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
Michael Anthony Lewis, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers at all material times.
PANEL: Jane Ishibashi, Chair
Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT
Merzak Damou, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Stephanie Sugar,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela Spano,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
MICHAEL ANTHONY LEWIS ) Michael Anthony Lewis
(CERTIFICATE #176432) ) was not present or represented
) Julie Maciura,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: November 14, 2017
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on November 14, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto. A first Notice of Hearing dated February 24, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Michael Anthony Lewis (the “Member”), requesting his presence on March 23, 2015, and specifying the charges. A second Notice of Hearing dated September 11, 2017 (Exhibit 2) was served on the Member, requesting his presence on November 14, 2017, and specifying the charges. The hearing with respect to the allegations set out in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 was held on November 14, 2017. The parties agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations of professional misconduct set out in both Notices of Hearing, as set out in the parties’ Consent that was entered as Exhibit 3.
The Member was not in attendance for the hearing and did not have legal representation.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the first Notice of Hearing (dated February 24, 2015) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);1
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(f) he committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
The allegations against the Member in the second Notice of Hearing (dated September 11, 2017) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) 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;2
(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(f) he committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 4), which provides the following:
Michael Anthony Lewis was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information. On January 19, 2017 the Member resigned his membership and his certificate was cancelled, effective January 31, 2017.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto Catholic District School Board (the “Board”). During the 2000-2013 academic years, the Member was employed by the Board as a teacher at [XXX] School (“[XXX]”). During the 2014/2015 academic year, the Member was employed by the Board as a teacher at [XXX] School ([“XXX]”).
At all material times, Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4 were students at [XXX].
At all material times, Teacher A, Teacher B, and Teacher C were teachers at [XXX].
At all material times, Student 5 and Student 6 were students at [XXX].
During the 2008-2009 academic year Student 1 was in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class at [XXX]. Student 1 returned to the Member’s class following a meeting with a guidance counsellor, at which time the Member said, in front of other students, “Oh you’re back, get to the back of the bus.” Student 1 is black and felt the comment was racist.
In or around February 2011, Student 2 was a student in the Member’s [XXX] class. During a class, Student 2’s [XXX] was not working. The Member tried to fix it and the [XXX] fell to the ground. In response to the Student’s observation that the Member had broken the [XXX], the Member raised his voice to Student 2, which she perceived as the Member yelling at her. In handing back the [XXX] it was dropped by the Member and fell apart on the floor.
On or about April 6, 2011 Student 3 was unable to attend [XXX] because his mother was picking him up. The Member expressed his annoyance to Student 3 for not attending, and said to Student 3 in a public setting “as much as I’d like to kick your ass, I can’t, or I’d get fired”, or words to that effect. The Member acknowledged this occurred but stated it was in response to Student 3’s extreme misbehaviour in class. In investigating the complaint, the Board accepted that the Member did not mean what he said.
The Member was given a letter of caution regarding his behaviour towards students in his [XXX] class. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of a letter from the principal of [XXX] to the Member, dated May 11, 2011.
In April 2004, January 2005, and April 2007, the member had met with various representatives of the Board and [XXX] with respect to previous complaints about the Member’s conduct towards both students and colleagues. The Member was repeatedly cautioned about his inappropriate comments and behaviour. Attached as Exhibits “C”, “D”, and “E” are copies of the Board’s summaries of these meetings.
On or about February 9, 2012, the Board’s Occupational Health and Safety Department (“OHS”) received a report of a safety concern from a teacher at [XXX] regarding the Member’s conduct.
The report to the OHS was from Teacher A. The Member and Teacher A were in ongoing conflict.
The OHS conducted an investigation into to the complaint. The final report prepared by the OHS, dated March 19, 2012 (“the OHS Report”) concluded that certain actions of the Member met the definition of workplace violence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”). The report concluded:
(a) “There is obvious conflict between two workplace colleagues, the complainant [Teacher A] and the respondent. The discord has led to bitterness, animosity and mistrust between the two workers. Unfortunately the learning environment within the [XXX] program for the students is being impacted.”
(b) “The December 1, 2010 incident meets the definition of workplace violence under the OHSA. There is no evidence that the respondent raised an arm towards the complainant; however, witnesses saw and heard the respondent yelling at the complainant. The respondent also invaded the complainant’s personal space. This meets the definition of workplace violence, specifically ‘statement or behaviour that is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker, in workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker.’ It was reasonable for the complainant to feel threatened by this behaviour and to leave the classroom immediately.”
(c) “The April 6, 2011 incident [referenced above at paragraph 8] meets the definition of workplace violence under the OHSA. The respondent admits to uttering a physical threat towards a student in front of the complainant. This meets the definition of workplace violence, specifically ‘statement or behaviour that is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker, in workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker.’ It was reasonable for the complainant to feel threatened by this behaviour.”
(d) “The April 30, 2011 incident meets the definition of workplace violence under the OHSA. Eye witness account confirms that the respondent raised their voice at the complainant and pursued the complainant as the complainant was walking away. This meets the definition of workplace violence, specifically ‘statement or behaviour that is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker, in workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker.’ It was reasonable for the complainant to feel threatened by this behaviour.”
(e) “There is no evidence of the February 23, 2011 incident where the respondent allegedly said ‘Should I be paranoid?’ regarding a Bill 168 staff inservice.”
(f) “The November 2010 incident (regarding the [XXX]) and June 2011 incident (regarding the exams) do not meet the definition of workplace violence.”
(g) “There is no evidence that the respondent played a YouTube video titled ‘Frosty the Rape Man’.”
The Board continued to express serious concerns with respect to the Member’s conduct. The Board considered the Member’s conduct to be having a negative impact on students’ achievement, as well as creating an undue hardship for the administration to supervise the Member’s behaviour. Attached as Exhibit “F” is a summary of the Board’s actions taken throughout 2012 in relation to the Member. Attached as Exhibit “G” is a copy of correspondence between the Board and [XXX with respect to the entire context of the conflict between the Member and Teacher A.
A safety plan was developed to address the conflict between the Member and Teacher A. The Member was directed to stay clear of Teacher A. Attached hereto as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the safety plan.
On or about May 11, 2012, during the Member’s [XXX] class, the Member made reference to the [XXX]class as the “queer class”. Teacher B asked the Member if he used the term “queer practice” in class. Teacher B was personally offended. The Member admitted to referring to [XXX] practice as “queer practice”. The Member also stated his use of the phrase was intended as a pun.
On or about May 14, 2012, the Member made a gesture in front of a class of students that was homophobic in nature. The gesture of a “limp wrist” was made in reference to Teacher C, who was at that point making an announcement on the School’s public address system.
On or about June 8, 2012, a number of teachers at [XXX], including Teachers B and C, submitted a written complaint to the College concerning the continuing conduct of the Member, that he made demeaning comments to students, publicly ridiculed colleagues, was verbally abusive to students and teachers and was physically intimidating to students and teachers, as the letter stated. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “I” is a copy of the complaint letter dated June 8, 2012.
The Member was transferred from [XXX] to [XXX] for the 2013-2014 academic year, and then in September 2014 began teaching at [XXX]. At the same time, Teacher A was also transferred from [XXX].
Student 5 and Student 6 were the Member’s students at [XXX].
On or about November 17, 2014, Student 5 made a comment in the course of a conversation with another student about the danger of walking in a certain area at night because of the risk of being raped. In response, the Member said to Student 5, “Yea, you wish”, or words to that effect. Student 5 was upset and offended, and reported the incident to a Child and Youth Worker at [XXX].
On or about January 6, 2015, the Member referred to Student 6 as a “bitch” or “bitchy”.
On March 13, 2015 the Member received another letter of caution from the Board in relation to the concerns raised by parents and students regarding the Member’s inappropriate, demeaning and disrespectful comments, and the Member’s failure to display professional judgment, and adhere to proper boundaries when communicating with students. Attached as Exhibit “J” is a copy of the Board’s March 13 letter.
Inappropriate Relationship with a Student
Student 7 was a student at [XXX] from 2008-2012. In the 2008-2009 academic year, Student 7 was in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class.
Student 7 did not complete a high school diploma at [XXX]. Beginning September 2012, Student 7 was a student at another school.
Within a year of the student graduating, the Member began an inappropriate, personal, romantic, relationship with Student 7.
The Member and Student 7 moved in and lived together from around November 2014 through to August 2016.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document3, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-27 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) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and a summary of its 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 the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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, 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 allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (c) of the first Notice of Hearing (dated February 24, 2015), namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel similarly requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (d) of the second Notice of Hearing (dated September 11, 2017), namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. The Committee granted these requests.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 27 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) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 6-9, 10 (Exhibits C & D), 13-18, 21-23 and 26-27 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 6-9, 10 (Exhibits C & D), 18 and 21-23 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 6-10, 18, 21-23 and 26 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 6-9, 10 (Exhibits C & D), 13-18, 21-23 and 26-27 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 6-9, 10 (Exhibits C & D), 13-18, 21-23 and 26-27 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 disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
Paragraphs 6-9, 10 (Exhibits C & D), 13-18, 21-23 and 26-27 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 6), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:
- direct the Registrar to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member and the fact of the revocation is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.
Acknowledgement
- The Member understands that there will be publication of the findings and Order of the Committee in summary form, with the name of the Member, in the official publication of the College, Professionally Speaking/Pour parler profession, as required by the Act.
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. Nevins, 2011 ONOCT 22, Ontario College of Teachers v. Edusei, 2013 CanLII 101568 (ON OCT) and Ontario College of Teachers v. Reinders, 2017 ONOCT 62.
The Committee finds that the Member’s repeated pattern of completely inappropriate, aggressive and unprofessional conduct, despite multiple warnings from the Board and attempts at rehabilitation, warrants an order for revocation. The Member engaged in wholly unprofessional and aggressive conduct towards both students and fellow teachers. The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally and verbally when: he made a racist comment to Student 1 when he told him “get to the back of the bus”; he yelled at Student 2; he threated Student 3 physically when he said “as much as I’d like to kick your ass...”; he responded to Student 5 with “yea, you wish”, or words to that effect, after Student 5 mentioned she would not walk alone in a certain area at night for fear of being raped; and he referred to Student 6 as a “bitch” or “bitchy”.
The Member also made homophobic remarks and gestures to fellow colleagues. Specifically, the Member referred to Teacher B’s [XXX] class as the “queer class”, and used a “limp wrist” gesture in front of his students in reference to Teacher C who was making an announcement on the School’s P.A. system.
The Member created a hostile learning environment for his students as a result of his ongoing conflict with Teacher A. Following an investigation by the OHS, a report was published that concluded that some of the Member’s conduct towards Teacher A constituted workplace violence under the OHSA. A number of teachers, including Teachers B and C, submitted a written complaint to the College outlining the Member’s demeaning and verbally abusive comments to both students and teachers.
Further, the Member had an inappropriate relationship with Student 7 who was in his Grade [XXX] [XXX] class during the 2008-2009 academic year. Within a year of Student 7 graduating from a different high school, the Member began a personal, romantic relationship with her. The Member and Student 7 moved in and lived together for just under two years. The Committee finds that having an inappropriate, personal and romantic relationship with a recently-graduated former student constitutes a breach of trust and was unprofessional.
Given the serious and repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct over a period of 10 years, the Committee finds that the immediate revocation of the Member’s certificate is appropriate. The Member made inappropriate, demeaning and disrespectful comments to both students and fellow teachers. He repeatedly failed to display professional judgment and to maintain appropriate boundaries with students and staff. The College does not tolerate this type of conduct and the Member has accordingly forfeited the privilege of holding a teaching certificate and being a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.
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: November 17, 2017
Jane Ishibashi
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Merzak Damou, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel