the Member did not treat the students with respect and was utterly insensitive to them. The facts show that, as a teacher, he had no interest in the students’ learning and well-being. Secondly, the Member demonstrated a lack of professional knowledge with respect to classroom management. Teachers ought never to shout at students or physically abuse them.

Consequently, the Committee finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession in that he contravened section 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as set out in the Notice of Hearing.

2) The Member contravened sections 1(7), 1(7.1) and 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The above-mentioned facts show clearly that the Member contravened sections 1(7), 1(7.1) and 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member abused at least 19 students in seven different classes verbally, physically and psychologically or emotionally. His conduct was recurrent and extremely concerning. Mr. Bard testified that never in his entire experience had he seen so much abuse in a single day. Teachers ought to be role models for students. Not only was the Member not a role model for the students, but he abused them and failed to provide them with a safe environment that was conducive to learning.

3) The Member contravened sections 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97

The Committee further considers that the above-mentioned facts show clearly that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct in that he contravened sections 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. As aforementioned, the Member behaved aggressively and abusively towards numerous young students from Grade [XXX] to Grade [XXX]. He failed to comply with the Education Act, his actions were disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, and he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member. His conduct was utterly unacceptable.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY BY THE COLLEGE

According to College Counsel, the purpose of any order is: 1) to protect the public, 2) to maintain the high standards of the teaching profession, and 3) to preserve the public’s trust in the teaching profession. To achieve these objectives, orders consider the follow elements: specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation of the member, the transparency of the discipline process and protection of the public.

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

1. a verbal reprimand;

2. a suspension of three to six months;

3. an Additional Qualification or Additional Basic Qualification course covering classroom management and communication with students; and

4. publication in summary form of the findings and order of the Committee, including the Member’s name, in the College’s official publication, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

College Counsel produced two decisions of the Discipline Committee in support of the proposed penalties: Blier and Foucault. According to the College, the seriousness of the Member’s case falls between the two cases produced, and the order must reflect that. Accordingly, the College proposed a somewhat more severe penalty than that ordered in Blier (a less serious case) and a less severe penalty than that ordered in Foucault (a more serious case).

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following penalty order:

1. Prior to accepting any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration from the College, the Member must appear before the Discipline 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 six months from the date of this order and to publish this decision immediately in the 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:

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

(i) an Additional Qualification or Additional Basic Qualification course covering classroom management and communication with students;

(b) within 30 days following completion of the aforementioned course, the Member must provide the Registrar with written proof of his successful completion of the course;

(c) prior to accepting any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration from the College, the Member must notify the Registrar of the date of his return to teaching and, within 10 days following said date, the name of his employer and the nature of his employment.

4. The findings and order of the Committee are to be published in summary form, including the Member’s name, in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

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, maintain the high standards of the teaching profession and promote public trust in the teaching profession. The Member repeatedly abused numerous students verbally, physically and psychologically or emotionally. Among other failings, his conduct demonstrated a lack of professionalism, empathy, respect, integrity, commitment to students and student learning, and professional knowledge. His abuse of a number of young students was utterly inacceptable.

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 fact that the reprimand will be published in the College’s public register will serve as a general deterrent and will convey to the teaching profession that the College continues to take such misconduct very seriously.

The six-month suspension is appropriate because it 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 this case, and in similar cases produced by Counsel for the College. The Committee finds the Member’s aggressive and abusive actions seriously concerning.

The Committee directs that, prior to accepting any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member must take an Additional Qualification or Additional Basic Qualification course covering classroom management and communication with students. This course will help him to acquire the competencies needed to carry out his teaching responsibilities effectively. It will also serve the public interest because it is designed to rehabilitate the Member, who will be unable to return to teaching until he has successfully completed the course.

In the Committee’s estimation, 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. Publication with the name of the Member conveys 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 by holding him 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.

November 9, 2016

Sara Nouini, OCT

Chair, Discipline Committee

Marie-Thérèse Hokayem

Member, Discipline Committee