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
Gennady Gefter, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers at all material times.
PANEL: Shanlee Linton, OCT, Chair
Colleen Landers
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Shane D’Souza,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Shannon Baker,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
GENNADY GEFTER ) Vaino Poysa,
(CERTIFICATE #206539) ) Ontario Secondary School
) Teachers’ Federation,
) for Gennady Gefter
) Rebecca Durcan,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: June 13, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 13, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A first Notice of Hearing dated March 8, 2013 (Exhibit 1) was served on Gennady Gefter (the “Member”), requesting his presence on March 27, 2013 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. A second Notice of Hearing dated June 16, 2015 (Exhibit 2) was served on the Member, requesting his presence on July 7, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. A third Notice of Hearing dated March 7, 2017 (Exhibit 3) was served on the Member, requesting his presence on March 20, 2017 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing with respect to the allegations set out in Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 was subsequently set for June 13, 2017. The parties agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations of professional misconduct set out in all three Notices 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 March 8, 2013) 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);1
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(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); 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 June 16, 2015) 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 abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) 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);
(e) 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
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
The allegations against the Member in the third Notice of Hearing (dated March 7, 2017) 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 abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(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); and
(e) 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 4), which provides the following:
At all material times, Gennady Gefter 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 respecting the Member.
The Member was born in and obtained his professional qualifications and musical training in Ukraine. After immigrating to Canada in 1990 and at all material times thereafter, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”).
From 1994-2013, the Member was a [XXX]teacher in the [XXX]Program at [XXX]School (the “School”), a program within the School that offers an enriched curriculum for students with special interests and talents in one of the[XXX], in an atmosphere of creativity and academic and [XXX]excellence. After 2013, the Member taught [XXX]at the School, but not in the[XXX]. He retired from teaching in June 2016.
In addition to the Member’s teaching duties at [XXX]between 1994-2013, the Member was the [XXX]of the School[XXX]. During his tenure as[XXX], both the[XXX], and individual members of it, won multiple provincial and national awards. Today, a number of the Member’s former students are professional [XXX]around the world. In 2015, the Member’s accomplishments were recognized by his students, their parents, and his peers who nominated him for the 7th annual Toronto Star Teacher Award Honour Roll.
The Member was a demanding teacher with high expectations of all his students. While the Member’s rigorous approach to teaching benefitted and was appreciated by many students, his exacting methods and standards were upsetting to others. Further, while the Member sought to balance his pedagogical strictness with encouragement and praise, including expressions of fondness, these actions were occasionally misconstrued and made some students uncomfortable.
For instance, during the 2010-2011 school year, two students at the School reported concerns to administrators about the Member’s interactions with them that made them feel uncomfortable. These interactions included the Member clasping one student around the shoulders, and giving the other student a “benediction” kiss on the crown of his head. The Member also slapped this student on the palm of his hand in class in an attempt to get the student to emote and demonstrate the proper [XXX] for his[XXX], which startled the student and some others in the class. Another example involved the Member, who appeared frustrated with the student for failing to [XXX]his [XXX]at the correct time, offering the student money as a “joking bribe” to [XXX]properly.
Following investigation by school administration, the Member received a letter of discipline from the School dated September 9, 2011, for using inappropriate teaching strategies including when attempting to encourage students to perform better in his [XXX]classes, and for his inappropriate comments and interactions with students. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the letter dated September 9, 2011, from the School to the Member.
During the 2012-2013 school year, the Member was again disciplined by the Board for demonstrating his frustration at a student for her tardiness by raising his voice and for making disparaging comments about her English language skills, including advising the student that unless her English improved, her aspiration to attend university to study [XXX]was not realistic.
As a result of the student’s concern, school administration interviewed other students from the Member’s classes. Students reported that the Member was a very passionate and wonderful [XXX]with high standards as a teacher. They noticed, however, that the Member catered to students with more knowledge and aptitude, but was at times frustrated and impatient with students who did not demonstrate the same proficiency or whose efforts he deemed lacking, and his conduct left some students feeling upset and discouraged.
Following the School’s investigation, the Member received a one-day unpaid suspension. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a revised copy of the October 25, 2013 discipline letter to the Member, which refers to having already addressed similar concerns arising from the Member’s conduct.
In or around November 2015, school administration met with the Member following a complaint that the Member had belittled and embarrassed a grade [XXX] student in class by taking the student’s hand and repeatedly pressing her finger on a[XXX]. The Member acknowledged taking the student’s hand and pressing her finger on the [XXX]with his own hand in order to demonstrate to the student how to properly [XXX]her[XXX].
As a result of the student’s concerns, school administration interviewed other students in the student’s [XXX]class. Some students reported that the Member raised his voice when correcting them, making them feel uncomfortable. Other students reported that the Member spoke in a strong and loud voice because he was passionate, albeit impatient with those who did not [XXX]well.
The Member resigned from the Board, effective June 30, 2016. He resigned his membership with the College, effective September 6, 2016.
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 admits the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 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 his counsel 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
College Counsel requested that, in accordance with section 9.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O 1990, c. S.22, the Committee combine all three Notices of Hearing so that one hearing could proceed. Both counsel confirmed that the parties consented to this request. The Committee granted this request.
Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (c) of the first Notice of Hearing (dated March 8, 2013), namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, outlined in paragraph (f) of the first Notice of Hearing (dated March 8, 2013), paragraph (e) of the second Notice of Hearing (dated June 16, 2015), and paragraph (d) of the third Notice of Hearing (dated March 7, 2017), 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), 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 13 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 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 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 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 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 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 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 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 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 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 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 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 5), 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, either immediately following the hearing of this matter or within 90 days of the Committee’s Order on a date to be arranged by the Member, 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) prior to undertaking any teaching position or any other position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar, regarding anger management and appropriate language to be used 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; and
(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. Williams, 2016 ONOCT 55 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Law, 2016 ONOCT 32.
The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated pattern of inappropriate conduct, despite the School administration’s interventions and the Board’s disciplinary measures, warrants a reprimand by his peers. As a result of his overly aggressive teaching methods, the Member made several students feel uncomfortable. The Member was impatient with students and he made students feel upset and discouraged, rather than fostering a learning environment in which students could grow and develop. Teachers are expected to encourage their students, regardless of a student’s proficiency in a particular discipline.
The oral reprimand has allowed 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 and appropriate language to be used with students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, should he return to a teaching position or any other position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required. 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.
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 13, 2017
Shanlee Linton, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Colleen Landers
Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel