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
Louis Gilles Parent, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Colleen Landers, Chair
Merzak Damou, OCT
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Christine Wadsworth,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela Spano,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
LOUIS GILLES PARENT ) Adam Webb,
(CERTIFICATE #283438) ) Ursel Phillips
) Fellows Hopkinson LLP,
) for Louis Gilles Parent
) Erica Richler,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc,
) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: August 2, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on August 2, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated January 20, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Louis Gilles Parent (the “Member”), requesting his presence on February 25, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for August 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 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);1
(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);2
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);3
(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:
Louis Gilles Parent 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 with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Algoma District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
At all material times, the Member taught [XXX].
Student 1
Student 1 was a grade [XXX] male student in the Member’s class in September 2013. The class was held in a [XXX]. The students did not have their own desks, but sat at a number of folding tables.
On September 24, 2013, Student 1 behaved disruptively during class. He tapped or drummed his fingers on his table, turned around in his seat to face the back of the room, and talked with other students who were sitting near him.
Student 1 was not paying attention to the Member as the Member walked by his desk. In an effort to get Student 1’s attention, the Member picked up Student 1’s binder and dropped it from a height of approximately 30 centimetres onto the table in front of where Student 1 was sitting. It landed with a loud bang, on Student 1’s fingers. Those sitting near Student 1 reported that Student 1 appeared startled or stunned at the sound.
If the Member were to testify, he would say that he did not intentionally drop the binder on Student 1’s fingers and, at the time, he did not see the binder land on Student 1’s fingers. Student 1 did not advise the Member that the binder had landed on his fingers, nor did he express any discomfort to the Member.
Student 1’s finger was sore after the incident. He did not require medical attention. He told his mother about the incident that evening. His mother spoke to the vice-principal, and the next day the vice-principal spoke to the Member about the incident.
The following day at School, the Member walked by Student 1 and went to touch Student 1’s shoulder to get his attention, then stopped himself and said to Student 1, “Oh, I can’t touch you.” Student 1 interpreted the Member’s comment as sarcastic. If the Member were to testify, he would say that he did not intend to mock, but made the statement as he remembered, in the moment, that he ought not to touch the student.
The Children’s Aid Society of Algoma investigated and verified that the incident described above occurred as reported. It found “no direct intent” by the Member to harm Student 1, and that no student interviewed reported concern for their safety while in the Member’s class; however, it concluded the Member’s method of intervention with Student 1 was inappropriate. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Children’s Aid Society’s Letter dated November 8, 2013.
Following its investigation into the above incident, the Board suspended the Member for ten days without pay. The Board reduced the suspension to five days following a grievance. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated October 21, 2013.
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(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 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
Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7), 1(7.1) and 1(7.2) 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(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 11 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(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
Paragraphs 6, 10 and 11 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 6, 10 and 11 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 6, 10 and 11 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 6, 10 and 11 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 3), 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, or within 90 days of the date of the 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”);
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 classroom 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;
(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. Alexander, 2006 ONOCT 2 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Harkes, 2015 ONOCT 37.
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. By grabbing a disruptive student’s binder and dropping it on the student’s desk from a height in order to get his attention, the Member did not use an appropriate classroom management strategy and failed to maintain a safe and positive learning environment for students. Teachers are expected to model respectful behaviour and to uphold the standards of the profession at all times and, in this instance, the Member fell short of these expectations. The Member ought to have communicated his displeasure with the student’s behaviour using his words rather than resorting to the type of conduct in which he engaged. 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 classroom management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher, will provide insight on how to improve his professional practices, will assist the Member in upholding the standards of the profession, 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 2, 2017
Colleen Landers
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Merzak Damou, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel