DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Anne Lynn Maranda, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Sara Nouini, OCT, Chair Marie-Thérèse Hokayem Ravi Vethamany, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Alexandre Blanchard, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
– and –
ANNE LYNN MARANDA (CERTIFICATE #502387) Lise Leduc, Goldblatt Partners LLP, for Anne Lynn Maranda
Erica Richler, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: March 8, 2017
DECISION, REASONS 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 March 8, 2017 at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated November 17, 2014 (Exhibit 1) was served on Anne Lynn Maranda (“the Member”) requesting her attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on January 19, 2015 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for March 8, 2017.
The Member was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel.
ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Anne Lynn Maranda is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she failed to supervise adequately a person who was under her professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11) 1;
(c) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under this Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(d) she 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
(e) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
Anne Lynn Maranda is a member of the College. A copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member is attached as Appendix A.
From October 2006 to October 2010, the Member worked as a [XXX] school teacher with the Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud.
In October 2010, the Member was assigned to a position as [XXX] teacher at [XXX] (the “School”) in [XXX], following the departure of the teacher who had previously held this position.
Early on in her position as [XXX] ([XXX]) [XXX] teacher at the School, the Member noted that the Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) database contained IEPs for students who needed no learning accommodations and who, in fact, had been identified for IEPs only for purposes of the EQAO examinations. The Member estimates that, at that time, the School’s IEP database contained approximately 19 such “in-house” IEPs. She believed that the information in this database was shared and accessible to Board employees who were working in [XXX], and therefore assumed that the Board was aware of and allowed this practice, which struck her as unusual.
On February 22, 2011, the Member sent an e-mail to the School’s Vice-Principal, Marc Lamoureux, the Principal, Carole Wilson, and Jean-Pierre Michaud, requesting a meeting with them to discuss the problems in the [XXX] team, particularly the practice vis-à-vis the IEPs that she had observed. This meeting never took place.
On March 29, 2011, two days before the administration of the EQAO Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (“OSSLT”), which was scheduled for March 31, 2011, Mr. Lamoureux, in the presence of another teacher, ordered the Member to develop “in-house” IEPs for three students. Mr. Lamoureux then gave the Member a sheet of paper listing three students and ordering her to prepare IEPs for them. When the Member questioned him, still in the presence of the same teacher, and asked how she was supposed to do this, Mr. Lamoureux told her to rely on the IEP format used for another student who had one of the 19 “in-house” IEPs. By that time, the Member had learned from her colleague, Mr. Chéron, that he had already reported this situation to the union representatives; consequently, the Member was expecting imminent action to address the situation.
The Member therefore developed and entered an IEP and part of another “in-house” IEP into the School’s computer software. She did not, however, create a hard copy of this document or file a hard copy in the student’s OSR. Since this IEP did not include any information about the student’s needs and strengths, the Member assumed that it would be deemed incomplete and therefore invalid. Assuming that this IEP would not be valid, the Member did not think that the act of preparing this document would harm the student. Moreover, since the IEP had been developed two days before the test, the Member expected it to be rejected by the EQAO, given that the student had not been granted the accommodations for the classroom assessments.
Sensing at the time that she was expected to comply with this School practice, the Member prepared this IEP; she did not, however:
(a) consult the students’ parents;
(b) consult the students’ homeroom teachers;
(c) share the IEPs with the students and their parents;
(d) grant the described accommodations during the usual classroom assessments.
A copy of the IEP that the Member developed and entered into the School’s software is attached as Appendix B. The Member stated on the IEP that it was developed by “Anne Maranda at the Principal’s request” in order to indicate the circumstances thereof.
According to the instructions given by Mr. Lamoureux, the Member noted on the IEP that the “placement start date” was two weeks earlier, that is, March 14, 2011, and that the IEP’s development date was March 29, 2011.
The Member knew that the Principal’s reason for having her input the IEPs into the School’s software was to grant specific accommodations to the students for the OSSLT since the three names on the list were Grade [XXX] students and the Principal wanted to improve the School’s OSSLT results by granting such accommodations. Indeed, the School’s OSSLT results showed a remarkable improvement while Ms. Wilson and Mr. Lamoureux were Principal and Vice-Principal. As for the Member, she had been in her [XXX] position for barely five months at this time and was not responsible for advising the EQAO on which students required accommodations.
The development of the IEP drafted by the Member contravened the Education Act, the instructions of the Ministry of Education and the requirements of the EQAO. The Ministry of Education’s guide entitled The Individual Education Plan (IEP): A Resource Guide, 2004 is attached as Appendix C. The EQAO’s Guide for Accommodations, Special Provisions, Deferrals and Exemptions—Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT), March 2011 is attached as Appendix D.
The Member’s act of entering one of the three IEPs at issue into the School’s software was in compliance with the instructions given by Ms. Wilson and Mr. Lamoureux.
In November 2011, following exposure of this practice by various stakeholders, including information provided by the teachers to the new principal of the School, the Board conducted an investigation to review the practices related to the development of IEPs at the School. After its investigation, the Board produced a report finding that the School’s established practices were contrary to the EQAO rules. A copy of the Investigation Report prepared by the Board, dated November 8, 2011, is attached as Appendix E.
Once the investigation was over, the Member received a disciplinary letter from the Board. A copy of the disciplinary letter, dated February 23, 2012, is attached as Appendix F.
The College sought an expert witness report by Xavier Lambert in this matter. The parties agreed at a hearing that Mr. Lambert’s testimony would be consistent with his written report dated November 25, 2016. A copy of this report is attached as Appendix G.
The Member acknowledges that, by complying with the instructions given by her supervisors, she breached the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, copies of which are attached as Appendix H.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admits the truth and accuracy of the facts and exhibits referred to in the above paragraphs (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts described above constitute professional misconduct and admits to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Member states that she:
(a) understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against her;
(b) understands that, by signing this document, she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) understands that, by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) understands that the Decision and Reasons for Decision of the Discipline Committee will be posted on the College website, and that a summary of the Committee’s Decision and Reasons, including reference to her name, will be published in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession;
(e) understands that the agreement between the College and the Member does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(f) understands this Agreement and acknowledges that she is executing it voluntarily, unequivocally and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Uncontested Facts described above, and the Plea of No Contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee should find that the Member’s actions constitute professional misconduct.
DECISION
At the hearing on March 8, 2017, Counsel for the College requested withdrawal of the allegation of professional misconduct in paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing, in particular the allegation that she breached Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11). The Committee granted this request.
Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions by the parties, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct and finds that Anne Lynn Maranda is guilty of professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member did not dispute the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 17 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, nor did she dispute the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged, and the Committee accepts, that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest show that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest show that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsections 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest show that the Member committed acts that breached Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). In particular, having regard to all the circumstances, these acts would reasonably be considered as unprofessional by members of the profession.
Paragraphs 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest show that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties requested that the Discipline Committee impose the following penalty:
The Committee directs the Member to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing into this matter to receive a reprimand that will be delivered in person at the College’s offices at 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, and that the fact of the reprimand be recorded on the College’s Public Register.
The Committee directs the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification, which will be recorded on the Public Register:
(a) The Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at her own expense and within 120 days following this Order, a course on professional ethics, pre-approved by the Registrar, that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall, within 30 days of the date of the Committee’s Decision and Reasons, provide a Registrar-approved course provider with a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the Joint Submission on Penalty entered into evidence at the hearing into this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) after a review of the documents referred to in (i) above, the course provider shall submit to the Registrar, for his approval, a program for the proposed course that specifically addresses the concerns of the Committee with respect to the Member’s professional misconduct. The program proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of said course and describe the course objectives;
(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide the Registrar with evidence in writing from the course provider stating that:
(i) the Member has successfully completed the course, and describing the Member’s progress with respect to the course objectives.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the Joint Submission on Penalty submitted by the parties and makes an order based on its terms and conditions, as noted above.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it has determined its jurisdiction to make the order in question, the law limits 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, or would otherwise be 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.
The penalty proposed by the parties also falls within a reasonable range, based on similar case law produced by Counsel for the College, namely: Ontario College of Teachers v. Fair, 2007 ONOCT 15; Ontario College of Teachers v. Bennett, 2007 ONOCT 6; Ontario College of Teachers v. Brown, 2006 LNONECD 7; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Venditti, 2016 ONOCT 53.
The Committee acknowledges that the Member was complying with the instructions given by her supervisors, that she made an effort to meet with her supervisors to discuss the irregular practice that she had observed vis-à-vis the IEPs (a meeting that never took place), and that she did not think the non-compliant IEPs that she had developed would be valid (and therefore would not harm the students). Moreover, the Committee received a letter from the Member (read by her counsel) explaining her actions and expressing her remorse for her conduct. However, the Member breached the standards of the profession and her misconduct needs to be addressed. The Committee therefore accepts, in the circumstances, the penalty jointly proposed by the parties, including a reprimand and a course on professional ethics.
Publication of an accused member’s name is now compulsory pursuant to section 45.1 of the Act. Accordingly, the Committee’s Decision and Reasons, with the Member’s name, will be posted on the College website and a summary of its Decision and Reasons, with the Member’s name, will be published in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty jointly submitted by the parties serves and protects the public interest.
March 9, 2017
Sara Nouini, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Marie-Thérèse Hokayem Member, Discipline Panel
Ravi Vethamany, OCT Member, Discipline Panel