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
Nicole Laura Jones, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Ravi Vethamany, OCT, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT Jane Ishibashi
BETWEEN: ) Ava Arbuck, ) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers, ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix, ) Law Clerk – and – ) NICOLE LAURA JONES ) Andrea Wobick, (CERTIFICATE # 571310) ) Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson ) LLP, for Nicole Laura Jones ) Rebecca Durcan, ) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: January 18, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on January 18, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated May 8, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Nicole Laura Jones (the “Member”), requesting her presence on May 25, 2015 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for January 18, 2017.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and was represented.
THE ALLEGATIONS
IT IS ALLEGED that Nicole Laura Jones is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she 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);
(c) she 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);
(d) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).1
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Nicole Laura Jones 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 Grand Erie District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
In the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member was assigned to teach in the School’s [XXX] Program [XXX]. [XXX] is an alternative program affiliated with, but operating separately and apart from the School, and has been in operation since 2006. [XXX] target student group is [XXX] students from [XXX] and other [XXX] countries, living within the Board’s catchment area, who are children of [XXX]. The program is comprised of cooperative education placements and independent study assignments.
Students in the [XXX] Program are often absent for months at a time during the school year.
Prior to teaching in the [XXX] Program, the Member had mostly taught in programs and/or classes for which regular report cards were not required. At the time that she was placed into the [XXX] Program, she was in her third year of teaching with the School Board.
In Semester One of the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member taught approximately 25 students.
At the conclusion of Semester One of the 2013-2014 academic year, three of the Member’s students received final report card marks and comments for work which had not in fact been completed by the students and/or assessed by the Member.
If the Member were to testify, she would say that she wanted her students to succeed in the program and, given the unusual nature of the program, the frequent lengthy absences of students and the Board’s goal of having students achieve their high school diploma, she thought she was doing the right thing and believed she was following the practice of the teaching department at [XXX] by estimating the students’ marks, to be altered upon completion of the work. The Member acknowledges she did not seek clarification from administration.
In the spring of 2014, an investigation was conducted by the School’s principal. On June 16, 2014, the Member received a letter of discipline, and she was suspended from her employment without pay for a period of four days. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the June 16, 2014 disciplinary letter to the Member.
The Member was assigned to continue teaching in the [XXX] Program for the 2014-2015 school year. She has successfully continued her teaching career with the Board, without incident.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and the exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(15) and 1(18) [unprofessional].
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(f) she understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, 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(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. The Committee granted the request.
Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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) and 1(18), only as it relates to unprofessional conduct, as the Committee is not making a finding on the disgraceful or dishonourable grounds of misconduct in subsection 1(18).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15) and 1(18) [unprofessional].
Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrates that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrates 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).
Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrates 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).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Committee 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 St. West, 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 after the Discipline Committee’s decision, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding assessment and evaluation of students, subject to the following conditions;
(i) the Member will provide to a course provider approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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 provider 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 provider 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 her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course provider:
(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 justice or the discipline process into disrepute. 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 cases presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Gusita, 2013 ONOCT 27; Ontario College of Teachers v. Chiarot, 2016 ONOCT 10; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Crouse (1 November 2016).
The Committee finds that the Member’s improper evaluation practices warrant a reprimand by her peers. 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. As well, the reprimand will guide the Member as to how she can improve her practice and avoid similar concerns going forward.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding assessment and evaluation of students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. It will guide her as to how to evaluate students properly and seek instruction if she is unsure about appropriate assessment practices. The Committee notes that the Member has shown that she has already begun to rehabilitate her practice by continuing to teach the [XXX] Program during the 2014-2015 year without incident.
The Committee recognizes that it no longer has discretion with respect to publication, as publication with 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 serves and protects the public interest.
Date: January 25, 2017
______________________________ Ravi Vethamany, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
____________________________ Jane Ishibashi Member, Discipline Panel