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
Robert Brooklyn Roe, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Robert Gagné, Chair
Pauline Smart
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 – )
ROBERT BROOKLYN ROE ) Heather Alden,
(CERTIFICATE #526372) ) Ontario Secondary School
) Teachers’ Federation,
) for Robert Brooklyn Roe
) Robin McKechney,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: June 2, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 2, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A Notice of Hearing dated January 8, 2016 (Exhibit 1) was served on Robert Brooklyn Roe (the “Member”), requesting his presence on January 25, 2016 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for June 2, 2017.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Robert Brooklyn Roe is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1)1 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);2
(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);3
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;4
(f) 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);
(g) 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
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
Robert Brooklyn Roe 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 teacher at Institute [XXX] (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2 were year [XXX]-old female students at the School and were close friends. At all material times, Student 3 was a year [XXX]-old male student at the School. The Member taught all three students Grade [XXX] [XXX] during the 2013-2014 school year.
Classroom Comments and Conduct
On one occasion, Student 2 sat on the lap of another female student and took a “selfie” picture during the Member’s class. A male student sat on the lap of another male student to mimic the female students. The Member told them to stop, and said words to the effect of, “it’s only hot when girls do it.” The class laughed at the Member’s comment, which was understood to be a joke.
The Member in conversation with Student 1 and Student 2, said that every year he saw “brown people graduate” and he would like to see someone like him graduate from the IB program.
When students complained in class to the Member that they did not understand their [XXX] teacher, the Member said, “all [XXX] teachers are on crack.”
The Member patted students on their backs or shoulders in class. Some of the students felt uncomfortable when the Member touched them; however, none of the students felt the Member acted inappropriately and described it as “his way”.
On occasion, the Member used the words “shit” and “bitch” in class. Most students were not offended when the Member used these words, especially because he often laughed when he said them. If the Member were to testify, he would say he does not recall using profanities in class.
On one occasion, Student 3 snuck into the Member’s morning [XXX] class to speak with a friend. The Member was teaching a lesson and asked Student 3 to leave. When Student 3 stood up to leave, he accidentally bumped into the Member, who was standing by him with his arms stretched out in a T-formation. The Member physically escorted Student 3 out of the classroom into the hallway. Student 3, as well as other students in class, believed the Member intended it as a joke, but Student 3 was embarrassed by the incident.
Text Message
The Member believed he overheard Student 2 telling a friend that she was going to a “Free the Children” event and the founder of the event would be staying at her home. Later that afternoon, the Member sent Student 2 a text message asking the student to give his regards to the founder of the event. Student 2 felt awkward when she received the Member’s text, and did not respond to it.
The following morning Student 2 was sitting in close proximity to the Member in the first period. The Member asked her whether she had received his text message. When she responded in the affirmative, he asked her why she did not respond to it, which made Student 2 feel awkward.
Christmas Gifts
In or around December, Student 1 and Student 2 suggested to the Member that the three of them exchange gifts. On or about the last day of school before the holidays, Student 1 and Student 2 were in the Member’s office and they gave the Member his gift, which consisted of a mug, tea strainer and tea, a photo of the two students, and a book of photographs of the two students.
The Member gave Student 1 and Student 2 each a Lululemon Namaste Yoga mat bag for the holidays, as the School was starting a yoga class, along with a holiday card addressed to the two of them and signed, “your friend Rob Roe”. The students discovered the cost of each yoga bag was over $50, and felt uncomfortable as a result of the Member’s gifts and card. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the card from the Member.
Board Investigation
In January 2014, after a discussion about [XXX] in their [XXX] class, Student 1 and Student 2 reported to the administration that they felt uncomfortable around the Member.
The Board sent the Member home with pay pending its investigation. The Board investigator interviewed a number of students from the Member’s Grade [XXX] classes. Most students liked the Member and did not find his comments or behaviour inappropriate; however, they noted that the Member treated female students differently than male students. If the Member were to testify, he would say that he provided assistance not as a result of gender, but to the students who were having difficulty with the material.
By letter dated June 26, 2014, the Board advised the Member it had completed its investigation and concluded that the Member’s conduct represented a breach of the ethical standards and reflected his “insufficiently developed regard for the moral and professional boundaries that, by necessity, exist between teachers and students.” The Board suspended the Member for ten days without pay, which was reduced to six days following a grievance. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s June 26, 2014 letter to the Member.
The Member successfully completed a course on Professional Boundary Issues provided by his federation on August 26, 2014. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the letter confirming this information.
The Member continues to teach for the Board. He has conducted himself in a professional manner with students and no further incidents of professional misconduct have been reported. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of a letter from the Member’s Principal dated February 2, 2017.
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(7.2), 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 the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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 paragraphs (b), (c) and (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7), 1(7.1) and 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Committee find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). The Committee granted these requests.
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(7.2), 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 18 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 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 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 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 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 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 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 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 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”);
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 appropriate 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 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 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. Law, 2016 ONOCT 32; Ontario College of Teachers v. Hockin, 2015 ONOCT 38; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Dingwall, 2014 ONOCT 35.
The Committee recognizes the mitigating factors presented by Member’s Counsel, including: 1) the Member took responsibility for his actions; 2) he has already received discipline from his Board, which included a six-day suspension and a course on professional boundaries; and 3) the Member has no prior or subsequent discipline history at the College. Despite these mitigating factors, the Member’s conduct was repeated and serious. He made a number of inappropriate comments to students and he failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. The penalty jointly submitted by the parties is therefore appropriate in the circumstances and will reinforce for the Member the importance of serving as a positive role model, maintaining appropriate professional boundaries, and treating all those in the school community with respect at all times.
The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated instances of inappropriate and insensitive conduct, which included both comments and actions that crossed professional boundaries and that made students feel uncomfortable, warrants a reprimand by his peers. 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 appropriate boundaries with students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. The Committee recognizes that the Member has already completed a course regarding professional boundaries, but finds that the additional coursework will reinforce the importance of maintaining appropriate boundaries with students. The contents of the prior course will be known to the course practitioner, which will enable the course practitioner to appropriately tailor the additional course to the Member’s current needs thereby protecting the public interest.
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: June 2, 2017
Robert Gagné
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Pauline Smart
Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel