Ontario College of Teachers v. Braam-Carew, 2017 ONOCT 33

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Braam-Carew 2017 ONOCT 33

Date: 2017-04-20

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Corinne Bernadeth Christina Braam-Carew, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Shanlee Linton, Chair, OCT

Alexander (Sandy) Bass

Tom Potter

BETWEEN: )

) Vladimira Ivanov,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers,

) assisted by Daniela Spano, Law Clerk

– and – )

Corinne Bernadeth Christina ) Corinne Bernadeth Christina Braam-Carew

Braam-Carew ) was not present or represented

(CERTIFICATE # 421934) )

) Rebecca Durcan,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,

) Independent Legal Counsel ) )

) Heard: April 3, 2017

PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR PENALTY

On December 20, 2016, a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) rendered a decision finding that Corinne Bernadeth Christina Braam-Carew (the “Member”) was incompetent and was guilty of professional misconduct.

The allegations in this case concerned three teacher performance appraisals which were conducted by the principal of the Member’s school in order to evaluate her performance in the 2013-2014 academic year.

The Committee found that the Member displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and disregard for the welfare of her students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out her professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations, pursuant to the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), at section 30(3).

As well, pursuant to section 30(2) of the Act, the Committee found that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession and failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, s. 264(1), contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5) and 1(15).

The Committee reconvened on April 3, 2017 to hear submissions with respect to penalty. The Member was not represented and did not attend the penalty phase of the hearing.

Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Daniela Spano sworn March 30, 2017 (Exhibit 23), to prove that the Member had been informed of the time and date of this phase of the hearing, as well as the penalty being sought. In this affidavit, Ms. Spano, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, outlined her communications with the Member and provided proof of service of all required documents. Based on this affidavit, the Committee was satisfied that the Member had been properly served and was aware of the time and date of the hearing, the penalty being sought, and the fact that the penalty hearing could proceed in her absence. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL ON PENALTY

College Counsel submitted a draft order on penalty (Exhibit 24) and argued that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be that the Committee:

1. 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) prior to returning to teaching in any public or private school in Ontario, or taking any teaching position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at her own expense, an Additional Basic Qualification course or an Additional Qualification course which covers curriculum, lesson planning, instructional strategies and assessment of student learning;

(b) within 30 days of successful completion of the course outlined in paragraph (a) above, the Member shall provide the Registrar with written proof of successful completion;

(c) at least 30 days before returning to a Teaching Position, the Member shall notify the Registrar of the name of their employer and the nature of their employment;

(d) upon returning to a Teaching Position, the Member shall make all reasonable efforts to have their employer carry out two teaching performance appraisals within two years of the Member’s return to teaching, and to provide a copy of the teaching performance appraisals to the Registrar within 30 days of their completion. If the Member’s employer is unable or unwilling to conduct any teaching performance appraisal as required, the Member shall notify the Registrar.

College Counsel further noted that publication with name is now mandatory, in accordance with subsection 45.1 of the Act.

In support of the proposed penalty, College Counsel emphasized that the proposed penalty would rehabilitate the Member’s practice by requiring her to do an Additional Basic Qualification course or an Additional Qualification course which would be more comprehensive than the TPA feedback process which the Member was previously involved in. According to College Counsel, this coursework would provide the Member with the training she requires to improve her teaching practice and perform as a competent teacher in the future. Counsel submitted that this coursework will also specifically deter the Member from repeating similar conduct in the future by educating her as to her professional duties. College Counsel also submitted that the coursework, as well as the TPA requirements, will protect the public by requiring the Member to complete steps to rehabilitate her practice before returning to the classroom; the teaching performance appraisals will ensure that the Member is accountable and is performing to the required standards.

College Counsel provided the Committee with the following case to demonstrate that the proposed penalty is within a reasonable range: Ontario College of Teachers v. Gow, 2014 ONOCT 44 (“Gow”).

When queried by the Committee, College Counsel submitted that a reprimand was not necessary as a component of the penalty. Counsel submitted that this case was the Member’s first appearance before the Discipline Committee, and therefore rehabilitation should be the primary factor considered by the Committee. Counsel argued that the Member should be given the opportunity to show that she understands that she was incompetent in her practice and committed professional misconduct, and that she has rectified her practice through the coursework and her successful appraisals. Counsel submitted that if the Member does not show that she has improved her performance through successful completion of the proposed terms, conditions or limitations, then a more punitive penalty may be imposed in the event of future findings of incompetence or misconduct.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:

1. The Committee directs that the Member appear 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”).

2. The Committee directs 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) prior to returning to teaching in any public or private school in Ontario, or taking any teaching position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at her own expense, an Additional Basic Qualification course or an Additional Qualification course which covers curriculum, lesson planning, instructional strategies and assessment of student learning;

(b) within 30 days of successful completion of the course outlined in paragraph (a) above, the Member shall provide the Registrar with written proof of successful completion;

(c) at least 30 days before returning to a teaching position, the Member shall notify the Registrar of the name of their employer and the nature of their employment; and

(d) upon returning to a teaching position, the Member shall make all reasonable efforts to have their employer carry out two Teacher Performance Appraisals (“TPA”) within two years of the Member’s return to teaching, and to provide a copy of the TPAs to the Registrar within 30 days of their completion. If the Member’s employer is unable or unwilling to conduct any TPA as required, the Member shall notify the Registrar.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The Committee carefully considered the submissions of College Counsel with respect to penalty and reviewed the relevant jurisprudence provided. The Committee considered whether the penalty outlined above satisfies the penalty objectives of deterrence, rehabilitation, transparency, and protection of the public interest, and whether it is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member.

Reprimand

The Committee finds that the Member’s failure to maintain the standards of the profession and satisfy her duties set out in the Education Act warrants a reprimand. The Committee acknowledges that, as argued by College Counsel, coursework is an important tool to rehabilitate the Member’s practice and ensure that her past inappropriate conduct does not reoccur. However, the Committee determines that this penalty alone is insufficient to meet the goals of deterrence and protection of the public.

The Committee notes that this case is distinguishable from the Gow case. In Gow, the Discipline Committee found the member was incompetent only and did not make a finding of professional misconduct. In Gow, the Discipline Committee ordered the member to complete coursework and the member was required to complete a performance appraisal after the first two years of returning to teaching. In the present case, the Committee made findings both of incompetence and professional misconduct. A reprimand is appropriate because it addresses the additional deterrent (both specific and general) and public protection concerns raised by the Member’s misconduct, which go above and beyond the conduct in Gow.

The Member failed to meet the standards of the profession. She gave students tasks which were inappropriate to the levels of learning in the class. Students were not engaged, and they did not understand the purpose of the lessons or the criteria which were being used to evaluate them. Students were left without an understanding as to how they could succeed academically.

Similarly, the Member did not comply with the Education Act. She failed to teach her students diligently and faithfully and failed to maintain an orderly and effective classroom.

These acts of misconduct on the part of the Member were a serious abdication of her responsibilities as a teacher to promote student learning and achievement. The Committee is especially troubled by the fact that these failures on the part of the Member continued notwithstanding that she received significant support from the administration during the TPA evaluation process to improve her teaching and assessment methods. The Member showed a pattern of disengagement from her professional duties. She did not make efforts to understand why she was not satisfying the standards of practice in her teaching. Moreover, she was unwilling to take responsibility to remedy her practice. In the Committee’s view, these facts demonstrate that coursework alone will not be sufficient to meet the goal of improving the Member’s teaching.

The seriousness of the Member’s conduct in failing to teach her students diligently, and her refusal to improve her practice when support was given, indicate to the Committee that a reprimand is necessary. A reprimand allows the Committee to directly address with the Member the problem of her disengagement and disinterest in the improvement process. The Committee may address the detrimental effects which the Member’s conduct had on students. It will deter her from continuing to teach with such disregard for learning and it will protect students should she teach again.

Attending for an oral reprimand will show the Committee that the Member has demonstrated awareness of her failure to maintain the standards of the profession. Further, it will demonstrate that the Member is prepared to accept responsibility for improving her practice. Given the Member’s failure to participate in the discipline process to date, the Member has shown a lack of accountability for her actions. The Committee has concerns regarding the Member’s governability, given her failure to engage in this process. The Committee is of the view that a reprimand will meet the goal of allowing the Member to take responsibility and show commitment to the principles of the profession.

Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will inform and reassure the public, and the profession, that the Member has had to undergo a reprimand as a direct result of her professional misconduct. This will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession. It also promotes the transparency of the College’s processes and instills faith in the College’s mandate to protect the public.

Coursework and teaching performance appraisals

The Committee finds that the coursework will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member by providing her with the skills she needs to be successful in the classroom. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to teach and evaluate students effectively. It will also deter the Member from engaging in the types of poor practices she previously employed in her teaching, and reinforce to her the competencies expected of a teacher.

Further, the two teaching performance appraisals ordered will allow the Member to show that she has translated the theory she learned in her coursework into practice. This ongoing monitoring will ensure the protection of students going forward.

Publication

The Committee 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, a summary of the Committee’s decision and reasons will be published with the Member’s name on the College’s website and in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession.

CONCLUSION

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and serves and protects the public interest.

Date: April 20, 2017

Shanlee Linton, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Alexander (Sandy) Bass Member, Discipline Panel

Tom Potter

Member, Discipline Panel