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 Sheila Angela O’Shea, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Jane Ishibashi, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT Stéphane Vallée, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Shane D’Souza, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Daniela Spano, Law Clerk
-and-
SHEILA ANGELA O’SHEA (CERTIFICATE #421862) Sheila Angela O’Shea, Self-represented but not in attendance
Robin McKechney, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: January 12, 2017.
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR PENALTY
On September 29, 2016, a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) rendered a decision finding Sheila Angela O’Shea (the “Member”) guilty of professional misconduct.
The Committee found that the Member had: yelled at students; made physical contact with students; disciplined students by sending them into the hallway without instructing them to go to the principal’s office and without notifying the office; and yelled at staff and administrators (which included threatening to sue her principal), as alleged at paragraphs 3, 4(a)-(e), and 5(a)-(d) of the Notice of Hearing. The Committee determined that this conduct gave rise to a finding of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Committee did not find that the College had proven the conduct alleged at paragraph 4(f) of the Notice of Hearing, and the Committee did not determine that the Member’s conduct was contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, due to an insufficiency of evidence presented by the College. With respect to the allegation of incompetence set out in the Notice of Hearing, the Committee similarly found that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate this allegation, and accordingly dismissed the allegation of incompetence against the Member.
The Committee reconvened on January 12, 2017 to hear submissions with respect to penalty. The Member was self-represented but she did not attend the penalty phase of her hearing.
Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Daniela Spano sworn January 10, 2017 (Exhibit 9), to prove that the Member had been informed of the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty being sought. In this affidavit, Ms. Spano, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, outlines her communications with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents. Based on this affidavit, the Committee was satisfied that the Member had been properly served and was aware of the time and date of the hearing, the penalty being sought, and the fact that the penalty hearing could proceed in her absence. The Committee delayed the start of the hearing by approximately 30 minutes to allow the Member time to appear. The Member did not appear. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.
SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL ON PENALTY
College Counsel submitted that the Committee ought to order a penalty that includes the following components:
a reprimand;
a suspension of six months in duration; and
terms, conditions or limitations which generally include the requirement that the Member successfully complete a course(s) regarding anger management and appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues, prior to commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required.
College Counsel further noted that publication with name is now mandatory, in accordance with subsection 45.1 of the Act.
In support of the proposed penalty, College Counsel reviewed the Committee’s key factual findings, highlighted the aggravating factors in this case, and explained why each component of the proposed penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and helps to achieve the penalty objectives including deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the public interest. College Counsel also provided the Committee with the following analogous case to demonstrate that the proposed penalty is within a reasonable range: Ontario College of Teachers v. Lowrie, 2015 ONOCT 53 (“Lowrie”).
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
Prior to commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member is directed to appear before the Committee to receive a reprimand and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”).
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of six months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed 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 a Teaching Position, and no later than 90 days before commencing a Teaching Position, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course(s) of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management and appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner(s) approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) following review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner(s) will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course(s) which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner(s) shall also specify the length of the course(s) 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(s) outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner(s) which:
(i) confirms that the Member has successfully completed the course(s) and reports on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course(s).
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The Committee carefully considered the submissions of College Counsel with respect to penalty and reviewed the relevant jurisprudence provided. The Committee believes that the penalty outlined above satisfies the penalty objectives of deterrence, rehabilitation, transparency, and protection of the public interest, and that it is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member. The penalty is also within a reasonable range, based on recent College jurisprudence, including the Lowrie decision presented by College Counsel.
The Committee finds that the Member’s verbally and physically abusive conduct, her inappropriate student discipline, and her unprofessional behaviour toward staff and an administrator warrant a reprimand by her peers. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member regarding her professional misconduct and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will inform the public and the profession that the Member has received discipline for her professional misconduct, which will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances of the Member’s case. The suspension is proportionate to the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct and it informs the profession of the consequences for engaging in similar misconduct. It therefore serves as both a specific and a general deterrent.
In determining the appropriate duration of the Member’s suspension, the Committee carefully considered the jurisprudence presented by the College, as well as the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case. The Committee finds that the aggravating factors significantly outweigh the mitigating factors in this instance. Although the Committee recognizes that the Member has a hearing impairment, this impairment in no way excuses or justifies her conduct. Members of the teaching profession, regardless of their personal circumstances, are all expected to treat students and staff with respect and to provide a safe learning environment. The Member repeatedly did the opposite.
The Committee was particularly concerned with the following aggravating circumstances in this matter: 1) the Member’s conduct formed part of a troubling pattern of behaviour; 2) her conduct was physically abusive; 3) her conduct was verbally abusive; 4) she inappropriately disciplined students; and 5) her conduct toward her principal was unprofessional, insubordinate, and threatening.
First, the Member’s misconduct formed a troubling pattern of disrespectful, unprofessional, and abusive behaviour. Her misconduct occurred at three different schools and took place over a significant period of time, between April 2010 and May 2011. Her conduct was therefore not an isolated incident or a momentary lapse of judgment.
Second, the Member’s conduct toward students was physically abusive. Among other things, the Member lifted a student off the ground to physically shove him; she forcefully grabbed another student by the arm and pushed him outside of the classroom, even after he had repeatedly asked her not to touch him; and she grabbed another student by the shirt and pushed him in the chest area with her hand. The Member’s rough and aggressive interactions with students are unacceptable. Teachers are expected to maintain their composure with students at all times, to provide a safe learning environment, and to serve as a positive role model. The Member failed to meet these expectations.
Third, the Member’s conduct towards students and staff was verbally abusive on several occasions. While the Committee recognizes that being a teacher can be challenging and demanding at times, yelling is not an appropriate form of communication with students or with colleagues. Teachers are expected to interact respectfully with students and with their colleagues, and to model appropriate behaviour for students. The Member’s outbursts were uncalled for and disrespectful.
Fourth, the Member inappropriately disciplined students by sending them into the hallway without supervision and without notifying the principal’s office. Teachers are responsible for student safety. They must supervise students and be able to account for them at all times. The Member demonstrated poor professional judgment by sending students out of her classroom without supervising them or letting anyone else know where they were.
Fifth, the Member yelled at her principal, pointed her finger at her, called her incompetent, and threatened to sue her. This conduct was unprofessional and insubordinate. Members of the teaching profession are expected to interact respectfully with their colleagues and administrators and to resolve their differences in a professional manner, which the Member did not do.
Accordingly, the Committee finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable in this case and that it is proportionate to the Member’s misconduct.
The Committee finds that the course(s) of instruction regarding anger management and appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues 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 and staff, should she return to teaching. This rehabilitative component of the penalty ordered is particularly important because the Member showed no insight into her misconduct and she repeatedly tried to downplay the nature of her verbally and physically abusive behaviour.
Finally, 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, a summary of the Committee’s decision and reasons will be published with the Member’s name on the College’s website and 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 16, 2017
Jane Ishibashi Chair, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel