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
Hendrik Christopher Reinders, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair Sara Nouini, OCT Marie‑Claude Yaacov
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS – and – HENDRICK CHRISTOPHER REINDERS (CERTIFICATE #152448)
Vladimira Ivanov, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Daniela Spano, Law Clerk
The Member was self-represented but was not present
Robin McKechney, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: March 22 and 23, 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 March 22, 2017 and continued on March 23, 2017 at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated February 16, 2016 (Exhibit 1) was served on Hendrik Christopher Reinders (the “Member”) requesting his attendance before the College’s Discipline Committee on March 2, 2016 to set a date for a hearing. The hearing was subsequently set to commence on March 22, 2017.
The Member was not in attendance at the hearing and was not represented by legal counsel.
Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Daniela Spano, sworn March 20, 2017 (Exhibit 3), to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that could be sought by the College. In the affidavit, Ms. Spano, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, describes in detail her communications with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents.
On February 22, 2016, the Member wrote to the College asking not to be contacted again. On September 22, 2016, the Member wrote to Ms. Spano and stated, “leave me the fuck alone, I retired in 2012. I don’t care what you do anymore.” He wrote to her again on September 26, 2016 with a similar message, and asked the College not to contact him. On March 15, 2017, he wrote to Ms. Spano stating that the Near North District School Board (the “Board”) had put him through “hell” and that he did not want to be in a classroom again.
On the basis of the affidavit, 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 are centred on the Member’s alleged harassment of two colleagues, and his alleged physical, verbal, psychological and sexual abuse of students between 2009 and 2011.
For the reasons set out in detail below, the Committee has determined that the College has proven that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The College has not established that the Member has breached subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
As well, for the reasons set out in detail below, the Committee finds that the appropriate penalty is the revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Hendrik Christopher Reinders 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);
(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(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 sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act;
(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).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Hendrik Christopher Reinders (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Near North District School Board as a teacher at [XXX]School (the “School”) in[XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Person A was a male colleague and Person B was a female colleague of the Member at the School.
At all material times, Student 1 was a female student in the Member’s class, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4 were male students in the Member’s class.
From the Fall 2009 to December 2011, the Member:
(a) on or about April 8, 2010, passed Person A in the hall and said, “your world is about to end”;
(b) glared at and/or laughed at Person A when passing him in the hall;
(c) on or about October 13, 2011, leaned in towards Person A and said, “you know you can’t shun me, I can take this to the union that you are shunning me”;
(d) made negative comments about Person A to another colleague and said, “Person A is an asshole and I am going to fucking kill him”; and
(e) on or about December 2, 2011, told his class, “let’s stand by Person B and make her feel small, let’s intimidate her”.
- During the 2010-2011 academic year, the Member:
(a) hugged Student 1 and/or patted her on the back;
(b) said to Student 2 in front of the class words to the effect of “you shouldn’t eat that junk food because you are overweight”;
(c) slammed his hands on a desk and told a student or students to “shut the fuck up”;
(d) raised his fist at Student 3 and said, “I am not afraid to hit a kid”;
(e) slammed the classroom door and/or yelled at students, telling them to “shut up”;
(f) made inappropriate comments to students such as “shit”, “dick”, and “fuck”;
(g) threw a pencil at Student 4;
(h) told students to be quiet and gave them “the finger”;
(i) told students that, if he was going to die or get a life sentence like jail, there would be five people he was going to kill; and
(j) told students that he “got fired eight years ago for sexually assaulting girls,” and/or “people are messed up about that, but I won my case and a ton of money.”
- The Member resigned his employment with the Board on or about March 27, 2012.
THE MEMBER’S PLEA
Because the Member was not in attendance at the hearing or represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the basis that he denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
THE EVIDENCE
At the hearing, the College called two witnesses: Mr. Andy Gagné, who was the principal at the School during the time of the events at issue, and Mr. Kelly Cameron, a colleague of the Member.
Mr. Andy Gagné
Mr. Andy Gagné’s role as participant expert
Principal Gagné gave evidence as to his experience as an administrator. He is currently a principal at West Ferris Intermediate and Secondary School in North Bay. Before that, he worked as a principal at [XXX]School for four years and as a vice-principal at the school for half a year. He explained that his role as vice-principal and principal involved investigating misconduct by staff and upholding the standards of the profession. Principal Gagné completed the principal’s qualification course and practicum, and also did superintendent training. Before he worked as an administrator, Principal Gagné worked as an executive officer at the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (“OSSTF”). Principal Gagné stated that he has conducted 12 investigations as an administrator, and at least 30 investigations in his previous role at OSSTF.
College Counsel submitted that, according to the test set out in Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”), Principal Gagné meets the definition of a participant expert. Westerhof defines a participant expert as an expert who “form[s] opinions based on [his] participation in the underlying events… rather than because [he was] engaged by a party to the litigation to form an opinion” (paragraph 6). Such a witness can give opinion evidence where the opinion is based on the witness’s observation of or participation in the events at issue, and the witness formed his or her opinion based on the ordinary exercise of his or her skill, knowledge, training and experience (paragraph 60). College Counsel submitted that Principal Gagné qualified as a participant expert due to the fact that, as a principal, he came to an opinion about the nature of the Member’s misconduct and his breaches of the standards of the profession when he investigated complaints against the Member from staff and students.
In R. v. Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that expert evidence may be admitted where the following criteria are met: (a) relevance; (b) necessity in assisting the trier of fact; (c) the absence of any exclusionary rule; and (d) a properly qualified expert.
The Committee is of the view that the expert evidence of Principal Gagné should be admitted. His evidence is relevant to the question of whether the Member breached the standards of the profession; it is necessary insofar as the Committee must receive evidence as to what the relevant standards of the profession are in the circumstances of the case, before it can make a ruling as to whether these standards have been breached (Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508); there is no exclusionary rule preventing Mr. Gagné’s evidence from being admitted; and, Principal Gagné is a properly qualified expert based on his expertise and experience as an educator and administrator. In addition, there is no evidence that Mr. Gagné’s role as the supervisor of the Member has so biased his evidence that it cannot be admitted according to the above criteria.
Additionally, based on his role in the investigation process and his experience as an investigator and administrator, Mr. Gagné meets the criteria of a participant expert as articulated in Westerhof. Accordingly, the Committee qualified Principal Gagné as an expert to give evidence as to the standards of the profession.
Mr. Gagné’s credibility
The Committee found the witness to be credible. Principal Gagné gave his evidence in a straightforward and detailed manner. He made reference to the contemporaneous notes he made when the complaints against the Member were lodged and then investigated (Exhibit 8). He answered questions in a forthright manner. The Committee found Principal Gagné to be a reliable witness.
Mr. Kelly Cameron
Mr. Cameron is a teacher at the School who taught in the [XXX] department. He worked with the Member until the Member was suspended. He testified about his alleged harassment by the Member.
The Committee found Mr. Cameron to be a credible witness. He testified in a straightforward manner and had good recall of the events. Although Mr. Cameron was emotionally affected by the events he had experienced regarding the Member, he did not embellish or colour his testimony in order to cast the Member in a more negative light.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE COLLEGE WITH RESPECT TO FINDING
The College argued that the Member’s conduct violated the standards of the profession as established by Principal Gagné’s evidence and the published standards of the College entered into evidence. College Counsel argued that the Member’s conduct constituted verbal, physical, psychological or emotional, and sexual abuse of students. College Counsel also submitted that the Member’s conduct violated the Education Act. Finally, College Counsel argued that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and that it was conduct unbecoming of 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 evidence presented 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(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Committee finds that the College has not established that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.3).
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 Member had previously worked at the School but had been dismissed in 2003 following allegations of misconduct. However, he grieved his discipline and was reinstated. The Member returned to teaching at the School in the fall semester of 2009.
During his absence, Mr. Cameron had been teaching the Member’s [XXX]class. Principal Gagné described the Member as feeling that his course had been “stolen” by Mr. Cameron.
Mr. Cameron reported to Principal Gagné that on September 25, 2009, he saw the Member sitting at a [XXX]in the [XXX] where Mr. Cameron was teaching. Mr. Cameron asked if he could help him and the Member said he was working on something. Mr. Cameron asked the Member to leave because he was interrupting the class; the Member told him to “chill” and that he would be done shortly. The Member had been speaking with a student, and had asked the student to show him how much [XXX]was on the[XXX]. The Member eventually left of his own accord, and told Mr. Cameron on his way out, “my mandate allows me to walk into any classroom, and I was not interrupting your class.” Mr. Cameron reported that this was the third time the Member had walked into his classroom unannounced, and he felt that the Member was trying to intimidate him and make him feel uncomfortable (Exhibit 9).
In September 2009, Mr. Cameron initiated a Workplace Harassment Complaint against the Member. He testified that this was because the Member was making comments to other teachers in the [XXX] program stating that he was not competent and that he was an “asshole”. Mr. Cameron testified that he made similar complaints against the Member in 2010 for similar conduct by the Member. As well, he said that the Member would often stare and laugh at him when they passed in the hallway (Exhibits 21-26).
On April 8, 2010, Mr. Cameron reported to Principal Gagné that the Member had passed him and another teacher, Mr. Terry MacPhie, in the hall that morning. The Member said hello to Mr. MacPhie and then told Mr. Cameron, “your world is about to end.” Mr. Cameron did not respond to the Member. Principal Gagné interviewed the Member on April 9, 2010. The Member denied that the incident happened. The Member was interviewed by Superintendent Kelly Brown on April 15, 2010, who indicated to the Member that he would be moving to a formal process under the Board’s Workplace Harassment Guideline. At that meeting, the Member again denied making the statement to Mr. Cameron. He also said that Mr. Cameron hated him and “persecutes” him, stating “[h]e has isolated me socially, he will not acknowledge me.” The Member stated that he wanted to “counter his claim with one of my own.” The Superintendent informed the Member on June 3, 2010 that he had completed his investigation and found that the Member had made negative comments about Mr. Cameron and directed that the comments would have to cease.
On April 12, 2010, Principal Gagné noted that a teacher and an EA spoke to Vice-Principal Jordan Buckland. They were concerned about a lack of order in the Member’s classroom, including students not staying on task, students swearing, and students leaving class as they wished.
The principal reported that Mr. MacPhie came into his office visibly upset on April 21, 2010 and indicated that he and the other [XXX]teachers were tired of hearing complaints about other staff from the Member, and that it was harming the work environment. Mr. MacPhie asked Principal Gagné to address this. The next day, Vice-Principal Buckland told the principal that another [XXX]teacher, Mr. Steve Mair, had said that the Member was “on the edge” and he thought the Member was “going to do something stupid.”
On October 5, 2010, Superintendent Brown, Principal Gagné and Mr. Cameron met again and Mr. Cameron expressed his concern regarding the Member’s continued behaviour. He indicated that the Member would still glare at him and laugh when they passed in the hallway.
Superintendent Brown issued a Workplace Harassment Report on October 11, 2010, confirming that the Member would receive a written warning, and indicating that he was not to address Mr. Cameron in the school (Exhibit 27). However, Mr. Cameron reported to Superintendent Brown in April 2011 that the Member was continuing to glare, laugh and insult him (Exhibits 30-31).
Mr. Cameron testified that his interactions with the Member made him feel intimidated and frustrated. He stated that it affected his morale at work and made it hard to do his job when he knew there was someone at the school who did not like him.
Principal Gagné testified that in an interview on June 7, 2011 with Ms. Trina Ball, an administrator at the school, she indicated that on May 13, 2011, the Member saw her in the teachers’ parking lot, looked down at her, checked his watch, and laughed at her.
On the same date, a student reported to Principal Gagné that the Member had badmouthed Mr. Cameron and Vice-Principal Buckland, had talked about his charges of sexual touching, and had taken the student to his small office in the basement, despite having being told by the principal not to take students there.
On October 13, 2011, the Member approached Mr. Cameron at a parent-teacher interview event at the school. Mr. Cameron was with Mr. Mair. The Member said to Mr. Cameron, “you have to answer me, you can’t snub me, I checked with the union and you can’t do this.” Mr. Cameron became upset and left. The Member tried to follow him, and Mr. Cameron grabbed his coat and left the building. Vice-Principal Buckland and Mr. Mair witnessed the interaction. Principal Gagné also witnessed a conversation between the Member, Mr. Mair and Mr. Cameron in which he observed the Member acting aggressively, and he saw Mr. Cameron leave. Mr. Mair told Principal Gagné that the Member boasted to him after the incident that he had done it just to get a rise out of Mr. Cameron.
Mr. Cameron was interviewed about the incident on October 21, 2011 by the administration, as indicated in Principal Gagné’s notes (Exhibit 8). Mr. Cameron confirmed the above and noted that he felt that the Member was acting in an intimidating and aggressive manner during the episode. Mr. Cameron explained the stress that his interactions with the Member were causing him: “When I pass him in the hallway, I am apprehensive and I am anticipating something happening, my blood pressure goes up and I have been dealing with this for 3 years. It makes me feel uncomfortable and I don’t think he understands the direction he has received” (Exhibit 8 at page 39).
On October 21, 2011, Mr. Mair attended at Principal Gagné’s office and reported that, during the year since the Member has returned to the school, he has been making negative comments about Mr. Cameron to him and Mr. MacPhie nearly daily. The Member told Mr. Mair that “Cameron is an asshole and I am going to fucking kill him.”
Superintendent Terry Blair conducted an investigation into these further incidents, interviewing Mr. Cameron and Mr. Mair on October 21, 2011. On October 28, 2011, Ms. Blair determined that the Member had engaged in harassment of Mr. Cameron and he was given a five-day suspension. This suspension was later reduced to three days on agreement with the union (Exhibit 12).
In an interview with Principal Gagné, Ms. Trina Ball stated that on December 2, 2011, she entered a classroom in which the Member was present. She said that a large student, who was about six and a half feet tall, “puffed up” near her. She asked him if he was trying to intimidate her. She recalled that the Member then came up to her and said that everyone should stand near Ms. Ball and intimidate her and make her feel small. Principal Gagné noted that the student involved in this incident was facing personal difficulties, and he needed role modelling in school.
On December 5, 2011, Principal Gagné interviewed a number of students who reported that, while the Member was asked to watch another teacher’s math class for a short time, the Member slammed his fists on Student 3’s desk and told him to “shut the fuck up”; he then raised his fists and said “I am not afraid to hit a kid.” Student 3 confirmed the event and said that he was shocked by the incident. The police became involved in the investigation; however, they determined that they would not lay charges as there was not a reasonable prospect of conviction.
In December 2011, Principal Gagné got a report from a counselor at an external agency indicating that the Member had touched a female student, Student 1, in an uncomfortable way. Principal Gagné interviewed Student 1. She said that during the first semester of the previous year, she went to see the Member at lunch in the[XXX]. She stated that he “eyeballed” her up and down. He hugged her and patted her back, and then said that she was a “good kid”. She said that the incident made her uncomfortable because she knew it was inappropriate. She also said she did not trust older men because of an incident when she was younger. She gave a written statement (Exhibit 16). Student 1 was a vulnerable student. She had a[XXX], as well as [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] problems (Exhibit 13). The student said that she was afraid of the Member, and she did not attend class after this. The incident was reported to the police and the Children’s Aid Society of [XXX].
Mr. Gagné conducted interviews with other students at this time who were in the Member’s classes. The Member taught students in the [XXX] classes, which included students with[XXX].
Multiple students reported that the Member swore in class, saying words like “shit”, “dick” and “fuck”. As well, multiple students gave evidence that the Member saw a student, Student 2, who was eating, and said “you shouldn’t eat all that food because you are overweight,” so that the whole class could hear the remark. Student 2 affirmed that this incident occurred. He stated that he has learned to block this sort of comment out.
Student 4 gave evidence during these interviews that the Member threw a pencil near his head. He also indicated that the Member would slam his hands on desks and yell when he was angry. Another student, Student 5, also indicated that the Member threw a pencil at him and threw one at Student 4, and that the Member would use the word “fuck”.
Multiple students indicated that the Member would threaten to hurt students, and would shake his fists. As well, they stated that the Member would yell, slam the door, and tell students to shut up and listen.
On February 3, 2012, Principal Gagné spoke with Students 6 and 7, whom the Member had taught Grade [XXX[[XXX]two years prior. They reported that the Member said that “if he was going to get sentenced to life in jail or die from medical there was 5 people he was going to kill first” [sic]. Student 7 also reported that “he told us the whole story about how he got fired for 8 years because he was accused for [sic] sexually assaulting girls. He said people are messed up about that but he won his case and a shit ton of money.”
On February 8, 2012, the president of OSSTF reported to Principal Gagné that the Member’s medical practitioner had told him that he was diabetic and that this was the reason for his confusion and lack of understanding of direction from the principal and superintendent. The union president stated that this was the explanation for much of the Member’s recent behaviour. Principal Gagné gave evidence that the Member did not provide any medical documentation regarding this issue.
An investigative meeting was held with the Member on February 24, 2012. The Member denied the allegations regarding student reports of his threatening, profane, and inappropriate behaviour, as well as the allegation that he touched Student 1 inappropriately.
On March 21, 2012, the Board’s Director of Education, Geof Botting, sent the Member a letter stating that, as a result of the investigation into his misconduct, he was recommending to the Board that the Member be dismissed (Exhibit 16).
On March 26, 2012, the Children’s Aid Society of [XXX]sent the principal a letter stating that they had substantiated concerns over the Member’s threatening and intimidating conduct towards students (Exhibit 17).
The Member retired from the Board effective March 27, 2012 (Exhibit 18).
After the Member left the Board, there was an incident with the Member at a shopping mall, where the Member approached students from the School and told them words to the effect of “I’m glad I don’t have to teach you assholes anymore.” As well, there was another incident on November 22, 2012, in which a letter was left on the desk of Laurie Phillips, head secretary, stating, “Thanks Laurie, I don’t miss the place at all! Hank.” The administration could not tell how the Member may have gotten into the school to leave the card if it were in fact him. Principal Gagné stated that the vice-principal issued a trespass notice against the Member.
Evidence as to the standards of the profession
Principal Gagné stated that the Member’s treatment of Mr. Cameron and Ms. Ball were breaches of the standards of the profession. Teachers are expected to treat colleagues with respect and model appropriate collegiality for students.
Principal Gagné explained that the Member’s angry outbursts, as well as his swearing, his threats of violence, and his insults to students were violations of the standards of the profession. The principal stated that this behaviour showed a complete disregard for the promotion of learning and the well-being of students.
As well, Principal Gagné noted that the Member’s inappropriate touching of Student 1 was a clear violation of the standards of the profession. In the principal’s opinion, the Member took advantage of a vulnerable student. She was uncomfortable and did not want to go to class after this event, which impacted both her personal dignity and her ability to learn and succeed.
Legal conclusions regarding the allegations of professional 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 failed to maintain the standards of the profession. The Committee accepts Principal Gagné’s expert evidence about the standards of the profession.
In addition, the Committee finds that the standards of the profession applicable to this case are articulated in two documents: The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 6).
The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession require a teacher to act with the following principles in mind:
Care
The ethical standard of Care includes compassion, acceptance, interest and insight for developing students’ potential. Members express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice.
Respect
Intrinsic to the ethical standard of Respect are trust and fair-mindedness. Members honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. In their professional practice, they model respect for spiritual and cultural values, social justice, confidentiality, freedom, democracy and the environment.
Trust
The ethical standard of Trust embodies fairness, openness and honesty. Members’ professional relationships with students, colleagues, parents, guardians and the public are based on trust.
Integrity
Honesty, reliability and moral action are embodied in the ethical standard of Integrity. Continual reflection assists members in exercising integrity in their professional commitments and responsibilities.
In addition, the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession require members to be “dedicated in their care and commitment to students. They treat students equitably and with respect.” As well, this written standard requires that “[m]embers promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities.”
The Member’s conduct did not follow the standards of the profession as articulated by Principal Gagné and the documentary evidence. The Member’s conduct was defined by disrespect ‒ towards colleagues, towards students, and even towards former students after he retired and was no longer working at the School. The Member wholly failed to uphold the principles of dignity, integrity and compassion expected of members of the teaching profession.
The Member’s harassment of Mr. Cameron, which occurred over a series of years, was designed to make his colleague feel intimidated, belittled, and demoralized. It made the school environment unsafe for Mr. Cameron, and would have negatively impacted his ability to do his job. It displayed an egregious lack of respect, care, and decency on the part of the Member. The Member’s treatment of Ms. Ball was equally insulting and demeaning.
Similarly, the Member’s treatment of students clearly violated the standards of the profession. Swearing in class, insulting a student’s appearance, threatening to physically harm students, bragging about a grievance settlement, and throwing pencils at students are all actions which infringe upon the professional principles of respect, compassion, responsibility and dignity. The Member failed to be a positive influence for his students. Instead, he was an angry, unstable, harmful influence, creating a classroom space which was disruptive and humiliating for students.
The Member’s conduct also fell below the standards of the profession when he told a vulnerable student to give him a hug and then hugged her and patted her on the back. The Member’s conduct frightened the student and made her feel uncomfortable. Members of the teaching profession are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students at all times, and the Member failed to do so in this instance. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority, and they should never take advantage of this privileged position when interacting with students.
The Member’s conduct breached the standards of profession, both in terms of his treatment of staff and of students.
The Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7)
The Member’s behaviour in telling a student to “shut the fuck up,” telling a student that he is “not afraid to hit a kid,” telling students to shut up, swearing in class, and commenting on a student’s weight were all forms of verbal abuse. The above-noted statements by the Member were demeaning and threatening to students.
The Member abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1)
The Member physically abused students on a number of occasions. He threw pencils at Students 4 and 5. He slammed his hand on Student 3’s desk and raised his fist at him. The Member failed to maintain appropriate boundaries. His angry outbursts and physically threatening conduct were inappropriate in the classroom or anywhere else.
The Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2)
The Member’s demeaning treatment of students was psychologically abusive. He insulted and intimidated Student 3 by telling him to “shut the fuck up” and threatening to hit him. He humiliated Student 2 by commenting on his weight in front of his classmates, comments that Student 2 said he had to “block” out. These statements by the Member were clearly harmful to students, threatening their well-being and self-esteem. Teachers are expected to support students and provide them with safe spaces in which to learn and develop. By deliberately being psychologically abusive towards his students, the Member failed to protect them and to promote a safe learning environment.
The Member did not abuse a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) or engage in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act
The Committee finds that the College has not established that the Member sexually abused a student contrary to subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 or that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act. College Counsel presented Exhibit 15, a written statement from a student dated February 2, 2012, as proof of sexual abuse. The student who wrote and signed this statement, however, did not testify and this evidence is hearsay. While hearsay evidence is admissible under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O, 1990, c. S.22, the Committee must still determine the appropriate weight to give to this evidence. The Committee gives some weight to this evidence, given that the student’s written statement is consistent with Principal Gagné’s notes from his interview with the student (see Exhibit 8 at page 21-23), but the Committee does not believe that this evidence is sufficient to establish that the Member sexually abused a student.
The student’s written statement makes no suggestion that she thought that the Member’s conduct towards her was sexual in nature. Even accepting the student’s hearsay statement in its entirety, it does not provide evidence that the Member’s conduct was sexual in nature. Although Principal Gagné opined that the Member’s conduct was sexual in nature, he neither witnessed the incident nor asked the student when he spoke with her if she felt the Member’s conduct was sexual in nature. His opinion about the sexualized nature of the conduct is therefore of limited assistance to the Committee. That assessment must be made on the evidence before the Committee and the Committee finds that this allegation has not been established on the balance of probabilities. As indicated above, the Committee nonetheless denounces the Member’s conduct, which frightened the student and made her feel uncomfortable, even though the Committee does not find that the conduct amounted to sexual abuse.
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)
Subsection 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.” Subsection 264(1)(d) states that it is the duty of a teacher “to assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school.” Subsection 264(1)(e) mandates the duty “to maintain, under the direction of the principal, proper order and discipline in the teacher’s classroom and while on duty in the school and on the school ground.”
The Member’s actions did not uphold the principles under subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act. His conduct did not set a good example for students. He treated his colleagues with hostility and disrespect. He swore, insulted and intimidated students. He hugged a female student in a way that made her feel very uncomfortable. All these actions do not reflect the virtues expected of a member of the profession.
As well, subsection 264(1)(d) requires co-operation between members of the staff at a school. Rather than working co-operatively with Mr. Cameron, the Member acted with hostility and malice towards him. He threatened him and spoke about killing him to another teacher. He made a sustained effort to intimidate and provoke Mr. Cameron.
Finally, the Member failed to maintain order while he was teaching class. The Member did not maintain an orderly and safe class which was conducive to learning. The episode in which he slammed his hands on Student 3’s desk and told him to “shut the fuck up” and said he was “not afraid to hit a kid” was evidence of this. This type of conduct does not maintain proper discipline in a classroom, but instead would have promoted fear, shock and disorder in the class after students witnessed a teacher acting inappropriately. The Member’s other outbursts, in which he swore at students, threw pencils at them, and insulted them, would have had a similar disruptive effect on students.
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 acted with extreme disrespect towards his colleagues and students. He engaged in a deliberate, sustained campaign of harassment against Mr. Cameron, and treated him in a rude and intimidating manner. He threatened Mr. Cameron, both directly and behind his back. He also disrupted his classroom. It is unacceptable for members of the teaching profession to treat other members with this type of disregard. The Member was given opportunities to reform his behaviour after receiving a written warning and a suspension from his Board, but he failed to correct his conduct. With respect to Ms. Ball, the Member also treated her with hostility and used threatening gestures, and encouraged students to intimidate her during class. These acts were the antithesis of the respect and cooperation teachers must show their co-workers.
In terms of his treatment of students, the Member was highly unprofessional. He was abusive towards students in a myriad of ways, which included insulting them and threatening them physically. He spoke to students about inappropriate topics, such as telling Students 6 and 7 about five people he would like to kill and bragging to Student 7 about his legal settlement. The Member’s deliberate, disrespectful conduct was the opposite of the supportive, measured manner he was supposed to model as a teacher. His conduct towards his students brought shame to the profession.
In sum, the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)
For the same reasons as those cited above, the Member’s repeated acts of harassment of colleagues and abuse of students were conduct unbecoming a member of the profession. The Member’s actions violated the trust which students and parents place in a teacher, and tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE COLLEGE WITH RESPECT TO PENALTY
College Counsel argued for revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
College Counsel submitted that revocation was necessary given the serious and repetitive nature of the Member’s misconduct. College Counsel argued that the Member displayed an attitude that he could harass colleagues and treat students in an abusive manner with impunity. College Counsel submitted that the Member had received previous discipline by the Board for his conduct and yet persisted in his conduct, which demonstrated that he was not amenable to rehabilitation. College Counsel argued that revocation was necessary in order to promote general deterrence and protect the public.
The College relied on the following cases in support of its argument for revocation: Ontario College of Teachers v. Foucault, 2015 ONOCT 22 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Castellano, 2016 ONOCT 100.
Finally, College Counsel argued that the Member’s “ungovernability” should be regarded as a factor supporting the penalty of revocation: Ontario College of Teachers v. Castellano, 2016 ONOCT 100. Counsel argued that a refusal to engage in a disciplinary process shows a disregard for the College’s authority as a self-governing body and can be an aggravating factor when determining penalty.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
- The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member, which Certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The Committee is of the view that this is an appropriate case for revocation. The conduct of the Member is extremely serious. As set out above, he harassed and threatened colleagues and his conduct was insulting and abusive towards students.
In the Committee’s view, rehabilitation of the Member is not realistic. His pattern of misconduct has escalated over time, despite attempts to correct his behaviour. The Member has shown that he is not willing or able to reform his conduct.
Revocation is also necessary as a matter of general deterrence, in order to send a clear message to the profession that the harassment of colleagues and abuse of students are both clear breaches of the standards of practice and will not be tolerated.
In addition to finding that the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration should be revoked based on the above considerations, the Committee finds that the Member’s ungovernability is an aggravating factor that weighs in favour of revocation. A member is ungovernable where he or she will not abide by the authority of the College as a governing body. In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Sebastiano Cammisuli, 2012 ONLSHP 157, the factors that informed the determination whether a licensee is ungovernable include the following:
(a) the nature, duration and repetitive character of the misconduct;
(b) any prior discipline history;
(c) any character evidence;
(d) the existence or lack of remorse. Remorse includes a recognition and understanding of the seriousness of the misconduct;
(e) the degree of willingness to be governed by the Society;
(f) medical or other evidence that explains (though does not excuse) the misconduct;
(g) the likelihood of future misconduct having regard to any treatment being undertaken, or other remedial efforts; and
(h) ongoing co-operation with the Society in addressing the outstanding matters that are the subject of the misconduct.
These same factors support a finding, in this case, that the Member is ungovernable. He engaged in numerous acts of harassment and abuse of staff and students over the course of several years. Although he did not have a prior discipline history at the College, he was previously disciplined by the principal for his conduct and did not reform his behaviour. The Member did not present any character evidence. He did not show remorse for his actions; to the contrary, his lack of participation in these proceedings and his correspondence with College Counsel show a failure to acknowledge that he may have committed serious misconduct and harmed others. His failure to participate in the proceedings and his insulting emails to the College show that he is neither willing to be governed by the College nor to cooperate with it.
The Committee finds that staff and students need to be protected from the Member’s hostile and abusive behavior. The College exists to govern the profession in the public interest and it cannot fulfil its mandate when it is ignored by a member who is accused of misconduct. The Member’s refusal to abide by the College’s processes makes him ungovernable, which is an aggravating factor militating towards revocation.
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 21, 2017
Vicki Shannon, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Marie‑Claude Yaacov Member, Discipline Panel