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
Angelo D’Ostilio, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Ravi Vethamany, OCT, Chair
Jane Ishibashi
Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela Spano,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
ANGELO D’OSTILIO ) Angelo D’Ostilio,
(CERTIFICATE #593074) ) Self-represented
) Rebecca Durcan,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: October 10, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on October 10, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A first Notice of Hearing dated October 30, 2013 (Exhibit 1) was served on Angelo D’Ostilio (the “Member”), requesting his presence on December 9, 2013 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. A second Notice of Hearing dated August 12, 2015 (Exhibit 2) was served on the Member, requesting his presence on September 8, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing with respect to the allegations set out in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 was subsequently set for October 10, 2017. The parties agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations of professional misconduct set out in both Notices of Hearing.
The Member was self-represented and he attended the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the first Notice of Hearing (dated October 30, 2013) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member 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 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);
(e) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;3
(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).
The allegations against the Member in the second Notice of Hearing (dated August 12, 2015) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) of the Act in that:
(a) 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);
(b) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19);4 and
(c) he failed to abide by a written undertaking given by the Member to the College and/or failed to abide by an agreement entered into by the Member with the College, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(24).
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:
Angelo D’Ostilio is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
At all material times during the 2011-2012 school year, the Member was employed by the Sudbury Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) and taught [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] to Grade [XXX] and [XXX] students at [XXX] School in Sudbury, Ontario.
First Semester
In the autumn of 2011, the Member acknowledged to a concerned parent whose daughter complained that he yelled in class that he was strict with his students, and assured the parent that he would aim to balance things out.
On or about December 16, 2011, the Member’s [XXX] students [XXX] a [XXX] at a [XXX]. At the conclusion of the [XXX], when the Member shook his students’ hands and/or hugged or touched their shoulders to congratulate them on a job well done, some of the female students felt uncomfortable with the Member’s actions because they felt he was in their personal space.
On or about February 1 and March 2, 2012, the principal met with the Member to discuss personal space issues and advised him to protect himself by not touching and/or hugging students. The Member received a Letter of Expectations from his principal dated March 26, 2012, advising him to “please refrain from physical contact with students” and recommending that he take a workshop offered by his federation. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the letter dated March 26, 2012.
Second Semester
On or about March 29, 2012, during an after-school [XXX], the Member became upset with his students’ [XXX] and yelled, trying to get them to [XXX] and [XXX]. Frustrated, he swore and said, “fuck, you can [XXX] [XXX]” and, “you [XXX] like shit” with the purpose of motivating them.
The following morning, while some students were [XXX] for an upcoming [XXX], the Member told them that [XXX]“like shit”.
During [XXX] class, when a female student asked about the required attire for an upcoming [XXX], the Member told her to wear something bright and beautiful and/or sexy, and told her she could wear high heels. The student felt uncomfortable with the Member’s comments, as did some of the other students in the class. If the Member were to testify, he would say that he did not recall using the word “sexy”.
One of the female students in the [XXX] lived a distance away from the School and encountered challenges getting to and from [XXX]. On several occasions, she stated she would not be able to attend [XXX]. On one occasion, the Member said to her, “I know it is not appropriate but if it was allowed, you could stay over at my house.” The Member also said that if he had a car, he would give her a ride home. The Member wanted her to [XXX] at this important [XXX] and tried to offer suggestions to help her attend [XXX].
The principal interviewed some students from the Member’s classes. They agreed the Member’s expectations were high, he pushed them hard, and he angered easily. Some students reported they were not able to meet his expectations and felt singled out by the Member’s conduct and comments, which made them feel inferior. Others felt the Member pushed them to be their best, and although he got angry and frustrated, his conduct was not extreme.
On or about April 2, 2012, when the principal met with the Member and his representative to discuss the above concerns, the Member acknowledged much of the conduct, for which he was remorseful, and explained that although he sometimes said “stupid things”, he was a caring teacher.
By letter dated April 19, 2012, the principal advised the Member she had completed her investigation into the students’ concerns. She concluded that his inappropriate comments and conduct made some students “very uncomfortable” and, because the comments were mostly made in front of other students, “caused fellow students to feel awkward and uncomfortable.” The Member accepted responsibility for his actions and indicated his remorse. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Principal’s Letter to the Member dated April 19, 2012.
The Member resigned his position with the Board, effective July 31, 2012.
2013-2014
- On or about August 26, 2013, the Investigation Committee ratified an agreement between the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member, wherein the Member agreed and understood that within 180 days of ratification of the Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”), the Member shall, at his own expense, successfully complete an accredited Additional Basic Qualification or Additional Qualification course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, covering the following areas:
(a) lesson planning;
(b) curriculum/lesson delivery;
(c) classroom management;
(d) communication; and
(e) evaluation and assessment.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the signed MOA between the Ontario College of Teachers and Angelo D’Ostilio. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Decision of the Investigation Committee, dated August 26, 2013.
In January 2014, Member’s counsel advised the College that the Member had not yet completed the required course of instruction. No explanation was provided. The College followed up with Member’s counsel periodically over the next twelve months regarding whether the Member intended to complete the required coursework.
By December 2014, despite requests for information regarding the Member’s intentions, the College had not received any update, additional information, request for an extension of time, or medical documentation confirming why the Member had not completed the required course.
In January 2015, the Registrar initiated an investigation into the Member’s failure to comply with the terms of the MOA. By letter dated March 23, 2015, the Member advised the College he had been ill and would take the required course when medically able, and provided a note from his physician confirming the above. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the correspondence dated March 23, 2015.
The Member acknowledges that he has not complied with the terms of the MOA and, despite attempts by the College to follow up with the Member during 2014, acknowledges he did not communicate to the College that he required an extension of time to be able to comply with the terms of the MOA, nor did he provide medical or other documentation confirming the reason for not complying with the terms of the MOA as requested by the College, until notified in February 2015 that the Investigation Committee will consider this matter.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional], 1(19) and 1(24).
By this document5 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 reference to 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 without 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
With the Member’s consent, and in accordance with section 9.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O 1990, c. S.22, College Counsel requested that the Committee combine both Notices of Hearing so that this matter could proceed in a single hearing. The Committee granted this request.
Counsel for the College further requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (c) and (e) of the first Notice of Hearing (dated October 30, 2013), namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7.1) and 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel similarly requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (b) of the second Notice of Hearing (dated August 12, 2015), namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 (alleged in both Notices of Hearing), 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], 1(19) and 1(24).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 18 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional], 1(19) and 1(24).
Paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 14-16 and 18 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, 7 and 9-12 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 4-7 and 9-12 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 4-7, 9-12, 14-16 and 18 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 14-16 and 18 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
Paragraphs 4-7, 9-12, 14-16 and 18 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).
Paragraphs 14-16 and 18 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to abide by a written undertaking given by the Member to the College and/or failed to abide by an agreement entered into by the Member with the College, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(24).
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 immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) prior to commencing or returning to teaching or any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration (“Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, an accredited Additional Basic Qualification or Additional Qualification course of instruction focusing on lesson planning, curriculum/lesson delivery, classroom management, communication, and evaluation and assessment, pre-approved by the Registrar, 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. Brown, 2017 ONOCT 27 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gusita, 2015 ONOCT 36.
The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated pattern of rude, inappropriate and insensitive conduct, and his failure to comply with the terms of a prior agreement with the College, warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Committee is concerned that the Member made students feel uncomfortable, inferior, and used disrespectful and demeaning language when purportedly trying to motivate them. Members of the profession are expected to serve as positive role models for students, and the Member’s conduct fell short of this expectation. The reprimand allows the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and serves 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 it is appropriate to require the Member to successfully complete an accredited Additional Basic Qualification or Additional Qualification course of instruction focusing on lesson planning, curriculum/lesson delivery, classroom management, communication, and evaluation and assessment, before he returns to a Teaching Position. This coursework will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member and remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher. It will also help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
The Committee recognizes that the Member has a medical condition which affected his ability to complete the coursework that he had undertaken to complete in a prior agreement with the College. The Committee views the Member’s medical condition as a mitigating factor. Nevertheless, the parties agreed that the Member was expected to comply with the terms of his previous agreement and he failed to do so, or to communicate his medical condition to the College in a timely manner. The agreed upon coursework that has been ordered in this case will cover many areas of the Member’s teaching practice and it will serve a rehabilitative function. The Committee is satisfied that the Member’s students will be adequately protected, should the Member return to a Teaching Position following his successful completion of the required coursework.
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: October 10, 2017
Ravi Vethamany, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Jane Ishibashi
Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel