DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Brown 2017 ONOCT 38

Date: 2017-05-23

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

Leanora Brown, a retired member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair

Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT

Brigitte Bidal-Piquette, OCT

BETWEEN: )

) Zirka Jakibchuk and Janice Duggan,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers, )

– and – )

LEANORA BROWN ) Leanora Brown was not present

(CERTIFICATE #170623) ) or represented

) Rebecca Durcan,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: May 2, 2017

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION 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 May 2, 2017 at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated November 18, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on the Member requesting her attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on January 15, 2016 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set to commence on May 2, 2017.

The Member was not in attendance at the hearing and was not represented by legal counsel. The Committee waited 15 minutes for the Member to arrive before commencing the hearing.

Counsel for the College submitted a package of documentation (Exhibit 9) to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against her, the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that could be sought by the College. The package included affidavits of service confirming that the Member (or her then-counsel, whom she no longer retained at the time of the hearing) received the following: the Notice of Hearing; the Disclosure Brief; notice of the hearing date and hearing process, as well as the penalty sought by the College in the event of a finding of professional misconduct; the Additional Disclosure Brief; the video evidence of the College; and the Second Additional Disclosure Brief. On the basis of Exhibit 9, the Committee is satisfied that the Member was served with the Notice of Hearing and the disclosure documents, and was aware of the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that could be sought by the College. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

SUMMARY

The allegations in this matter concern comments made by the Member to students while she was teaching, as well as physical exercises she allegedly did in the classroom.

For the reasons set out in detail below, the Committee has determined that the College has proven the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

As well, for the reasons set out in detail below, the Committee finds that an appropriate penalty is a reprimand to be delivered to the Member, as well as coursework to be completed in advance of a return to teaching.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Leanora Brown is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of 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 abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) she 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);

(e) 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

(f) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Leanora Brown was at all material times a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX]School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.

3. Between January 1, 2015 and March 5, 2015, the Member:

(a) used inappropriate language and made inappropriate comments to her students, including but not limited to:

i) “white trash”;

ii) “kiss my black ass”;

iii) “I told my Mom she should have fucked with a white sailor”;

iv) “fucking assholes, fucking bitch”;

v) swearing at students and using the “F” word;

vi) calling students “losers”;

vii) telling students to “shut up”;

viii) “if a slutty girl or horny girl wants to have sex with you, you should fuck her well and leave her in a wheelchair for two days”;

(b) made personal sexually explicit statements to her students, including but not limited to:

i) talking about her personal sex life;

ii) telling students her mother was beautiful and had slept with many men;

iii) telling students that her mother “had 20 kids” and was “horny”;

iv) telling students stories about women who were “sluts”;

v) telling students that a man approached her when he was naked and she said that his genitals were small and her younger brother had a bigger penis; and

(c) made the students in her class uncomfortable when she showed them how flexible she was by doing somersaults and putting her legs over her head instead of teaching the French curriculum.¹

THE MEMBER’S PLEA

Because the Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was she represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that she denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

THE EVIDENCE

At the hearing, the College called four witnesses: Mr. John Shain, a superintendent at the Board; Student 8, a student at the School; Student 7, a student at the School; and Mr. Joseph Sansone, a vice-principal at the School.

1. Mr. John Shain

Mr. Shain is a superintendent at the Board. He works in Area 4 at the Board and is in charge of 25 schools. His general duties include working with principals, implementing Board policies, responding to parent complaints, and disciplining teachers.

Mr. Shain stated that he worked with Ms. Louisa Cangelosi, the principal at the school, during the period of January to March 2015. He said that, when the Member was being investigated, Principal Cangelosi kept him appraised of what was happening (Exhibit 3, Tab 6). He stated that he and the principal reviewed the investigation results, including information provided from students and the Education Assistant, Ms. Elizabeth Villagas, and they consulted with the Board’s lawyer. As a result of this review, Mr. Shain met with the Member on March 11, 2015 to convey the results of the investigation. He stated that the Member denied the allegations against her. The Member took a leave from teaching shortly after the meeting.

Mr. Shain testified that he gave the Member a letter dated April 28, 2015 indicating that the Board was concerned by the Member’s actions of using profanity, sexually explicit language and inappropriate terms in class (Exhibit 3, Tab 11). As well, the letter stated that the Member had returned to the School a number of times after taking her leave and was asked by the principal to leave on two occasions; she also called the home of Student 2 twice, yelling at her mother, calling her daughter a liar, and hanging up. The letter specified that before returning to teaching, the Member was required to: meet with the principal, the superintendent, the head of Human Resources and Toronto Secondary Unit to discuss her readiness to resume teaching, complete a course on classroom management and setting proper boundaries, and provide a medical certificate clearing her to resume teaching.

Mr. Shain indicated that the Member did not return to her job.

The Committee found Mr. Shain to be a reliable witness. He explained his role in the investigation and discipline process and indicated when his memory was unclear. His evidence was straightforward. The Committee accepts his evidence.

2. Student 8

Student 8 is a [XXX]-year-old student. He testified he was in grade [XXX] in January to March, 2015, and was [XXX] years old at the time. He said that he did not have the Member as a teacher, but that she taught his [XXX] class for one day as a supply teacher on February 25, 2015. Student 8 stated that the Member was expected to supervise the class for an hour, and if students needed help, they could ask her.

He reviewed his written statement provided to the vice-principal during the investigation, and confirmed its contents. He said that the Member spoke about personal matters. He said that she mentioned that her mother had 20 kids and that she was “horny”. As well, he stated, “she told us that her mom asked her why she was so black? She told us that she responded in saying ‘Well you should have fucked a white sailor!’” He also added that, towards the end of the class, “she told us that if a slutty girl or horny girl wants to have sex with you, you should fuck her well and leave her in a wheelchair for two days.” (Exhibit 3, Tab 2) He stated that she also told various students to “shut up”, including Student 8 and his friends, during announcements.

Student 8 gave evidence that in his opinion, the things the Member said were unprofessional and unethical in a [XXX] environment. He thought that she should not act this way towards students in grade [XXX] and that it made him feel very uncomfortable. He said he had never heard a teacher say such things. He thought that it was a teacher’s job to motivate students to be on a better path.

The Committee found Student 8 to be a credible witness. He gave evidence about the Member’s conduct that he observed when she was substitute-teaching his class, and he did not go beyond the bounds of his own observations. He was straightforward and did not embellish. The Committee accepts his evidence.

3. Student 7

Student 7 is a [XXX]-year-old student. He testified that he was in the Member’s grade [XXX] [XXX] class, and was [XXX] years old at the time. He stated that on February 14, 2015, the class was assigned to work on a [XXX] word search. He said that the Member was in the classroom. He said she was lying on a mat, putting her feet over her head and doing flexibility exercises. He said that when he was asked to write a statement about the episode by Mr. Sansone, he wrote that “she said ‘he can (excuse my language) kiss my black as [sic] without touching it.’…What intrigued me is when she told us a story about a kid that tried to touch her butt (I think) and she stuck a pencil in his arm…. After she was telling us how flexible she was and starting doing summer salts [sic]”. (Exhibit 3, Tab 2) Student 7 explained that he wrote “summer salts”, but he meant that she was putting her legs over her head. He said that, at the time, she was also talking about her childhood, and she swore. He said that the experience made him feel weird because it was unusual behaviour in a [XXX] class. He remarked that, overall, he thought the experience was funny. He stated that he had never heard a teacher make those kind of statements.

The Committee accepts Student 7’s evidence. He gave his evidence in a clear manner. He did not try to exaggerate the severity of the Member’s conduct which he witnessed, as evidenced by the fact that he called it “funny”. The Committee found him to be a truthful witness.

4. Mr. Joseph Sansone

Mr. Sansone has been a vice-principal at the School for three years. He stated that on February 26, 2015, he was contacted by the mother of Student 2 regarding an incident with the Member. The mother said that Student 2 had a video of the Member that she took the previous day in her [XXX] class and that she wanted to show Mr. Sansone. The mother also requested that Student 2 be excused from the Member’s [XXX] class until a suitable replacement was available to teach the class.

Mr. Sansone stated that he reported this concern to the principal, and the principal instructed him and the other vice-principal, Dr. Victor Mio, to print the class list in the Member’s [XXX] class and call students from that class to the office. He stated that the two vice-principals called down a majority of the students in the class, placed them in separate areas, and asked each student to provide a written statement explaining if there was something going on in the Member’s class that they should know about. The student statements, contained at Exhibit 3, Tab 2, and a statement by the Education Assistant, Elizabeth Villagas, Exhibit 3, Tab 3, have been included as an appendix to this decision. Mr. Sansone stated that he and Dr. Mio brought the statements to the principal.

Mr. Sansone also stated that Student 2’s father emailed him two video clips (Exhibits 7 and 8). The videos were played at the hearing. Mr. Sansone identified both videos as featuring the Member in a classroom. The first video, Exhibit 7, showed the Member stating, “kiss my black ass without touching it”. The second video, Exhibit 8, showed the Member lying on the floor placing her legs over her head. Mr. Sansone testified that he did not know who took the videos, and that he did not alter or edit them. He said that he sent the videos to the principal.

The Committee accepted the evidence of Mr. Sansone. He provided straightforward and detailed evidence of his investigation.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE COLLEGE WITH RESPECT TO FINDING

The College argued that the Member’s conduct violated the standards of the profession. College counsel also argued that the Member’s comments and her conduct amount to verbal and psychological abuse. College Counsel also submitted that the conduct violated the Education Act, that it would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and that it was conduct unbecoming a member of the profession.

DECISION ON FINDING

Onus and standard of proof

The College is required to prove the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53; that is, the balance of probabilities, or whether it is more likely than not that the conduct occurred.

Finding

Having considered the testimony of the witnesses, the documentary and videotape evidence and the submissions of College Counsel, 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee carefully reviewed the submissions by Counsel for the College and the evidence submitted. It assessed the evidence in support of each allegation and made findings of fact for each. It then determined whether these findings of fact gave rise to findings of professional misconduct.

Factual findings

The Committee finds that, between January 1, 2015 and March 5, 2015, the Member used inappropriate language and made inappropriate comments to her students, which included the following remarks:

i) “white trash” – this finding is based on the written statement of Student 2;

ii) “kiss my black ass” – this finding is based on the written statements of Students 2, 3, and 6, the oral testimony of Student 7, and the video evidence;

iii) “I told my Mom she should have fucked with a white sailor” – this finding is based on the written statements of Students 3 and 4, and the oral testimony of Student 8;

iv) “fucking assholes, fucking bitch” – this finding is based on the written statement of Student 4;

v) swearing at students and using the word “fuck” – this finding is based on the written statements of Students 4 and 6;

vi) calling students “losers” – this finding is based on the written statement of Student 1;

vii) telling students to “shut up” – this finding is based on the written statement of Student 5 and the oral testimony of Student 8; and

viii) “if a slutty girl or horny girl wants to have sex with you, you should fuck her well and leave her in a wheelchair for two days” – this finding is based on the oral testimony of Student 8.

The Committee also reviewed the written statement provided by Ms. Villagas and noted that she stated that the Member made inappropriate comments such as talking about how her father was “horny”, and the fact that she was not her father’s daughter because her mother had affairs. She also noted that the Member told students to shut up.

The Committee also finds that, between January 1, 2015 and March 5, 2015, the Member made personal sexually explicit statements to her students, including but not limited to:

i) talking about her personal sex life – this finding is based on the written statements of Students 1, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11;

ii) telling students her mother was beautiful and had slept with many men – this finding is based on the written statement of Student 9;

iii) telling students that her mother “had 20 kids” and was “horny” – this finding is based on the written statement of Student 9 and the oral testimony of Student 8;

iv) telling students stories about women who were “sluts” – this finding is based on the written statement of Student 10; and

v) telling students that a man approached her when he was naked and she said that his genitals were small and that her younger brother had a bigger penis – this finding is based on the written statement of Student 6 and Ms. Villagas.

As well, the Committee finds that the Member made students uncomfortable by putting her legs over her head in the classroom, based on the written statement of Students 4 and 9, the oral evidence of Student 7, the written statement of Ms. Villagas, and the video evidence presented.

Legal findings on the allegations of misconduct

The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5)

The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct was a breach of the standards of the profession. In this case, expert evidence articling the standards of the profession is not necessary because the standards are self-evident and the Member’s conduct was egregious. A teacher is expected to act as a role model, teach the curriculum, and communicate with students in a manner that is respectful. By using profanity and racist language, insulting students, speaking explicitly about sex and her personal life, and engaging in inappropriate physical stretching, the Member did not act responsibly and respectfully in class. She breached the standards of the profession by failing to create a respectful learning environment.

The Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7)

The Member’s inappropriate comments to students constituted verbal abuse. She called a student a loser and told other students to shut up. A teacher should never speak to students in this manner. Such comments are hurtful to students and show a significant disregard for their well-being. The Member acted abusively in communicating in this manner.

The Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2)

In addition to being verbally abusive, the Member also acted in a manner that was psychologically abusive to students. Both Students 7 and 8 testified that the Member’s conduct made them feel uncomfortable in class. Her failure to act without propriety in class would have negatively affected students who were expecting a safe learning environment. As well, her actions in calling a student a loser, telling students to shut up, and telling a student she could urinate in her pants rather than going to the washroom were all statements that could cause emotional harm to students. The Member clearly disregarded the feelings of her students through her actions, and engaged in psychologically abusive behaviour.

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)

Section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act states that “[i]t is the duty of a teacher and a temporary teacher […] to inculcate by precept and example […] the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.”

The Member, through her conduct, failed to promote the virtues listed above. As Student 8 stated, a teacher should be helping students on a positive path. Instead, the Member’s conduct was alarming and distracting to students. The Member did not conduct her classes as a role model to students, but instead undermined the integrity she was required to maintain as a teacher.

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)

The Member’s conduct in making comments that were rude, profane, sexually explicit and inappropriately personal were actions that were deeply unprofessional. As well, engaging in physical stretching in class with her legs above her head was also inappropriate. A teacher is expected to model appropriate behaviour in class, which includes using respectful language, being composed, and not sharing overly personal information. The Member violated these principles of professionalism. In the process, she made students uncomfortable and impeded the learning process in her classrooms.

The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)

For the same reasons as those set out above, the Member’s use of profanity, insulting and racist language, her attacks on students, her personal and sexually explicit comments and her physical stretching in class was conduct unbecoming a Member. The Member did not treat students respectfully. Her inappropriate conduct detracted from her students’ ability to learn, and was in opposition to the behaviour expected from a member of the profession.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE COLLEGE WITH RESPECT TO PENALTY

Counsel for the College proposed that the following penalty be imposed:

1. The Committee shall direct that Leanora Brown appear before the Committee within 60 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee 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 shall direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (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 commencing employment for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries with students, subject to the following conditions;

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the document 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; and

(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate 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.

Counsel for the College argued that a reprimand would act as a specific deterrent to the Member, indicating how she could reform her practice if she returns to teaching. It would also act as a general deterrent insofar as the fact of the reprimand is recorded on the College Register.

College Counsel also argued that course work would have a rehabilitative impact on the Member and protect future students if the Member returned to the classroom.

College Counsel submitted that the penalty was appropriate given the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. In terms of the former, the Member’s misconduct was repeated and it occurred in more than one class; the comments were very explicit; and they were made in the context of a [XXX] class, which is meant to teach students ethical values. In terms of the latter, the Member had a 28‑year teaching career in Canada without prior discipline and her behaviour was not on the high end of the scale in terms of its abusive impact.

College Counsel submitted the following cases in support of its position: Ontario College of Teachers v. Luke, 2016 ONOCT 33; Ontario College of Teachers v. Law, 2016 ONOCT 82; Ontario College of Teachers v. Santos, 2016 ONOCT 59; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gordon, 2015 ONOCT 31.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee accepts College Counsel’s proposed penalty and makes an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above.

REASONS FOR PENALTY

The Committee finds that the penalty proposed is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case.

The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member regarding her profanity, her racist language, her insulting and rude comments, her sexually explicit comments, and other boundary violations. In this way, it will serve as a specific deterrent and help ensure that the Member will not repeat her conduct if she returns to teaching. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

As well, the coursework ordered will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations to act respectfully and with integrity as a teacher, and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

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 penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: May 23, 2017

Robert Gagné

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Brigitte Bidal-Piquette, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Appendix A

Student Comment Log (Exhibit 3, Tab 2)

Student 1 – March 5, 2015 Date of incident: March 4, 2015

During D2P1, Ms. Brown offended me calling me a loser, saying I’m getting nowhere in life. She went on to say how useless I am, and I kept telling her to just let me do my work and for her to explain the work. She got more angry and she shouted “I do not want to tell you the work”. She then kicked me out of the class, still insulting me. I was standing outside where I heard her telling my classmates that I’m a loser and my girlfriend’s a loser and we will get nowhere in life. Ms. Brown also starts talking about inappropriate subjects like about her sex life. She also has talked bad about my siblings and their personal life to other students which is inappropriate for a teacher to do.

Student 2 –February 27, 2015 Date of incident: February 19 and 25, 2015

Ms. Brown has made many racist and inappropriate comments in our classroom. Some terms she used were “white trash”, directing her comment to white students in the classroom. Another comment she said when telling a story was for white people to “kiss her black ass” which I showed Mr. Sansone of a video a student at [XXX] made. Another comment she said on February 19 was that black people have no rights and don’t get the same opportunity that white people have. In addition Ms. Brown always complains about the staff here at [XXX] and the older student.

Student 3 – March 12, 2015 Date of incident: February 19, 2015

Ms. Brown’s classes were mostly normal at the beginning of the year but after the Christmas break, she started acting out more and more. It got to the point where some classes, we didn’t even learn anything. She was talking a lot about her life and story of how she got to where she was in life. Some quotes of what she said were “you can kiss my black ass without touching it” and “I told my mom that you shouldn’t have fucked with a sailor”. I would say that she was out of line more than just occasionally and I was somewhat concerned about what was happening. When I asked around, people told me that she was having problems with some older grades and that’s why she was acting out but I don’t really know what was happening.

Student 4 – March 12,2015 Date of incident: February 25, 2015

Ms. Brown was again talking about her life in the experience of sex. On Monday, she was talking about someone spitting and calling her a fuckin’ niger [sic]. She again talked about it on Wednesday, and said more negative things like fuckin’ asshole, fuckin’ bitch, and many more. When she was more into the conversation, she talked about her mother fucking with a white sailor.

She even showed the whole class her “epic exercise” like 4 times, and I can’t even imagine she can do that at an old age.

Student 5 – March 12, 2015 Date of incident: February 27, 2015

On February 27 I asked Ms. Brown to go to the washroom and she screamed no at me and told me I was supposed to go before class and then she started embarrassing me saying I was not in [XXX] school and that I have to hold it in or go to the washroom in my pants. She started screaming at me to sit properly when I was just sitting there doing nothing. So I sat properly and she said to get out. When I was about to grab my bag she told me to leave it and get out. I was sitting in the hallway and she started to scream at me when there were other people in the hall and that embarrassed me. Other times in Ms. Brown’s class she would always tell the class stories about herself talking about sex. She usually screams at telling me [sic] to shut up and stop talking. She kicked me out of the class another time for laughing when the whole class was.

Student 6 – March 12, 2015 Date of incident: February 19, 2015

On Thursday I had a class in the period four with Ms. Brown. The class was suppose [sic] to go to the library but the teacher started a conversation about her life. When she started the conversation I thought it was about her normal conversations in class but it started going to a really strange conversation about sex. She said the word “f” and something about kiss my ass. She also talked about really nasty things that happen in her life like she said that she was cleaning a house when the guy that she cleaned his bedroom got naked and she said “that’s the only thing that you got, my brother’s is bigger”. She also said that the principal or some people in the office doesn’t like when she hugs the students and then she said “I’m not gonna “f” with you”.

Student 7 – March 12, 2014 [sic] Date of incident: February 19, 2014 [sic]

We had walked into class and sometimes Ms. Brown has snacks for us and sometimes she does not. We sat down and I was on my phone because she was talking to another student. What made me listen is when she said “he can (excuse my language) kiss my black as [sic] without touching it”. After she was mostly talking about her childhood and how she was the best at English in her class. What intrigued me is when she told us a story about a kid that tried to touch her butt (I think) and she stuck a pencil in his arm. After she was telling us how flexible she was and starting doing summer salts [sic].

Student 8 – March 11, 2015 Date of incident: February 25, 2015

In this incident, Ms. Brown stood in the middle of the class and started to talk to us. As she started to talk to us, she started to talk about her life. She mentions that her mother had 20 kids and that she was “horny”. While telling this she mentioned that she was close to her dad and also mentions that he was a good man. As her life story continued, she told us that her mom asked her why she was so black? She told us that she responded in saying “Well you should have fucked a white sailor!” Towards the end of the class, she told us that if a slutty girl or horny girl wants to have sex with you, you should fuck her well and leave her in a wheelchair for two days. Also tell us that various students [sic] to shut up all the time, which she also told me and my friend during the announcements.

Student 9 – March 12, 2015 Date of incident: February 19, 2015

Miss Brown started the class by handing out cheese and crackers for a snack. Our class was currently on an AIDS assignment and sex was brought up. Miss Brown began talking about sex and her family. She said her mother was beautiful and slept with many men. Miss Brown explained that because of her mother’s infidelity. Miss Brown had many siblings only a couple years apart at most. She also said that she was close to her father even though he was not her biological father. At some point two students were told to leave because they were talking and did not return until near the end of the period. Then Miss Brown started talking about exercise and how fit she is, she later demonstrated by doing a half summer sult [sic]. Miss Brown then repeated everything she said before about sex. Everyone laughed at the way she told the story.

Student 10 – March 12, 2015 Date of incident: February 19, 2015

• Ms. Brown used vulgar language in here [sic] stories. - Her stories ranged from sex to her life in Jamaica. - In one story she was talking about women being sluts and that men are the real sluts, she then went on to talk about an encounter where a man approached her naked, and she then referred to his genitals as being small. - She was also talking about cannibalistic tribes in Jamaica and how they kill and eat farmers.

Student 11 –March 12, 2015 Date of incident: [Not listed]

Mrs. Brown had described her husband stupid [sic]. She had also mentioned that she wouldn’t sleep with a man her age because they are slabens [sic], meaning too old & wrinkly.

Student 12 – March 12, 2015 Date of incident: February 26, 2015

She was giving other names for the word vagina. She also tells us that we are worst class and that we never do any work.

On other days she told us how she goes into the staff room says “good morning” to a male teacher, he gives her a look and she responds saying “I’m not trying to pick you up”. She also talks about her ex-husband saying that he’s an idiot and how he “sits on his white ass in hamition [sic].

Written statement of Elizabeth Villagas (EA),

February 27, 2015 (Exhibit 3, Tab 2)

• Last 3 weeks, it’s being different

• before the curriculum OK.

• Last week in the Library – students researching about AIDS / HIV. Miss Brown talking about what she did when she was younger – dancing, exercises, and that she was very flexible. - Then she lay down on the floor and put her legs over her head, touching the floor behind her head. – students laughing.

• Thursday Feb. 19

• students visiting talking about Smile campaign (Period 4)

• She continued talking about abused women.

• talking about her father how he treated her mother – “he was horny – always – when he looked at her and she was pregnant 20 times”

• She is not her father’s daughter, because her mother had relations with another man

• When she came to Canada, started working, cleaning house, the man of the house, came out of the shower naked, he looked at her insinuating something she said “with that pencil?” “my younger brother has a bigger one than you”.

• students laughing.

• to students ‘shut up’ “I’m talking” (2 students “get out.” (girl and a boy)

• Went to the cupboard, took a table cloth, spread on the floor, lay down, and again put her legs over her head.

• Students, standing, clapping, encouraging her. (like a big show)

• She said: nobody knows that when you come to Canada as immigrant, you can be raped or robbed.

Footnotes

1. 1Counsel clarified at the hearing that the reference to a French curriculum was erroneous. The Committee is of the view that this error is of no moment, and the Member would have understood the substance of the particular allegation against her. The paragraph in the particulars should therefore be read to refer to teaching the curriculum of a course as a general matter.