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
William Douglas John White, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair
Merzak Damou, OCT
Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
WILLIAM DOUGLAS JOHN WHITE ) Adam Webb,
(CERTIFICATE #432924) ) Ursel Phillips Fellows ) Hopkinson LLP,
) for William Douglas John White
) Robin McKechney,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) Heard: February 22, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on February 22, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A Notice of Hearing dated June 12, 2014 (Exhibit 1) was served on William Douglas John White (the “Member”), requesting his presence on July 3, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. A second Notice of Hearing dated October 9, 2014 (Exhibit 2) was served on the Member, requesting his presence on October 21, 2014 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing with respect to the allegations set out in both Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 was subsequently set for February 22, 2017. The parties agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations of professional misconduct set out in both the June 12, 2014 Notice of Hearing and the October 9, 2014 Notice of Hearing.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the first Notice of Hearing (dated June 12, 2014) 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 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);1
(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);2 and
(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
The allegations against the Member in the second Notice of Hearing (dated October 9, 2014) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member 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 failed to supervise adequately a student or students who were under his professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);3
(c) 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);
(d) 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);4 and
(e) 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 3), which provides the following:
At all material times, the Member 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 with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.
Every student attending the School had been identified by the [XXX] as having recognized [XXX].
2011-2012 Academic Year
During the 2011-2012 academic year, the Member was an [XXX]. He taught classes with [XXX] students. These included [XXX] classes held in the School’s commercial [XXX]. The students in these classes had a variety of [XXX] and [XXX].
Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old female student with [XXX] at the School and was in the Member’s [XXX] class during the second semester of the 2011-2012 academic year. At all material times, she functioned at the level of a [XXX] to [XXX]-year-old child. The Member had no previous experience with Student 1 prior to her being placed in his class, having never taught her before.
On or about May 22, 2012, Student 1 attended the Member’s class in the [XXX]. During the class, she ran around the [XXX] classroom. She also ran around the staff room and began to play with the [XXX]. Student 1 was directed by office staff back into the [XXX] classroom.
When Student 1 returned to the classroom, she ignored the Member’s requests to take her seat and return to her assigned task. Instead, Student 1 sat down cross-legged on the floor in front of a [XXX] that was next to the entrance to the [XXX] room. The [XXX] was operational, but was not in use at the time. The Member, upset with Student 1 due to her lack of cooperation and potentially unsafe conduct, told her to get up off the floor. Student 1 refused to move.
The Member raised his voice and yelled at Student 1 to “get up” off the floor. When Student 1 did not get up, the Member reached out towards her, making contact with her arm and leg. He put his left hand under her right armpit and put his right foot against her right thigh, and attempted to pull her up off the floor. He pulled hard enough, twice, to lift her bottom off the floor; however, he was not able to lift her to her feet. Student 1 refused to stand up and screamed, “Stop hurting me.” Student 1 has [XXX] issues with her[XXX], though the Member had no knowledge of these issues at the time.
An office assistant, a teacher, two [XXX] assistants, two [XXX] assistants, and the vice-principal heard the Member yelling at Student 1 to get up off the floor. The vice-principal went to investigate the commotion. She saw the Member attempt to pull Student 1 up in the manner described above, and immediately took Student 1 to the office.
On June 20, 2012, Student 1’s mother contacted the vice-principal to report that her daughter had been complaining of a sore right arm since the incident.
By letter dated August 2012, the principal informed the Member that the Board had completed its investigation into the matter involving Student 1, and concluded that the allegations were founded. The Board suspended the Member for five days without pay in September 2012, and encouraged the Member “to consider professional counselling as a means of better coping with situations liable to provoke feelings of anger and frustration.” The five-day suspension was later reduced to two days following a grievance. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the principal’s letter to the Member dated August 2012.
By letter dated October 31, 2011, the Member had previously been counselled by his principal to model his behaviour for all students and staff to reflect a positive learning atmosphere and set an appropriate example for his colleagues. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the principal’s letter to the Member dated October 31, 2011.
2012-2013 Academic Year
On or about January 29, 2013, the Member was on an on-call assignment, for half a period, for a class of [XXX] students. When the Member arrived in the classroom, the regular teacher and the [XXX] Assistants assigned to the students were not present. The regular teacher had not left lesson plans for the class in a location where the Member could locate them. Therefore, when the [XXX] Assistants arrived approximately five minutes later, the Member assigned work to them.
When discussing the student assignments for the period, the Member and one of the [XXX] Assistants had a disagreement. The Member became annoyed, and spoke to the [XXX] Assistant in a terse and short manner. The [XXX] Assistants considered the Member’s tone to be inappropriate, unprofessional, and demeaning.
By letter dated March 7, 2013, the principal formally reprimanded the Member for his inappropriate behaviour and encouraged the Member “to consider professional counselling as a means of better coping with situations liable to provoke feelings of anger and frustration.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the principal’s letter to the Member dated March 7, 2013 and revised May 2013.
The Member has received no further reprimands or any other discipline from the Board since this letter.
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(7.1), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
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 otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed 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 circumstances 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
Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in both paragraph (d) of the first Notice of Hearing (dated June 12, 2014), namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and paragraph (b) of the second Notice of Hearing (dated October 9, 2014), namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the requests. The Committee further notes that the findings in relation to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 in both Notices of Hearing are limited to the Member’s unprofessional conduct only.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 16 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 conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 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 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).
Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1).
Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 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) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 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).
Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate 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 4), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the 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”); and
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 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management with a focus on dealing with students with special needs, subject to the following conditions;
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, 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;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
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.
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 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. George, 2014 ONOCT 41 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Lutz, 2011 LNONCTD 27.
The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated verbally and physically abusive conduct, despite having been previously counselled by his principal to model appropriate behaviour toward students and staff, warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members of the profession are expected to treat students and staff with respect at all times. They must conduct themselves in a composed and professional manner, without resorting to the unnecessary use of physical force, even under difficult or challenging circumstances. In this case, the Member failed to meet these expectations. The Committee is concerned that the Member engaged in insensitive and abusive conduct toward a vulnerable, [XXX]student. 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 of instruction regarding anger management with a focus on dealing with students with special needs will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will provide the Member with strategies to better cope with situations liable to provoke feelings of anger and frustration, and it will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. The Committee notes that the course will specifically address the Member’s interactions with students with special needs. Although the Member’s misconduct in relation to his colleague was serious, the Committee recognizes that the Member continued teaching without incident over the past four years, and that he already received discipline from his Board for this misconduct. In these circumstances, the Committee agrees with College Counsel that no additional remediation is necessary with respect to the Member’s interactions with colleagues.
The targeted nature of the anger management course (addressing the Member’s interactions with students with special needs) is important because students with special needs are particularly vulnerable and are generally unable to advocate for themselves in the same way that staff could. It is important to ensure that the Member acquires the necessary skill-set to deal appropriately with students in the future.
The Committee recognizes that it no longer has discretion with respect to publication, as publication with 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 penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.
Date: February 22, 2017
Tom Potter
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Merzak Damou, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel