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
Roman Zenon Kalarus, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Jane Ishibashi, Chair
Alexander (Sandy) Bass
Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela Spano,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
Roman Zenon Kalarus ) Patricia D’Heureux,
(CERTIFICATE # 441145) ) Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre ) Cornish LLP,
) for Roman Zenon Kalarus
) Robin McKechney,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: March 10, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on February 6, 2015 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated May 4, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Roman Zenon Kalarus (the “Member”), requesting his presence on May 20, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for March 10, 2017.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Roman Zenon Kalarus is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (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);1
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);2
(d) 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);3
(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).4
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Roman Zenon Kalarus is 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 respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX]teacher at [XXX](the “School”). At all material times, Colleague A was a [XXX]teacher at the School.
During the 2011-2012 academic year, a colleague approached the Member in the staffroom at School and asked him to contribute to a [XXX]gift for Colleague A. The Member responded with an offensive and insulting comment about Colleague A, who was not present at the time.
The Member acknowledges his outburst was inappropriate and regrets that it occurred. He did not appreciate that this would be repeated back to Colleague A and cause her offence.
During the 2012-2013 academic year, Student 1 was a grade [XXX]female student who attended the School. She was not in the Member’s class.
In or about April or May 2013, Student 1 was climbing a fence in the schoolyard with other students. The Member intervened in the interests of student safety and told the students to get downfrom the fence.
In his attempt to get Student 1 to climb down, the Member said words to the effect of, “if you don’t get down, I’ll send you back to [XXX]one way”. Student 1 was offended and upset by the Member’s remark.
The Member was joking when he said those words and did not intend to threaten or express ill-will towards Student 1. However, he acknowledges that his words were inappropriate.
The Member received a two-day unpaid suspension from his Board.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member does not contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and the exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5) and 1(18).
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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) he understands that a summary of the decision and reasons of the Committee, including reference to his name, will be published in the official publication of the College;
(f) he understands that any agreement between Counsel for the College and himself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (f) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted this request.
Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, 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) and 1(18).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5) and 1(18).
Paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member 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).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:
directs 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”).
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and makes an order in accordance with its term, as set out above.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. 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 penalty proposed by the parties is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Lewer, 2012 ONOCT 22 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Palmer, 2009 ONOCT 42.
The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers.
Teachers are expected to maintain the standards of the profession and treat all members of the school community with respect and decency. The Member made offensive and disrespectful comments about a colleague. Through his comments, the Member failed to uphold his professional obligations.
As well, the Member acted disgracefully and disrespectfully towards a grade [XXX]student at the school. His comments could reasonably be construed as racist. Such comments would have a deeply negative and hurtful effect. The Member’s actions were the antithesis of the respectful, inclusive behaviour a teacher is expected to model.
The Member`s responsibility as a teacher is to act professionally and ensure that he respects colleagues and students at all times. He holds a position of responsibility and trust, and it is his duty to ensure an environment of safety and inclusion at the school.
The Committee recognizes that the Member has not had further instances of misconduct, and therefore a more severe penalty is not warranted.
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.
Publication of this decision with the Member’s name is now mandatory in accordance with subsection 45.1 of the Act. Accordingly, the Committee’s decision and reasons will be published with the Member’s name on the College’s website and a summary will be published with the Member’s name in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
The Committee is satisfied that the jointly proposed penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: March 16, 2017
Jane Ishibashi
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Alexander (Sandy) Bass
Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel