DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Matthew John Chiarot, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: John Tucker, Chair
Vicki Shannon, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,
) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela De Bartolo,
) Law Clerk
-and- )
) David Bloom & Philip Abbink,
) Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre ) Cornish LLP,
MATTHEW JOHN CHIAROT ) for Matthew John Chiarot
(CERTIFICATE # 286105) )
) Julie Maciura,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: June 8, 2016
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR PENALTY
On November 25, 2015, a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) rendered a decision finding Matthew John Chiarot (the “Member”) guilty of professional misconduct.
The Committee found that the Member had failed to accurately record the grades of students enrolled in his courses, as alleged in paragraph 3(a) of the Notice of Hearing, and that the Member had made inappropriate comments to students, as alleged in paragraph 3(b)(i) and 3(b)(iii) of the Notice of Hearing, by calling a student who performed morning announcements “gay” and by commenting to a student (in front of the class) following parent/teacher interviews that, “Your mom grilled me. She sure is animated.” The Committee determined that this conduct gave rise to a finding of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(10), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). None of the other allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing amounted to professional misconduct.
The Committee reconvened on June 8, 2016 to hear submissions with respect to penalty. At this time, Ms. Christine Bellini, who was a member of the original Committee that was seized of this matter, was unable to complete the hearing or to participate in the penalty decision. Pursuant to section 4.4(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the remaining members of the Committee, Mr. John Tucker and Ms. Vicki Shannon, were able to complete the hearing and give a decision in this matter.
The Member was in attendance for his penalty hearing and he had legal representation.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 12), Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the penalty 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 suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of one month commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee;
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) within three months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course or courses of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations and sensitivity, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the course(s) practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the document noted at paragraph (i) above, the course(s) practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course(s) which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course(s) practitioner shall also specify the length of the course(s) to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the courses outlined in (a) above the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course(s) practitioner which:
(i) confirms that the Member has successfully completed the course and reports on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
- direct that there be publication of the finding and order of the Committee in summary form, with the Member’s name, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
PENALTY DECISION
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the case law presented, 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, except for specifying that the Member will receive the reprimand at 11:30 a.m. on June 8, 2016.
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 or not 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 inappropriate language, repeated pattern of unacceptable and insensitive conduct, and inaccuracy in recording student grades warrants a reprimand by his peers. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee finds that the course or courses of instruction regarding boundary violations and sensitivity will serve as a specific deterrent, as well as a general deterrent, and will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will also remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. This component of the penalty advises the Member, the profession and the public that the Member must modify his conduct, and it aims to provide the Member with greater insight into his misconduct so that he can remedy his behaviour moving forward.
Given the nature of the Member’s misconduct, the Committee finds that a one month suspension is reasonable and appropriate, and indicates that the Member’s conduct must be addressed seriously. The Member’s inappropriate and insensitive comments made towards students did not foster a safe and accepting learning environment. The inaccuracy in recording student grades is also completely unacceptable. Members of the teaching profession are expected to model appropriate behaviour to students, but the Member did the opposite. As role models, teachers are expected to be trustworthy in their position and to demonstrate suitable behaviour as expected by the profession.
The Committee finds that publication with the Member’s name in Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession is warranted. Publication with the name of the Member identifies to the profession the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct and the consequences of such behaviour. 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 demonstrates the transparency of the discipline process and inspires public confidence in the College and its processes.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: June 9, 2016
John Tucker
Chair, Discipline Panel
Vicki Shannon, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel