Ontario College of Teachers v. Szabo, 2017 ONOCT 56

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Szabo 2017 ONOCT 56

Date: 2017-08-10

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

Paul Szabo, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair

Colleen Landers

Stéphane Vallée, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela Spano,

) Law Clerk

– and – )

PAUL SZABO ) Paul Szabo is self-represented

(CERTIFICATE #251160) ) but was not present

) Julie Maciura,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: July 19, 2017

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on July 19, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated April 28, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Paul Szabo (the “Member”), requesting his presence on May 25, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for July 19, 2017.

The Member was self-represented and was not in attendance for the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) he failed to supervise adequately students who were under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);¹

(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) he committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and

(g) 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 the following:

1. Paul Szabo 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Upper Grand District School Board (the “Board”) and taught Grade [XXX] [XXX] at [XXX]School in Orangeville, Ontario.

Inappropriate Comments and Conduct

3. In and around October 2013, the Member became frustrated with students in his classes and acted in a manner that intimidated some of his students, in that he:

(a) slammed his fist on a desk;

(b) ripped pages out of a book;

(c) tossed chalk at the blackboard;

(d) refused to answer a student’s request to use the washroom until the student finished a [XXX]problem; and

(e) yelled in class.

4. In and around October 2013, the Member did not create a supportive learning environment or demonstrate respect and sensitivity towards students in his Grade [XXX] [XXX]classes when he made the following inappropriate comments in class:

(a) referred to students as “morons”, “idiots”, and “stupid”;

(b) said words to the effect of, “you can do this… you are not dumb asses”;

(c) told students to “shut up”;

(d) told several students they will not amount to anything;

(e) told one class that his other Grade [XXX] class was “full of monsters”;

(f) made comments directed at particular students such as, “you should pay attention because you aren’t doing well” and “you are going to do just as badly on this test as the last time”, in front of the class; and

(g) told students he had been absent from School because they made him “physically ill”, and that he may quit teaching because they were “bad” for his health.

Board’s Investigation

5. On October 30, 2013, the Member was sent home on a Board Directed Leave pending the Board’s investigation.

6. Effective January 31, 2014, the Member retired from the Board. He does not intend to return to the teaching profession.

GUILTY PLEA

7. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

8. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).

9. 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; and

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and without the advice of legal counsel.

10. 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 allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(11) 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 limited to unprofessional, and not disgraceful or dishonourable. The Committee granted these requests.

Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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) [unprofessional] and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. The Committee was concerned with the Member’s inappropriate conduct and comments to the students in his classes, which were contrary to his obligations as a teacher. 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 3 and 4 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 3 and 4 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 3 and 4 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 3 and 4 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 3 and 4 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 3 and 4 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:

1. direct that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter or within 90 days of the date of the Discipline 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

2. 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 any return to a teaching position or a position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management, 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, Ontario College of Teachers v. Thompson, 2014 ONOCT 103 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Lazore, 2013 ONOCT 60.

The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated harsh and abusive comments and conduct, in and around October 2013, were completely unacceptable. The Member did not provide a safe learning environment for his students. As a result, the Member’s inappropriate behaviour warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Committee is disturbed by the Member’s intimidating actions and lack of sensitivity towards the emotional well-being of his students. By referring to students as “morons”, “idiots” and “stupid”, and by yelling in class, tossing chalk and ripping pages out of a book, the Member demonstrated a profound lack of judgment, restraint and respect. Teaching is often challenging, but teachers must adhere to the standards of the profession in their classroom management and discipline. Members are expected to keep their composure at all times, to provide students with safe and supportive learning environments, or to seek assistance as needed. The Member’s rude, intimidating, and demeaning comments are clear indications that the Member failed to meet these expectations. 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.

While the Committee recognizes that the Member has indicated that he does not intend to return to the teaching profession, the course of instruction regarding anger management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member should he ever return to teaching. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher, to maintain control, to treat his students respectfully 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 penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: August 10, 2017

Vicki Shannon, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

______________________________ Colleen Landers

Member, Discipline Panel

Stéphane Vallée, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn.